Coaching: If It’s Too Hard, Do You Give Up?
November 9th, 2009 | 
Author: Several times a year, I facilitate a workshop called “Coaching for Breakthrough Performance” to leaders in government and private organizations. This workshop provides participants with a set of tools to coach their employees to release their “latent potential” (even the best are holding back unknowingly). It is highly experiential, with much of the day spent practicing the skills with fellow classmates, so participants have a real taste of how powerful and difficult it can be to really coach others.
After conducting this workshop over the years for hundreds of leaders, I`ve realized that not everyone will be a believer that coaching will work for them. There are a few in every class who challenge the learning (and the facilitator, which I actually enjoy). The reasons that they don`t believe coaching will work for them are pretty consistent.
The top four excuses for not being a coaching leader, and my responses:
- Coaching takes too much time: I agree that coaching your employees takes more time than other communication tools (giving orders or criticisms), so save coaching for your better performers. Coaching those who are, or should be, on a performance warning will only work if these underperformers realize that THEY are RESPONSIBLE for their own improvement. Your better performers will lap up the attention you give them, and will flourish under your skilled coaching. Yes, it takes time. It will pay off, and you must be patient.
- My employees are just “putting in their time”: What is your responsibility, as a leader, to do something here? You are being paid to find ways to help your employees do more than “put in their time” and coaching them to discover and use their strengths is one way to do that. If that doesn`t work, do you really want employees in your organization who are taking up space?
- My employees expect me to tell them what to do and how to do it: Really. (Warning: heavy sarcasm here). Do you enjoy being “told what to do and how to do it”? (The answer is always “no”).What makes you think they do? Your shoulders must get really heavy, with all that knowledge to impart. Coaching will help your employees “learn how to learn” in order to free up your time to do the leading you should be doing (and maybe get that promotion you have your eye on).
- Coaching won`t work in our culture: If you haven`t tried it, how do you know? Even if your organization`s culture is one of heavy top-down directives, could there be situations where it may release that performance that your better employees are holding back? What have you got to lose by trying it? (Then I might remind them that their management is paying me to teach them these skills for a reason. Could it be that their management wants to change the current culture by using coaching as one of the tools to do so?).
As we become a more global economy, if we can`t find ways to release the latent potential of our employees, we lose. Your good employees will head off into the sunsets of other organizations where they can use their smarts and skills to really make a difference. Why not keep those smart, skilled employees right where they are by coaching them? When have you avoided doing something before when it became too hard?
Posted in Uncategorized
12 Responses to “Coaching: If It’s Too Hard, Do You Give Up?”
Leave a Reply
I’d like to add one more thing to this fine list. It’s hardly ever expressed in exactly these words, but “Coaching is ’soft’ and soft things aren’t important or aren’t good management.”
What reasonable and totally valid reasons for not coaching (topped with my own dash of sarcasm).
Reading this has me think of the adage “If you do what you have always done you will get what you have always gotten.” Traditional management and training can only take you so far. Like anything worthwhile coaching is an investment on many levels.
As for the excuse that my employees expect me to tell them what to do and how to do it. My first thought there is who set those expectations to begin with? If it’s you it’s time for you to set new expectations whether you are ready to take on coaching or not.
Yet I also see a lot of employees use this one to hide behind – they actually prefer to be told what to do. Just tell me what to do is often code for I don’t want to be responsible for the outcome, only the task because after all that is all I can control. Using a breakthrough coaching framework actually gives you access to changing that way of thinking.
It is great to have the opportunity to learn from your experience and observations.
Have heard all the above, including Wally’s addition. There is another I’ll toss in.
The act of coaching shows vulnerability on the part of both people. Managers who want to be seen as “in control” recognize, at some level, that they don’t have all the answers. Which is too bad, because research (it’s on one of my posts recently) shows clearly that employees do not want answers; they want questions that will force them to struggle and grow.
The feeling is real; the issue is bogus.
Another great piece Mary Jo!
I have one slight issue: “so save coaching for your better performers”
I think that this article reads just as effectively without these few words, and in my opinion everyone needs to be coached.
