The paradox of 'manager as coach'

Coaching the team members is one of the basic responsibilities of a people manager. It is difficult to find an individual development plan that doesn't include 'coaching by the manager' as a key development action. So, what is paradoxical about 'manager-as-coach'? 

A paradox occurs when there are multiple perspectives about something, each of them are true, but they seem to contradict one another. Let's look at some of those perspectives on 'manager as coach'

• Every manager should be a coach and every conversation should be a coaching conversation
• Managers are supposed to achieve predefined results through their team members. Since coaching in its true sense is supposed to be non-directive, there is a fundamental contradiction in managers trying to act as coaches. 
• Because they work with the team members very closely, managers are in the best position to coach their team members.
• Coaching is essentially future-focused, having too much knowledge about the coachee's past behavior can make it difficult to start the coaching with a 'clean slate'
• Coaching by the manager can significantly improve the performance of the team member, that too very quickly
• Coaching is a time-consuming activity. Coaching is often 'hard work' for both the manager and the employee. Sometimes, there are faster or more effective ways to improve employee performance (like giving direct advice, training, shadowing a high-performer etc.) 
• Coaching is a natural part of the manager's role
• Coaching requires skills that many of the managers haven't developed (though the managers might not be aware of this/might consider themselves to be excellent coaches)
• Coaching can be a great way to increase employee connect and trust
• For coaching to work, there should be a very high level of trust and psychological safety. This could be an unrealistic expectation in many contexts.    

So, how do we resolve this? One possibility is to look at the tacit definitions of coaching that underlie these varying perspectives. There are indeed a wide range of interpretations possible when it comes to 'coaching' (see 'metaphors for coaching' for some of the interpretations of coaching). Coaching is an 'unregulated industry' - there can be as many interpretations of coaching as there are coaches. 

The ICF (International Coaching Federation) interpretation of coaching is perhaps the most widely accepted one. ICF defines coaching as 'a partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential'. Yes, if one explores the ICF coaching competencies in detail, it becomes clear that coaching is meant to be 'non-directive' endeavor.

However, on the other end of the spectrum, there are interpretations of coaching that looks at coaching essentially as a 'feedback and insights sharing process'. Of course, there are many other definitions of coaching that lie in between these two extremes.  

It is indeed true that the manager-employee interactions (including the coaching interactions) are  happening in the context of the organization hierarchy and the work related goals/deliverables. It is also true that coaching works best when there is no power imbalance in the coaching relationship. However, to what extent the power-hierarchy seeps into particular interactions between particular sets of managers and employees can vary significantly. The organization culture can also be a key factor here, apart from individual-specific factors.  

Yes, it can be argued that 'while the manager is paid to get defined work outcomes through the employees, this doesn't mean that the manager can't take a non-directive approach'. On the other hand, it can also be argued that so long as outcomes are defined by the manager/organization (and not by the employees), it is only a matter of semantics whether the manager is 'inspiring the employee' or just 'motivating the employee through rewards and punishment' (see 'the power of  carrot and stick' for more details) to achieve those defined goals/outcomes. 

Non-directive coaching is an invitation to explore and not a compulsion to do a particular thing. Since the managers are accountable for the results (even when they have delegated the task to their team member), if the employee fails to achieve the desired results it will be viewed as failure on the part of the manager also. So, the managers often have more 'skin in the game' (as compared to an external coach) and this might prompt them to switch to more directive ways of functioning when the non-directive ways don't seem to be working well enough (or fast enough).  

Yes, helping the employee to arrive at his/her own solutions is better from the point of view of building ownership and building capability. Sometimes, this can also lead to better solutions. This works best when the employee has the necessary expertise/can arrive at an effective solution within the constraints imposed by the situation.

