Should a leader always be a coach? Perhaps not always, argues Keith Merron, in his latest Transformational Coach column…
In typical coaching, the idea that a leader should be a coach is common. We so revere our own profession and believe, rightly so, that we offer something of meaning to the development of another. Shouldn’t a leader learn how to coach so they too can help their employees grow? On one level, of course. On another level, maybe not so. In this article, I’m going to challenge some prevailing assumptions that many coaches have, and perhaps, unintentionally step on a few toes.
The case for Leader as Coach
In his book, The Motive, by Pat Lencioni, founder of The Table Group, offers a compelling argument that leaders have two primary responsibilities. The first is the care and wellbeing of the system in which they lead. Hard to argue with that. The second is the development of their employees - hard to argue with that as well. It is commonly understood that a good leader gives feedback, offers guidance, and mentoring, with the primary assumption that: ‘I, leader, got to my role as leader because I did your job - or something like it - so well, that I got promoted to my job. I’m better than you, and my job is to teach you to be better, so we can get more productivity and performance from you. And because we all want to grow and develop, and I know you do as well, our organization will also offer some defined amount of money to support your development.’
Seems sensible on the surface. Taking it even further, leaders might believe: ‘It’s my job to develop you. That’s what I’m paid for. I’m also paid to inspire, set goals, establish health practices, etc.’
Well, this ‘I develop you’ thing has me wondering. Was that presumed, or did the leader and employee agree? And if they agreed, did they set up mutual expectations in the leader’s role as coach/developer/guide or did the leader assume what to do and how to do it? In most cases, it’s assumed and there was never any discussion as to the areas to support the employee in their growth. The leader just does it. It’s presumed to be a part of the job.
To do it well, however, requires that the leader and employee discuss and agree on the developmental goals, and the role of the leader in supporting the employee. Most developmental goals have to do with getting better at something. It could be some technical skill, and it could be a personal skill such as improving reasoning, being a better listener, being a better team member, etc. In most cases the improvement represents some kind of pattern that the employee wants to change, or that the leader wants the employee to want to change.
In the context of leader as coach, the leader encourages the employee to set a developmental goal, a set of actions designed to better the employee in that area, and then reviews their progress somewhere down the road. If the leader is any good at coaching, he or she will be interested in finding ways the employee can improve that are unique to the employee. People learn in different ways and often there are many ways to achieve goals. Good leaders know this and will not graft their own approach onto the employee, but instead, seek to find ways of learning that fit the shape of the employee and not necessarily the leader. This is essentially good coaching.
This seems to be the understanding most companies have, and it works, sort of. As I write this, many assumptions about the workplace are being challenged by the younger generation (as they should) including the above.
Is it always the case that a leader should be a coach? Does everyone want it? Does it only apply when there is a clear promotional path that requires development? Does it only apply in hierarchical organizations where promotion is based on experience and competence? In the current environment, all these assumptions could usefully be called out and challenged, and employees are consciously or unconsciously doing so. Given all this, it is wise for a leader and the employee to have a frank discussion on areas of growth and that, in and of itself, has value. At least, it nudges growth forward.
The case against Leader as Coach
There are many types of coaching—ones designed to develop skills, ones designed to challenge an employee to rise to greater heights, ones to address deep patterns, and then there’s mentoring. When it comes to areas of technical skill improvement, where the leader has demonstrated skillfulness greater than the employee, it makes sense that the leader acts as a coach. It may also be relevant to coach another to solve a problem wherein the person needs some guidance or help in figuring out how to solve the problem. In either case, or perhaps others, hopefully the leader is skillful at coaching. But here’s the rub. When it comes to developing personal or interpersonal skills, I believe it should be the responsibility of the employee to develop their own skills. I say this for a number of reasons.
1. Usually, the reason why an adult is lacking one or more important personal or interpersonal skills is that he or she has not fully faced and owned their own pattern. By owning their own pattern, they are much more likely to address it. In such a case, the employee should seek guidance from a coach to help them face themselves. In other words, by putting the onus on the employee to grow and develop, it puts the ownership where it belongs. The more the employee owns their development, their conduct, their career, the more likely the employee shows up effectively.
2. Almost always, when there is a pattern of behavior at play that prevents the employee from improving, there is a paradigm inside the pattern that is deeply affecting that pattern. As you have read in past columns I’ve written, those paradigms are niggly beasts, and often heartily resistant to change. It takes a high degree of skill to guide a person through a transformational journey, and many – perhaps most - leaders are not set up for that job. It is a rare leader that is trained to be a transformational coach and can do that well. Best for the employee to find a transformational coach to help them through this.
3. Among other things, the job of the leader is to evaluate the employee’s performance. For this reason, employees are highly motivated to hide deeper patterns from their leader, in hopes that the pattern will not cause the leader to discount their ability. It’s a mixed motive situation: the employee will understandably want to hide while the leader would want them to open up. This doesn’t create a healthy dynamic when it comes to transformation.
A transformational coach forms a very different relationship with employees than most coaches and leaders. It is very intimate, where the transformational coach helps the coachee face deeper patterns, ones that are often hard to see and even harder to face once seeing. The skillfulness of the transformational coach is crucial here and I would not expect any leader to have those skills. Even if they did, it may not be best to apply them with a person who you are also evaluating. Giving feedback is fine, and evaluating is often necessary, but being the coach of the employee that seeks to transform a deeply embedded pattern, goes well beyond that. Perhaps it is better that the employee take responsibility for their pattern, and perhaps encouraged by the leader, to seek and find support to change the pattern. Let the process be private for the employee, and at the same time, let results show.