Thanks for your comments. In my experience, you may be in the minority. Most professionals appreciate the “what” but very little of the “how” – its called micromanaging. I completely disagree that in today’s work that managers should be telling people how to do things (with the exception of first line supervision who is training a new employee). Yes, some people may wish to be told how to do something, but how will they learn and develop if they are relying on the boss to call every move?

The answer is not always no. In my case the answer is a definite YES! Because, in telling me “what to do and how to do it” the boss is actually giving me clear goals and expectations. Which is what all managers should do.

Many people actually DO want to be “told what to do and how to do it”!

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.