There is a cultural shift throughout the business and academic realms in what to term to use for a person in an authoritative position. Previously, they were called supervisors or managers because they literally supervised and managed people, processes, and activities. The shift is now to call these individuals by the much more appropriate term of leader. The term leader espouses that they will lead their employees and colleagues through situations--"through thick and thin." Their abilities are measured against the successes of the people they lead. A good leader, for example, would be someone who is able to provide guidance and optimism in the face of a challenge and work with their professional teammates (i.e., colleagues, direct-reports) to solve the problem.
Aside from leading the people that they work with, these new managers are also being called to coach. Throughout the text Coaching for Performance, John Whitmore focuses on some of the struggles that managers (or leaders) run into as they actively work toward success of this necessary job duty. Directly related to items discussed in the BigFive ProFile by Howard & Howard, the successful manager/coach must have traits and competencies congruent to empathy, integrity and detachment (Whitmore, 2002). The 'coach in training' must also be willing to change their ways of thinking and doing from how they were brought up.
One key example Whitmore points out is related to recall. The traditional management style was to tell someone how to do something, and sometimes they would tell and show them how to accomplish a task; the latter being only two percent more effective than the former. However, the new coach needs to adopt the approach of tell, show, and experience for their coachees to have maximum recall--a staggering 85 percent recall after three weeks. Along with these results, research also shows that subordinates do to learn effectively when left on their own (Whitmore, 2002). It may seem common sense, but the idea of coaching versus managing (the same with leading versus managing) really does focus on the development and ultimate success of the coachee.
As seen in nearly all leadership texts, awareness and self-awareness are key areas for success, especially in relation to coaching. Whitmore breaks down these two terms in that "[a]wareness is knowing what is happening around you" whereas "[s]elf-awareness is knowing what you are experiencing" (Whitmore, 2002, p. 35). Without these two key insights, both the coach and the coachee will not be able to or willing to develop new methods for doing. A major pitfall for managers turned coaches is for these 'experts' in a given field to teach their coachees their way (or the 'right way') in doing a task instead of allowing the coachee to learn his or her individual way of doing (Whitmore, 2002).
As managers become leaders and simultaneously coaches, they will see the benefits of their approaches not only in the success of their coachees but in their own leadership development. Personality traits, competencies and strengths that are crucial for coaches to possess are also found in successful leaders. Changing the culture of one's organization through successful coaching can improve the morale and inevitably the quality of work that is coming out of a given department. As leaders grow and learn from the many avenues in which they will go up and down during their tenures, the importance of coaching should always be in the forefront of their minds.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You had a great opening paragraph about the shift between the terminology of managers and leaders. When you mentioned “their abilities are measured against the successes of the people they lead”, I was reminded of the “Six Passages of Leadership” by Charan, Drotter, & Noel (2001). Starting with the first passage and moving upward, the leader indeed has to learn to rely on others to get the work done; thus their successes are often due to the people around them. I also enjoyed your connection with the Big Five ProFile in the second paragraph.
ReplyDeleteI must have read your blog sometime in the past few weeks because I think it influenced some of my quiz answers. My core truths were the ideas of teaching versus coaching and the importance of awareness and responsibility in the coaching process. I wrote about the impact of the “tell, show, and experience approach” and I mentioned the awareness versus self-awareness. I did not cover them as thoroughly as you did though.
You mentioned the dilemma of the ‘experts’ becoming coaches. One of the conclusions of my 360 feedback is that I need to learn to delegate better. I recall a few situations where I have delegated an assignment to a trainee. Instead of letting her figure it out on her own, I often told her how I would do it. I think this mistake is self-perpetuating; oftentimes, I learned how to do things by copying another person’s example. This person was usually the “expert” in the subject at the office. Reading this article has enlightened me to think of a different way to approach things.
The other part that I enjoyed reading about in “The Manager as Coach” chapter was the paradox between taking time to coach the staff and taking time to get stuff done. If the manager coaches his staff, then the staff can handle more of the daily work. If the staff can handle more of the daily work, then the manager/coach can develop his staff more (Whitmore, 2002). One of my jobs was in an office that was constantly in a crisis. While I appreciated my manager, he was too busy firefighting to be a leader or coach. According to Whitmore, “a coaching management style/culture results in getting the job done well for 250 days a year, developing people for 250 days a year, and a lot of self-belief” (Whitmore, 2002, p. 25). I wish my managers believed in the importance of both getting quality work done and developing their people (Whitmore, 2002).
Since I cannot rely on my managers to be coaches, I am open to learning from anyone around me. This week, I have enjoyed learning from you in your blog post.
Colleen, this information is great. Businesses today are focusing more on the ability to lead as opposed to telling someone what to do. Some managers are used to doing things a certain way and are more inclined to worry about the day-to-day activities. Just as you mentioned, it used to be that managers were more worried about just managing the people and making sure the job was done and the numbers were good. Now, that is not enough. Coaching and developing people to make the right decision and guiding them down the right path is more appropriate. This shift in thinking is tough for some managers to grasp.
ReplyDeleteYou stated Whitmore suggests there are certain competencies that are needed to coach your employees, such as empathy and integrity. While these traits seem to be obvious, some still struggle with how to be empathetic to let others know you know where they are coming from and truly understand. The shift from telling someone to do something to showing them and giving them the chance to experience it is more common. You are right, letting someone go and learn on their own does teach them how to be more effective once they are on their own.
It is amazing how hard people work when they know they are being taken care of. The morale is so different in organizations where people know they have people who care and want to see them succeed. I like the point you made about the difference between awareness and self-awareness. Leaders need to know what is going on around them as well as knowing what they are experiencing. Allowing the coachee to learn their own way rather than being told can be tough.
Learning to coach is good for the coach and the coachee. It does help a leader to develop and grow further as a leader and it helps the coachee develop and grow as well. It is a win-win situation for now. This blog has some important information and I think everyone needs to understand this shift in thinking in regards to leading and coaching in business rather than just managing others.