Viewpoint: coaching – irrational exuberance or a new paradigm?

Citation

Brightman, B.K. (2003), "Viewpoint: coaching – irrational exuberance or a new paradigm?", Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 7 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/mbe.2003.26707dab.006

Viewpoint: coaching – irrational exuberance or a new paradigm?

Viewpoint: coaching – irrational exuberance or a new paradigm?

Baird K. Brightman PhD is president of Worklife Strategies [www.wklf.com] in Sudbury Massachusetts USA.

There has been an exponential increase in the number of citations in the management literature about "coaching" over the past ten years. Articles, books, training programs, and coaches of every stripe abound. Organizations are spending billions of dollars a year on coaching.

The coaching model is a work in progress. There are divergent views on the definition and active ingredients of coaching, and no agreed upon set of competencies or education/training requirements to be a coach. Coaching activities include competency modeling, skills assessments, goal-setting, action planning, structured learning, open-ended discussions, advice giving, encouragement, confrontation, analysis of personality dynamics, creative problem-solving and role playing, to name a few but by no means all. Pathways into the coaching role include prior experience in business, sales, human resources, psychology, philosophy, religion, acting, comedy, motivational speaking, athletics, politics, the military, in short ... anything.

Is coaching just the latest "new thing", the management flavor of the month? Will business leaders be talking about (and paying for) coaching five years from now? Without making predictions for the future status of coaching in the business world, there are some powerful reasons for the current surge of interest in this enterprbehavior. Understanding the sources of our collective enthusiasm can provide a better understanding of what coaching is, as well as lay the groundwork for the next (hopefully improved) iteration of what we now call "coaching".

The main thesis of this article is that the current coaching model offers a paradigm for thinking about human capital development (HCD) that allows organizations to

• •

  avoid a number of polarizing (and ultimately paralyzing) debates that have plagued and divided organizational constituencies; and

• •

  synthesize and contain a variety of dialectical extremes that can derail business leaders as they strive to create the right conditions for success.

The development of human capital

Coaching is just one of a variety of programs designed to improve the capacity of an individual to operate effectively in a particular social milieu (personal or occupational), including:

• •

  boot camp;

• •

  performance management;

• •

  training and development;

• •

  employee assistance programs (EAPs);

• •

  mentoring programs;

• •

  work/life programs;

• •

  education;

• •

  counseling; and

• •

  spiritual guidance.

People tend to be more or less supportive of these methods for human capital development (HCD), depending on their position on a number of critical issues. Within every organization, there tend to be champions for these varying approaches, who then coalesce into advocacy groups which then stake out their positions, make claims for their rightness, and then struggle against each other for superiority and resources. Some of the time and energy expended on these debates would be conserved by the adoption of a more balanced position on HCD. The coaching paradigm offers one such centrist model.

Following is an analysis of seven conceptual polarities that the coaching paradigm appears to synthesize, thereby protecting organizations from engaging in a variety of losing battles and employing less balanced strategies for HCD.

1. 1.

   Business-centered versus person-centered

   Every organization has a vested interest in increasing the capacity of its people to achieve its operational priorities. A range of developmental processes exist to serve this HCD function, as presented in the bulleted list above. For many years, businesses (executives and to a lesser degree employees) were most comfortable with a military model of leadership: top down, command-and-control, orders and salutes, etc. This view of organizational life meant that leaders would invest in development models at the basic training/performance management end of the continuum. Training and development was viewed as a somewhat liberal approach to HCD, with much skepticism about the ROI and a readiness to cut training budgets first and often. EAPs and mentoring programs were viewed as touchy-feely experiments with little direct business benefit. Counseling, education and spiritual matters would be viewed as "the employee's business".

   Current coaching models permit a rapproachment between the polarized positions of investing in the bottom line versus investing in people. Good coaching programs are fundamentally dedicated to improving employee performance and organizational success, so they do not violate the core business mission. Coaching goals are defined by the employee's managers, tied to performance improvement targets, and aligned with strategic intent. At the same time, coaching brings with it a set of beliefs about the importance of working with each person in an individualized and person-centered way. The belief that forming an optimal human relationship (e.g. importance of trust and safety to reduce fear/defensiveness and increase motivation to change; attention to individual differences such as values, interests, abilities, and motivations in designing coaching program elements, etc.) can optimize employee learning and development are incorporated into good coaching practice. But these "humanistic" issues remain subservient to the business case (better performance/profitability) for intervention, and so do not trigger the resistance from the business-centered position of a purely stand-alone "enrichment" or personal development program.