However, sometimes, the employee needs 'direct advice' and it is much simpler (and easier on both the manager and the employee) if the manager makes a suggestion to the employee that he/she can consider a particular course of action, as opposed to facilitating a long process of  exploration that leads the employee to the same answer!  Similarly, there could be crisis situations that require immediate response and such situations might force a manager to switch from a more facilitative style to a more directive style.

Also, if the employee lacks specific skills or resources to do the job effectively, attempting to fix it through coaching is guaranteed to fail. Yes, helping the employee to develop the skills and get the resources required to be effective on the job is very much part of the manager's job. The point here is just that coaching is not the right way to make this happen! Coaching is no 'silver bullet' and it is not the panacea for all problems!

Maybe, we can take some sort of a 'situational leadership' kind of perspective and say that managers need to adopt various styles/definitions of coaching depending on the context. Maybe, what is required is to find the right dynamic equilibrium between polarities like ''telling and exploring', 'directing and facilitating', 'interests of the organization and interests of the employee', 'authority and partnership', 'defined outcomes and possibilities', 'performance and development' etc. 

However, all these require a very high level of skill and awareness on the part of the managers. It also calls for a very high degree of trust and openness on the part of the employees. Else, this can be highly confusing and frustrating for both the parties involved. Of course, if the employees perceive the 'facilitative' approach of the manager to be a tool for manipulation, it can lead to loss of trust!

Coaching is indeed a learnable skill though it requires a significant amount of effort/practice. It makes sense for the organization to adopt a particular model/framework for manager-as-coach and train the managers on it. These manager coaches should also be provided mentoring by experienced coaches so that they can improve their awareness and coaching skill and also develop the flexibility to switch between the various styles of coaching based on the context. Yes, creating positive examples for the managers, that will convince them that there could be alternatives to the more directive ways of functioning, can put the managers in the right frame of mind that will make the manager training and mentoring efforts mentioned above more effective!  

'Pure' non-directive kind of coaching is easier to do for an external coach as compared to a people manager. Even in the case of external coaches, it is important to clarify and agree on what can and what can't be expected from the coach. The need the employee has might not neatly fit into what can be fully addressed within the domain of coaching. Hence there is always the risk of the coaching conversation drifting into the domains of mentoring, teaching or even therapy. This is not necessarily bad so long as it is not 'disguised as coaching'.  

Employees tend to put the coaches (including managers in the coaching hat) on a pedestal. They might even want the coach to do the thinking for them. While many of the people managers might be very happy to fulfill such roles/expectations, it might take them further away from the 'facilitative' nature of coaching!

Any ideas/comments? 

Metaphors for coaching

"Over the last ten years, the company assigned six high-profile executive coaches to develop me. But, none of them could change me!", declared the business leader triumphantly. This was my third encounter with this gentleman (See 'Organization Development Managers as Court Jesters' and 'Of reasons, rationalizations and collective delusions' for my earlier encounters with him).

This conversation came to mind again when I was thinking about metaphors for coaching.

Metaphors create new understanding. Also, a new understanding merits a new metaphor! Hence, as my understanding of coaching evolved, I have tried to develop new metaphors to capture that new understanding. There are many types of coaching. Here, I have focused only on my evolving understanding of 'non-directive coaching' and the metaphors corresponding to that .

My initial metaphor for coaching was that of a plane mirror, because I looked at the coach as someone who listens deeply and plays it back to enhance the self-awareness of the person being coached. Rhetorically, the thought was something like this: "May be, if the coach can 'hold a mirror to' the coachee, the coachee himself will 'speak to the man in the mirror, and ask him to change his ways"! 

Then, I started feeling that the role of the coach is a more 'active' one - someone who helps to convert the abstract thoughts and feelings in the mind of the person being coached to a more concrete form that would make it easier for him/her to understand and analyze his/her thoughts and feelings. This brought to mind the metaphor of a musical instrument (e.g. a piano) that can convert abstract 'music notation' into music that can be heard and enjoyed. This is very useful, because, while the music notation contains the music, most of us can understand music only when it is instrumentally interpreted!