I agree that it makes a great statement to those who believe the opposite (only coach non-performers: very wrong!) However coaching the non-performers is the best way to deal with issues. Like, for example, the one highlighted in statement 2 “Putting in time”
My simple response to the most common reason, “no time” is:
“You don’t have time to do the chore that is proven to be most effective in getting those you lead to perform? My apologies, I thought that was your job role…”
Great piece, as always!
After reading this post, an interesting thought came to mind. Lately, there has been a lot of discussion and ink spent championing companies to integrate more innovation into their processes as a means for renewing growth and sustaining it in the years to come. Often, this is described as requiring companies to think outside of the box and to be open to investing time and resources into new technologies or processes.
How ironic then is it that the most critical resource any company has – their employees – is one that so many fail to see the value in taking on a fresh approach in how they manage and nurture this asset for future successes.
Thanks again, Mary Jo, for sharing your insights.
Wally, you’ve hit on one of the things that go unsaid in these classes. I’ve been thinking a lot about the “real reasons behind the excuses” I hear, and you nailed one of them – thanks!
Susan, you’ve surfaced the real truth in the “catch 22″ that leaders are in. Its so much faster and easier to just tell people what to do. But they need to recognize what they’ve created, and be courageous enough to change this system. Thanks for your thoughts on this.
Steve R., you’ve provided yet another revelation. There aren’t many managers who want to be seen as vulnerable, and “letting go of having all the answers” is personally difficult (but ultimately gratifying!). I’ll need to find the blog you speak of, an the research could be put to great use in these discussions. Thanks!
Steve B., Your arguments to coach non-performers provide great food for thought. The reason I used the words I did about coaching the better performers is that in several of the organizations I work in, they use the term “coach” to describe what the managers do with people on performance warnings. When indeed, if these managers have to set some priorities around the time they spend in “coaching”, why wouldn’t they make their better performers a priority. They’re often wasting time with the poorest performers who are heading down a path that can’t be turned around with the time and effort it takes to coach them. The “non performers” you describe – those putting in their time – may have the possibility of having their fires re-lit through coaching, though. I like that idea!
Tanveer, of course I agree! We spend time and money on new technology to help us innovate – but what about the employees? Coaching is a conversational “technology” that can spur innovation and growth in a different way! Thanks.
Mary Jo,
I think a lot of managers and so-called leaders have a problem with coaching sessions?€”though we wouldn`t admit it. I think that part of the reason has to do with a lack of interest and time; however, I believe that a larger part has to due with the lack of training that most managers receive with respect to effective coaching. We are somewhat fortunate that at my company we have leadership training for those with direct reports. And, in that leadership training, we are taught how to effectively coach our staff.
All of that said, I would add another excuse to the list…my employee is a star and stars don’t need to be coached.
Mary Jo
I don`t remember where I first heard to save your coaching for your better performers, but it was truly an “aha” moment for me. I was spending most of time trying to change the poor performers, and not recognizing and focusing on the good performers because they are already were performing well. I have found that this method truly works, and your good performers will only excel with your support.
But I still struggle with not coaching the underperformers. Do you have any recommendations to helping your underperformers realize that they are responsible for their own improvement?
Thank you!
Mary Jo,
Great Post. What advice do you have for introducing coaching into the company culture where it “doesn’t fit?” If the organization has members that are opposed to this idea what can you do to make it more accepted?
Sharon, thanks for the additions to the list. You are indeed fortunate to have training in your organization.
Kara, if the “underperformers” aren’t the poorest performers, why not try coaching them? Aside from the time involved, what have you got to lose?
Jennifer, big question. Too big and too many unanswered questions to answer here. Contact me if you would like to discuss further.
Mary Jo –
Great list of excuses, as well as the additions. I’ll add one more: it’s often either said or implied that once you get a certain level, you shouldn’t have to be coached by your manager. Bull. In the best run companies, the CEO spends a significant amount of time coaching their teams – it never stops, regardless of rank.
Dan, good one! And I would go a step further – in many organizations, the CEO is getting coached (by someone). Its a great way to learn the skill set, and to show others in the organization that personal/professional development is important, even at the very top.