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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.