After that, I started feeling that the above 'musical instrument' metaphor was 'too active' as different musical instruments convert the abstract music ('thoughts and feelings') differently. That is when the metaphor of the concave mirror, that not only reflects without distortion but also focuses reflected light, sounded more appropriate to me (as the coach focuses the discussion so that the person being coached is able to work towards solutions more effectively)! 

A concave mirror can magnify when it is close enough, like what a shaving mirror does (similar to a coach who is fully present in the moment being able to help the person being coached to 'see' things that are not apparent to him/her). However, if the concave mirror is moved too far away (or when the coach doesn't stay in the 'here and now' of the person being coached) the image can get inverted (or the coaching can go topsy-turvy)! 

There were other metaphors also that came to mind:

• an 'electric charge' which creates a field around it, like as a coach 'creates a field of learning' or 'holds the space' so that exploration, solutioning and change becomes easier for the person being coached
• a 'positioning system' that helps you to figure out where you are without telling you where to go
• the 'Socratic method' that enables you find your own answers though a series of questions, like a coach who asks questions without giving answers etc.)
• a 'stock option' which is an option but not a compulsion to exercise the option to buy the stock, just like coaching is an invitation and not a compulsion to explore
• a 'cartography' where the coach enables the person being coached to create/revise his/her mental maps so that he/she can navigate better towards the desired state
• an 'alchemy' that transforms 'base' metals (thinking) into 'gold' (or refined thoughts)
• a 'catalyst' that makes it easier for a chemical reaction to take place without actually participating in the chemical reaction, like a coach enables the person being coached to find and implement his/her own solutions without offering any solutions/getting involved in the implementation.
• the 'Cheshire cat' who engages in amusing and insightful conversations without actually giving an answer :)

It also gave rise to compound metaphors for coaching like 'Socrates holding a concave mirror'!

I am sure that as my understanding of coaching (and I as a coach) evolves, I will find better metaphors.  This is even more appropriate because metaphors are also a great tool for coaching, as the unconscious mind prefers to speak in the language of metaphors. Yes, we must explore what a particular metaphor means to the person being coached as the same metaphor can mean different things to different people. Again, 'generative metaphors' are immensely valuable for the person being coached, because they enable him/her not only to crystallize the desired new reality, but also to generate the energy to work towards it!

To me, coaching at its core is a deep human connect and joint exploration that changes not only the coachee but also the coach. While the processes and tools are useful in coaching, the 'super power' that the coach brings is his/her presence, being completely there in the 'here and now' of the moment with the coachee without judgment. To me, the most important consideration during the coaching interaction is simply 'what would be most helpful to the coachee at that particular moment, keeping in mind the objectives agreed with the coachee'. This also requires a very high level of self-awareness and awareness of the context on the part of the coach. In a way, coaching is more of a 'state of being' than 'doing'. 

Now, let's come back to the conversation at the beginning of this post. What the business leader was really saying was that "if six high-profile executive coaches couldn't bring about any change, then it proves that there was nothing that required changing in the first place!". This brings us to a very important point : no change will take place unless the person being coached wants to change. This is especially true for non-directive coaching. 

To me, the coaching works best when it is the coachee who feels the need for coaching and pays for it, because, both the conviction and commitment of the coachee are highly probable in such a scenario. It is true that in most of the cases,  the coaching is paid for by the employer of the person being coached. In that kind of a situation, we get the best results when the employee is offered coaching as an option (and not a compulsion)! Also, this works better if the coaching is offered as an investment that the organization is willing to make to enable the employee to accelerate his/her development or to realize his/her full potential (as opposed to the coaching being remedial measure). Again, confidentiality has to be assured and the employee (the person being coached) should be empowered to drive the 'direction' of coaching. After all, coaching is an invitation, and not a compulsion, to change!

Any comments/ideas?