2. 2.

   Hard versus soft ROI

   Most business leaders prefer a direct line of sight between the expenditure of resources and the return on that investment. Development activities that promise an indirect ROI (e.g. investments in EAPs will offset costs of absenteeism secondary to substance abuse; training and education costs will improve competitiveness and shareholder value) have always been a hard sell for human resource professionals, especially during hard economic times.

   Again, by basing coaching activity squarely on a bottom-line value generation rationale, and building in a rigorous follow-up change measurement component (e.g. repeat 360 assessment in six months), organizations are protected from the fruitless (and often unresolvable) arguments over ROI. Coaching with good metrics can actually be made to compete with any other expenditure and required to demonstrate value, thus avoiding step-child status in finance committee meetings. A recent and significant spurt in the development of robust data models for computing the economic value added by HCD initiatives will contribute to efforts to demonstrate the ROI of coaching, training and other programs.

3. 3.

   Uniformity versus diversity

   Most business leaders espouse the value of clarity and structure as an important factor in preventing chaos and drift in an organization. Standard operating procedures, work process flowcharts, performance review templates, and other regimented ways of defining "how things are done here" contribute to good order and discipline. In military boot camp and most standard performance management systems, there is a one-size-fits-all approach: groups of recruits/employees are assimilated into the system; individual variability is viewed as a problem to be minimized rather than accommodated (due to the additional costs and perceived inefficiencies of adjusting to the specific case).

   As demographic and social change result in both a more diverse workforce (as well as a belief that organizations should meet their employees half-way on matters of importance to them rather than simply exercise authoritarian control over them), programs that press for extreme uniformity of procedure tend to generate more "resistance". The coaching paradigm manages to finesse the uniformity/diversity dialectic by basically giving something to both sides of the debate.

   Most coaching program have considerable uniformity at the front end (assessment, goal-setting, action-planning, time-lines, consequences) and back end (follow-up review/report, outcomes measurement, delivery of consequences, etc.). With this solid architecture in place, most organizations are willing to delegate the formatting of the middle phase of the enterprbehavior to the coach and the employee, and to allow for sufficient tailoring of the program (both process and content) to the unique requirements of the person being coached. The coaching frame is flexible enough to contain a wide range of issues that can impact a person's capacity to perform up to defined standards (specific work relationships and tasks, job fit/redesign, career development/planning, health/disability issues, values/ethics, work/personal balance issues, etc.) as long as they do not violate any core organizational imperatives.

4. 4.

   Public versus private

   Work takes place primarily in the public sphere. While most leaders admit that people have private matters that can impact their performance and success, they view these fundamentally as the employee's responsibility which should be managed through HR, in private counseling, or at home. With the growing popularity of team-based work, open floor plans, 360 degree assessment and 24/7 connectivity, there is a trend toward erosion of the private realm at work.

   While a boundary and demarcation between the public and private realms at work serves an important clarifying purpose, there is a price to be paid for skimping on attention to the personal drivers of optimal performance. While most managers do not have the time or inclination to delve below the surface of a variety of performance issues, coaching adopts an attitude of addressing whatever matters. By locating coaching work outside of (though ultimately accountable to) direct line management, the organization creates a private sphere in which it is safe to address a variety of important private concerns.

   The best coaches utilize a "systems" model when helping people to do better at work. They recognize that each employee has a unique set of physical, personal and social/environmental factors that will either facilitate or interfere with their movement toward the pre-negotiated improvement targets. Once a solid coaching contract is made (with good trust that the coach is committed to the well-being of the organization, not simply to the employee as in a counseling or mentoring framework), the sponsoring executive usually has little concern about the employee and coach pursuing whatever really matters in the performance equation. Employees greatly appreciate this (often unique) opportunity to bring their full self into the discussion about their work (especially when they are in charge of what and how much private information they import into the coaching conversation).

5. 5.

   Younger employees versus older managers

   During the first third of their career, many people are hungry for mentoring and guidance on how to develop and succeed. During mid-career, many people strive for leadership positions where they can increase their impact and reach. In later career, many people want to pass on their wisdom to others and leave a legacy (generativity).

