Coaching is all the rage in many organizations around the world today. The prevailing thought is that by charging mangers with the responsibility to coach their people the organization will have both more effective workers and mangers that have developed a critical leadership skill. Unfortunately, the manager as a coach is an oxymoron.
Implications for Management
Managers (and for that matter leaders) can’t be effective coaches in the truest sense of the word “coach”. Excellent coaching requires an understanding and appreciation of the differences inherent in the two activities (management and coaching) that make them mutually incompatible. Coaching in its truest form is a process in which the coach and the client enter into a relationship that has the following attributes:
- Parity of roles – neither coach or client is superior or inferior in the relationship
- The client’s goals, objective and outcomes are paramount
- The process is client led not coach directed.
These attributes make it exceedingly difficult for a manager to be a true coach. When entering what is usually thought of as a coaching relationship most managers begin with an end point in mind – the improvement of an employee’s performance. The employee may or may not know that there is even a problem; or the manager may have misdiagnosed the problem – it could be a workload issue the manager isn’t addressing effectively. The net effect of the manager assuming a problem and beginning to coach to resolve the assumed problem is that the employee will often not be receptive to the process – after all, it’s not their goal it’s their managers! They may feel as if they are being told that something (them or something about them) is broken and needs to be fixed. They will often acquiesce to the process because their manager is their boss which makes it exceedingly unlikely that they will step up and lead the process. Essentially, there is a built in relational imbalance that negates one of the primary attributes of excellent coaching – parity of roles.
Implications for Employees
For the employees being “coached” by their manager the implications of this move to developing a manager/coach can (and often is) more problematic than it is beneficial. It is critical that the coached employee be aware of the fact that their manager very definitely has their own agenda. That agenda may be positively intended to improve the employee’s work experience but make no mistake – it is also intended to solve a problem that the manager/coach believes exists. The coaching, if successful, will benefit the manger as much or more as it does the coached employee.
While something that is potentially mutually beneficial may sound like a good idea mutual benefit is part of the coaching contract. The manager needs to own the fact that very often it is his/her benefit – more than the employee’s – that is being targeted by the coaching activity. To enter the processes without acknowledging this will very likely result in the coached employee legitimately deducing that there is some hidden agenda driving the offer of coaching. It will feel like being told “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” The questions of “who is being helped?” and “is the offer coming from someone qualified to actually do the coaching?” are germane and must be honestly explored.
Potential for Benefit
Assuming the manger is competent in the coaching domain and that both parties are clear about who is benefiting and in what ways there can be considerable upside potential for the employee being coached. They will benefit from a focused attention on their development; they will have an opportunity to exhibit improvement in ways that matter to their organization; they will learn new skills and competencies; they may experience a reduction in their stress levels through improved competence; they may ultimately get more of what they want in their work experience – both with their manager and with their actual employment. For this to occur however, the firm, the employee and the manager/coach need to be very clear that the dual role of manager/coach has built in limitations and dangers that need to be proactively voiced and attended to.