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 7 – Herophobia

In this post, we will continue our exploration of Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. Here we are exploring concepts that are unlikely to be found in ‘respectable’ text books (and also not taught in ‘premier’ business schools) but are very much real in the paradoxical world of people management (See ‘The attrition principle’,  'In the valley of attrition' , 'Sublimation of vision statements' , 'Computer-controlled Manager Empowerment', ‘Training the Victim’ and ‘Two plus Two personality profiling’ for the previous posts in this series).

Why are we so wary of the term 'hero' in business organizations? This is a question that has intrigued me quite a bit. We actively look for heroes in other walks of life. Even when it comes to a novel or a movie, a hero is almost always present. Considering all this, why is it so fashionable to make statements like “we don’t have any heroes in our organization” when it comes to business organizations?

To avoid any possible confusion, let’s clarify the basic terminology for our discussion. We are using the term ‘hero’ in a gender-neutral sense here. So 'hero' doesn't have to be male (or the 'alpha male'!)  The sense in which we are using the term ‘hero’ here is quite similar to what Joseph Campbell does in his book ‘The hero with a thousand faces’. So a hero is someone who goes beyond the current boundaries, conquers difficulties, brings back something that is of immense value to the group and also undergoes a personal transformation in the while doing all this. 

The benefit of the hero to the group is in terms of expanding the horizons of the group and also in terms of motivating other members of the group to realize the heroic potential in them. Once the hero is back, he/she goes back to his/her old ‘job’ but approaches it in a new (better/higher) manner. Of course, the journey can start again on a different dimension (and hence becoming a hero is a continuous process and not some sort of one-time achievement or ‘certification’!).

So the hero is different from a celebrity or a superstar! Also, heroes and leaders have different roles in a group (though they are not mutually exclusive). While the hero provides outstanding positive examples by going beyond the current standards in the group, it is not their role to ‘rescue the group or the group members from trouble’.

I guess most of the herophobia is because of the concern that if a group celebrates heroes it might become dependent on the heroes, that it might impede teamwork or that the others in the group might feel inferior. In a way, it is also because of the residue of the reaction to the (now discredited) ‘great man theory of leadership’. Based on our discussion so far it can be seen that these fears are unfounded. 

Apart from the above factors that lead to herophobia at the organization level, there could also be factors operating at the individual level. That we want to be heroes is evident from the fact that most of us like to live out the hero's journey vicariously through identifying with the heroes in novels and movies. Hence, it is not that we don't like being heroes. Probably, what leads to herophobia at the individual level is some sort of 'learned helplessness' based on the belief that we can't be heroes (and that only a 'special few' can be heroes). So if we want to be something, and we can't do it and we see a some others (heroes) do it, it can trigger a host of negative emotions ranging from frustration, envy and fear. As these are uncomfortable  emotions, we might not consciously recognize or own them! As we will see shortly, this learned helplessness is based on a wrong assumption (about who can be a hero) and hence unwarranted.

Being a hero is not a 'character trait' that is present only in a few people. It is essentially a process of exploration and personal transformation that all of us can undertake. The hero’s journey gives hope to the other members of the team (that is work can be much more meaningful and impactful) and inspires them to kindle the spark of heroic potential in them. We must remember that the hero has a ‘thousand faces’ (or an 'infinite' number of faces) and hence (inspired by the heroes) every group members can be a hero. Heroes are very much part of the group and they are in no way an impediment to team work!

Now, let's come back to the "We don’t have any place for heroes in our organization; we have place only for teams that swim or sink together” kind of statements that we came across at the beginning of this post. They are based on a misunderstanding of the role of the hero in a group. Using the same metaphor, we can say that ''heroes not only swim with us but also help us to redefine how fast, how far and in which direction we can swim and thereby help us to realize our own heroic potential"!