   In many organizations, there is a disconnect and tension between the early career cohort and the mid-career people to whom they report, since many mid-career managers/leaders are not especially interested in (nor, would they argue, do they have the time for) investing in developmental activities. Squeezed between the demands of top-leadership and their direct reports, mid-career professionals will sometimes view their direct reports as means to a strategic end, and wish they would "just do their work". Neglect of pressing developmental needs will create disappointment and drop-off in loyalty, investment, and performance. To make matters worse, the later-career cadre in many organizations has either been outplaced or loaded up with so many operational responsibilities that they do not have the time to do the mentoring they would like to do.

   The coaching paradigm, with its balanced focus on both development and performance, provides a meeting ground between potentially warring camps. By aligning employee development directly with performance and contribution to strategic objectives, coaching promises something good to both managers and employees. By offering an outsourcing option (i.e. bring in outside coaches who will tie their development work to critical strategic and performance goals), the coaching model offers the time-challenged manager the opportunity to invest in their employees' development without compromising their attention to other priority commitments.

6. 6.

   Male versus female

   Men and women are different. While generalizations beyond the anatomical are often risky and of dubious validity, there is some anecdotal evidence that (many, though not all) men put a priority on individual achievement within a context of rules-bound competition, while (many, though not all) women value cooperative groups within a context of caring relationships.

   There is a debate as to whether (most) women employ a "caring developing" management style and (most) men use a directing rewards-and-punishment style, and which approach is most efficacious. This debate echoes the "rehabilitation versus punishment" debate in the criminal justice field. Some executives refer to coaching as the management equivalent of "tough love". By employing both "hard" (concrete goals, measurement, consequences) and "soft" (individualized approach, attention to personal concerns, providing support and encouragement/motivation, benevolent pursuit of career success) strategies, coaching provides a blended paradigm that seems to split the difference between alleged gender differences in management style preference. This strategic balance seems to avoid triggering the gender wars and their more radioactive fallout!

7. 7.

   Work versus play

   As competitive pressures increase as a function of globalization, technology and a more informed buying public, people must work harder to succeed. Leaders and managers must extract more output from fewer people, which concretely means more effort expended on more tasks. Many executives are mistrustful of programs that threaten to communicate messages that conflict with a culture of working hard (see the battles over work/life balance, family/medical leave policies, etc.).

   Eventually, the strain and drain of working hard can wear down energy, creativity and performance. The incorporation of athletic metaphors into the business sphere (coaching/coaches, winning teams, scorecards) can have an invigorating impact on organizational culture. Many organizations are investing in the development of the business equivalent of a variety of elements of successful sports franchises (coach, umpire/referee, rule book, play book, practice games, training, taping games and watching instant replays, farm teams and recruiting scouts, team doctor, cheerleaders, water boy etc.).

   By evoking good memories of favorite gym coaches, team mates, endorphin highs and sweet victories, the athletic metaphor of coaching allows some integration of work and play. It implies that team victory requires both high effort by the team and investment in talent development by the team owners (at both the team and individual level). Even the best players who are having a difficult season can benefit from expert guidance for improved performance (which can reduce the "loser" connotation that sometimes accompanies a so-called "rehabilitation" as opposed to "developmental" coaching program).

Irrational exuberance or a new paradigm?

Management is prone to the same fashion cycles as other cultural phenomena. What is hot today is old news tomorrow. The future of "coaching" as a persuasive model for human capital development is uncertain. The rise of international threat levels may usher in a return to a more militaristic/nationalistic model of organizations and business competition. Cultures other than the USA may not embrace the athletic metaphor of coaching with such enthusiasm and sense of familiarity. Emerging economies will confront hard realities that may require different paradigms, language and priorities.

For the present, the coaching model of HCD is embraced by a broad range of organizations, leaders/managers and consultants. The utility of this paradigm rests, in part, on its ability to heal certain conceptual splits, to synthesize divisive polar positions, and to thereby protect organizations from expending precious resources in fruitless debates and either/or dialectics. Good paradigms allow us to see and do things we could not see or do when looking through older lenses. We can enjoy the energy and innovation released by a new paradigm even as we prepare for its eventual obsolescence and anticipate the next "new thing".