This article is part of the series on “Journey of a coach” covering my experiences as a performance coach. You may have the read an earlier article in the series on “Journey of a coach – the beginning”. The journey continues here…
Yogi Berra, New York Yankees baseball player (arguably the best catcher of all time) said, “In theory, there is no difference between theory & practice. But in practice, there is!” So, this article is about the theory & practice of coaching for performance – not baseball players but people managing software projects.
In my context, the “theory” was mostly “Coaching for Performance” by John Whitmore (by the way, there is another article of mine on Whitmore if you are interested). The “practice” was, of course, my actual experiences over the years.
A caveat – I am not here to debunk theory and hail practice – as a cardiac surgeon might! I have a great deal of respect for Whitmore’s book on Coaching for Performance. The book provided a solid reference and a practical guide for my work as a coach all these years.
However, I do have my own “interpretations” and “extensions” of the theory in actual practice which I wish to share. I will use the diagram below which shows the context for coaching.
You can see the “circles of influence” around the coachee which would have a bearing on coaching and its effectiveness. We will cover each of these circles with examples. Note that the coach’s experience, beliefs and perceptions are also significant in the context in addition to his skills for coaching.
Circle #1: Are all situations “coaching situations”?
The first circle of influence is the coaching situation faced by the coachee at work. For example, it could be that he is recently promoted and finds gaining acceptance in his team a challenge.
The question is whether all such work situations are amenable for coaching – whether you are the manager of the coachee or an external coach. If you follow the “theory” (that is Whitmore), a coaching style can become the default management style of the entire organization for all occasions.
In other words, all manager-reportee interactions can naturally follow the coaching style – the manager following the sequence of helping his reportee to identify the goal he is seeking to achieve, assess the current state of affairs, consider the available options to achieve the goal and making the commitment-making to make it happen.
That is all very well, but what if you are a commando fighting a guerrilla war in a jungle and see a metal tube from the foliage pointing at you. Your commander (“manager”) is not going to coach you through the situation, is he?
There are also other equivalent (but less extreme) situations at work when time is of essence and all that the coachee needs is information or simple direction (like for example, how to balance staff loading in a project schedule).
So, my interpretation of theory is that there is better pay-off of coaching in some situations than others. However, there are many, many work situations wherein the quality of work or results is very important, the learning for the coachee very important and it is not an emergency. Coaching is very relevant in those cases.
Circle #2: Are people always receptive to coaching?
The next circle of influence is relating to how receptive people are to coaching even if their work situation was amenable for it.
Are they motivated enough to become more aware and take responsibility by themselves and not just because their employer has enrolled them in a training & coaching program?
Maslow’s theory is that motivation is linked to the stage an individual is at in a hierarchy of needs (see diagram below from Whitmore’s Coaching for Performance). Note that Whitmore has split Maslow’s Esteem stage into two – Esteem from others and Self-esteem.
At the stage of Esteem from others, one is looking “external” recognition and prestige as motivators. At the stage of Self-esteem, external motivators tend to become less important. More important is the need to make a difference and being empowered to do so enhancing self-esteem. This self-esteem stage is where coaching makes the biggest impact for personal growth.
Source: Coaching for Performance by John Whitmore
There are a few more “circles” to cover which we will in Part II of the article.
Till then…
9 Responses
An interesting “angle”! There is usually an emphasis on empathy among team members for better team work and self-organization. Would teams truly consider the manager/leader also as part of the team? Needs some mindset change. I think Emotional Intelligence training/coaching should bring out this aspect – that EI (Empathy being part of it) does not draw boundaries of applicability! Enjoyed reading a refreshingly different blog…
Thanks, Shiv. Yes, completely agree with your point on EI’s role in this regard. Gopal
Nice angle! And nice twist in the title of the blog!
Good perspective, which is normally missed.
🙏
Nice article, Gopal.
We all know one filed where downwards empathy is hardly ever seen, but upward empathy is expected and demanded. Politics.
😁
Nice article, Gopal! Very good insight. Practicing Empathy needs an effort as it needs seeing the world from the perspective of the another person. It is all the more difficult when you do not see everything that the other person sees. I remember one instance in my life when a manager reporting to me was promoted to senior manager’s post and moved away from me on a new, higher level assignment. After a few days she came to meet me and I enquired how she was doing on the new role. She said, “Milind now I know the kind of pressure you faced from above. You never passed that onto us and kept us shielded. Now I know how difficult your role and life is. I am trying to be like you!” So, the true empathy comes out of having experienced similar situations yourself.
So, Milind is the message “a little empathy is better than a late empathy”?
Gopal,
Nice blog.
This is a very valid and necessary perspective that everyone should have.
Somehow, in most organizations, just like ‘agile’ is considered as something for the teams and team members, these may be labeled as management and only for managers – as part of the leadership development plans.
Some ways how I have contextualized this in some situations:
• At an individual contributor level: connecting to empathy as a key skill for design thinking [observing and understanding users]
• At a team level: the togetherness and one-team idea [teams making commitments, the huddles in cricket and other sports etc], to use daily standups, for example, to recalibrate oneself after sensing how the others feel on that day or in a particular situation
• For managers: understanding and doing what they can, to make their managers successful, particularly when the complaint is that my manager does not understand me or my needs