So where does this leave us? It is clearly beneficial to the group to celebrate the journey and achievements of the heroes (without making them ‘celebrities’ or ‘privileged few’) in a way that it encourages the others in the group to realize heroic potential. They should be highlighted as examples that all of us can learn from, help us redefine what is possible and thereby give us hope and courage to unleash our true human potential. One doesn’t qualify as a hero unless one brings back something of significant value to the group and hence the hero’s journey is not some sort of ‘ego trip’. Also the personal transformation itself is the greatest reward for the hero. The power of the hero derives from the inner-strength he/she developed from the journey and not from the group putting the hero on a pedestal. Hence, the heroes don't need to monopolize the limelight or the rewards.

These days, when finding meaning and realizing one’s potential becomes increasingly important for employees at work, herophobia can limit the options available to the organizations. It might be worth considering modelling some of the long-term people development programs on the hero’s journey (see ‘Accelerated learning and rites of passage’ for a somewhat similar discussion on an anthropological approach to facilitate role transitions).

Another related application of the hero's journey is in coaching, especially to help an employee to discover his/her calling and to chart out the journey to fulfill the calling. It helps to derive more meaning from coaching and to provide better orientation and more hope for the journey of self-discovery and personal transformation. In this way, coaching becomes a conversation with the hero latent in all of us! By the way, coaching can also help in unlearning the 'learned helplessness' that we discussed earlier (the one that is based on a wrong assumption about who can be a hero and hence leading to herophobia).

Yet another application is in culture building and cultural induction of new hires. Telling stories about the deeds of heroes that exemplify the values of the organization is a  great way to communicate and reinforce the values of the organization!

It is interesting to note that the concept of 'hero' became 'unfashionable' in business organizations mainly in the last two decades. To some extent it was triggered by the highly visible/publicized  failures of some of the 'celebrity leaders' who were wrongly equated with 'heroes'. This in turn triggered the apprehensions related to the possible adverse impact on the organizations and teams that we looked at earlier. All this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of hero and who can be a hero. So, at its core, this post has been an attempt to 're-democratize' the concept of a hero so that it becomes accessible to all of us and we can leverage it to realize our heroic potential!.

Any comments/ideas?

Of developmental advice and the nature of wisdom

This blog claims to be on ‘HR, OD and Personal Effectiveness’. However, there are only a few posts on this blog on personal effectiveness (like ‘Passion for work and anasakti’, ‘ Job and Identity‘ , ‘Personal effectiveness and wisdom’, ‘Of shibumi, areté and personal excellence‘, ‘Of career development and sublimation‘ etc.). Of late, I have been wondering why this has happened. Was it just because most of my work is more directly related to HR and OD? Or is there something deeper, like the nagging feeling that ‘words might not outperform silence’ when it comes to talking about personal effectiveness?  

So, I decided to do an exploration of the nature of 'developmental advice' (any advice that is intended to improve the effectiveness of someone at the workplace or in life in general) and the assumptions underlying most of the developmental advice. This developmental advice can be provided by anyone (e.g. managers, mentors, colleagues, team members, coaches, teachers, parents, elders etc. and sometimes, they are represented by the generic term 'teacher' in this post).

The first thing that I realized was that we need to differentiate between two types of developmental advice - one that is more 'information oriented' and one that is more 'wisdom oriented'. 

Information-oriented development advice is more like development feedback - it provides a piece of information that the person receiving the advice was not aware of. It can be internal (e.g. 'pointing out a blind-spot'  that the person was not aware of) or external (e.g. related to a developmental option that the person was not aware of) in nature. This kind of advice, so long as it is factually correct, is indeed helpful for a person to get started on a development journey though it might not have any influence on how much progress the person is able to make on the journey.

Wisdom-oriented development advice is deeper and more complex. Process of gaining wisdom often involves struggling with (and some times even unsuccessfully struggling with) the complexities in life. 

When it comes to wisdom-oriented developmental advice, the basic assumptions are 

1. that the person giving the advice has gained a higher degree of wisdom (regarding the particular aspect covered in the advice) through his/her life experience   
2. that this wisdom can be communicated and 
3. that the receiver is able to 'absorb' the wisdom and is also able to act on the wisdom

To me, the problem is mainly with assumptions 2 and 3. In general, wisdom is much more difficult to communicate as compared to information. Also, without going through the corresponding life experience, this wisdom, even though it is 'true', might not make sense to the receiver. There is a huge difference between knowing something philosophically and arriving at the same knowledge through experience! 

This brings to mind a Zen story that I came across in one of the books of Osho.  It is about the so called 'first principle of Zen'. The concept is that once you know the first principle of Zen, you become enlightened. The story is as follows:

Once, a beginner asked a Zen master, "Master, What is the first principle?". "If I were to tell you, it would become the second principle", replied the Zen master. 

Probably, it is this point (that wisdom can neither be 'stored' nor be 'communicated', in the normal sense of those words) is what limits the usefulness of most of the self-help books. Of course, self-helps books are often useful in providing hope (that there is light at the end of the tunnel) and encouragement. It is also said that the meaning that one derives from a great book often runs in parallel with or is even independent of what is written. May be, that holds true for all forms of developmental advice that we have been exploring in this post! 

It also makes me wonder if the 'wisdom-level consulting', that I was so keen to do, would really work (even if somehow I manage to 'become wise' in the future)! It is not that I haven't come across  HR consultants who are truly wise (See 'Truth and Beauty : Motivations and Elegance in HR' for an account of my interaction with one such gentleman). My concern is more about to the extent to which the clients would be able to 'absorb'  and 'apply' that wisdom. 

While wisdom can't be communicated, it can indeed be hinted at. While wisdom can't be given, it can be acquired. A wise teacher (or a wise coach or a wise manager) can 'create a field' or 'hold a space'  that maximizes the possibility that the learner is able to derive more understanding or even wisdom from the learner's own experiences (See 'Remarkable Encounters - Part 1: Teacher' for an example from my personal experience). Of course, we can't assume that the person giving the development advice is always correct or that the advice is the right one at the right right for the learner. This highlights the need for the learner to be discerning when it comes to accepting and absorbing developmental advice. This is a bit tricky as this discernment needs some kind of wisdom!

It is interesting to speculate what happens to this 'teacher-student'  relationship (that is so essential for the the above 'learning space' to materialize) when the teachers (or coaches) become (highly-paid/expensive) 'service providers' instead of being 'gurus'! Can the learners (especially when they are paying for it) hold the teachers/coaches accountable for results, and if yes, would that make the outcome (or Key Performance Indicators) move away from 'wisdom' towards 'information and skills'? Can this also lead to conflicts of interest between the teacher/coach and the learner?

While one can learn from the experiences of others, wisdom requires additional work in terms of 'personalization' before it can be absorbed and integrated. Yes, a certain degree of 'readiness' on the part of the student is required for welcoming the wisdom. If 'the teacher appears before the student is ready' the teaching (or coaching) is unlikely to work! When the learner is ready, wisdom might even appear unaided, like the proverbial butterfly that comes on its own and sits softly on one's shoulder. Now, developing this readiness is probably not just a matter of effort (and there is no algorithm for it), and, may be, some sort of 'grace' is involved in this process. Again, wisdom is more a matter of  'being wise in the moment' as compared to that of 'becoming wise for good'! 

Any comments/suggestions?

Note: It can be argued that there is another category of developmental advice called 'knowledge-oriented developmental advice' that comes somewhere in between the 'information-oriented developmental  advice'  and the  'wisdom-oriented developmental advice. This depends on how exactly do we define these three terms (e.g. information as 'processed data', knowledge as 'useful information gained through learning and experience' and wisdom as 'the discernment  to apply the appropriate knowledge to a particular situation'). Even if we bring in this additional category, it can be said that 'knowledge is useful only in those situations where it is almost superfluous'! Please see 'Driven to insights!' for more details.