- Email: [email protected]
Coaching the star: Rationale and strategies
Coaching the Star: Rationale and Strategies Lyle Sussman and Richard Finnegan
he manager’s role has always reflected the dominant paradigms of the times. During the Scientific Management era of 1900-1920, the manager’s role was to maintain close supervision in a specified span of control and elicit maximum efficiency from workers. During the Human Relations era of 1930-1950, the manager still monitored efficiency but through a prism colored by employees’ attitudes, values, and needs. In the modern era of “rightsizing,” empowerment, and reengineering, the manager has evolved into a coach and facilitator. As managers in the new millennium enact this role, they will undoubtedly confront the typical problems inherent in trying to raise the performance level of any problem employee: When do I confront the employee? What exactly should 1 say? How should I say it? Should I be assertive and matter-of-fact or empathic and consultative? How do I emphasize motivation while minimizing punishment? What should I do if and when the employee becomes defensive? When managers seek answers to these questions in the relevant management literature, they typically find the “problem” employee defined as one whose performance (task and/or interpersonal) falls below expectations. But suppose the problem employee is a star. What about a star whose performance exceeds that of peers but could be enhanced even further? Or a stellar performer whose personal drive and initiative were once highlighted as a model for others to emulate but are now detrimental to team cohesiveness? Management literature provides little if any counsel for the manager confronted with a problem employee who is also a star. Our purpose here is to provide that counsel in outlining strategies and guidelines for coaching the star. First, we underscore the reasons why coaching the star is increasingly important in contemporary organizations. Second, we summarize the major barriers that often inhibit managers
T
Coachmg
thtz Star: Rationale
and Strategies
from providing that coaching. Third, we recommend strategies for overcoming those barriers, thereby motivating the star to continue the stellar achievements managers have come to expect. THE GROWING IMPORTANCE OF COACHING THE STAR
S
lnhibiting factors prevent many stars from receiving the coaching they need. Foftunately, several strategies can overcome those barriers,
tars have always been the focus of management attention-perhaps disproportionately so. No less a management expert than Frederick Taylor used Schmidt, a steel worker, as an example of “a first class man” to demonstrate the advantages of new work methods. The literature on mentoring provides empirical evidence that personal coaching and counseling are selectively targeted toward those who senior managers believe will be future stars. We do not argue that stars fail to receive coaching. Rather, we posit that coaching the star is even more important for today’s organization than it was in yesterday’s, and is of even greater concern for today’s managers than their earlier peers. We base this assertion on three premises: 1. Coaching the star expands the upper limits of the organization. 2. Coaching the star expands the coach. 3. Coaching the star leverages the power of teams. Expanding
the Upper
Limits
As organizations become increasingly composed of interdependent, cross-functional teams, the weakest team member may define the upper
47
limits of the team’s p~rforrn~ln~~. Ohviouslp, those weakest members must he coached or counseled. Most managers, however, already have an inherent i3ias toward cnac%ing the weakest employee and must consciously and systematically change their coaching orientation toward stars. This thesis gains credence and support when we consider the converging goals of Total Qu:aliry Management (TQM) and ~c~&w (constant ancl upward illlpr~)~~~ln~nt). If these goals are to IX more than I3uzzwords and platitudes, 11~~1i~a~~rn~llrmust not only pull up the lower end of the performance distribution hut push out the upper end as tvell. Downsizing, outsourcing, and reengineering have created lean oqqtnizations in which the Managemenr M;tntra has h~~ome “Do more with less.” There is little doubt that the employees who survived downsizing represent the l-test and the brightest of their respective ~r~~1ni~tit)ns. Nevertlieless, if the talent, motivation, and skills of the survivors were
“lnsteud, employees me divides intotwo grou~s-su~stu~~ur~
and
ucce~tu~le-use
the seminars ty~icully
teach supervisors to couch
only
those
who
are substff ndurd. n
man;cgers focus their co:iching efforts on the lower end of this distril~ution. the hesr they can hope for is that rhc Rottom end of the distrihulion tvill he raised. However+ this m:tnagerial eff01T will not push the upper end of the performance distril)tttit)n. Employees who are 8lre:idy exceeding performanc‘t’ standttrds may not receive advice on how to perform even hcttcr. Even if poor performers iii:ttch thta level of stars, orgmizational ptrformanc‘e still has not escwded the lttwl dcfincd hy tht” smrs. In other worcls. the hottotn of the range has txcn I-xonglX even higher, hut the top of the range is still maffecW_~. Corpornte cxaniplcs of ~0n~il~Li~~llypushing the upper limits of perftmnance are provided by Andcrsen Consulting and Microsoft. Only 10 percent of the u:1r~fully sc+5ctecl professionals at Anderscn rvcr join the ranks of partner. %milarly, Mic-rosoft trirs to force out 5 pa-cent of its once highly screened employees. Tllrougl~ objective pmise. honest feetlha~k, and stretch goals, these comP;inies provide hen&mark ciatn in their industries.
Coaching the Star Expands
the Coach
Our personai experience in canducting pcrformane appraisal and effective a)aching seminars provides anecdotzcll support for our earlier observation that the inherent problems of ooaching increase in difficulty when the target of coaching is a star. When participants are asked, “How do you coach a star?” responses fall into one of two categories: laughter or 13~f~1~l~~I~d looks. They either feel the question is silly. or they think it’s intriguing hut don’t have a c+lue. Moreover, the literature on employee coaching represents ~1 consistent theme: Coach the employee who fzils to meet the standards, reward and praise the employee who meets or exceeds standards. Consider the legal and clefensivf2 strategies taught in many HK seminars and workshops. In response to an apparent market need, seminar leaders focus on 1eg;iI ways to address subst:mdard workers in or&r to comply with laws. A principal rc;Lson for this approach is high-stakes empltq~ee relations liahtity. Departmenr of Lal3or initiatives to ensure qua1 opportunity for protected c1assc.s c~omt3inccl with civil court actions Ieivc ii’1~1rl~1~~rs intir~i~~i~lt~~land confused. Rarely art” 11~11~~1~~rs taught to improve the p~rfor1ll~in~~ t)f esc2llent workers. Instead. c‘mployc”t”s 211-t’ clividecl into two grc)ui)s-s~1l)st:tntlarct and ;1cceptal3le--and the seminars typic:1lly teach supcrvisors to co:i~h only those who arc suhstancf~1rd. The sentiment of ;1 to-year III? veteran supports this conclusion: Attend any human resoures ~1ss~)~~1ti~)r~ meeting, and thr rypical topic is how to sr:ty out of legal troul3le-not how to grow 11business and provide jobs to the community. The most pq3ular topics are federal laws: ADA. OS-IA, I’MLA, OFCCI? CQHRA. EKISA, EPA, NLKA. AI>EA. USFIIRA, and EEOC. (Cantoni I9951
This is undouhtcclly :1 dramatic and difficult shift. A major difference between coa&ing the m:trginal ~nployee and couching the star is that defici~ncics for the former ;1ru likely to be glaring, whereas cteficienc*ics for the latter may he si1tXle. For cxa1~~~3le, c*oa&ing 21golfer who has
never broken 100 is much easier than coaching a golfer who consistently breaks par. The bad golfer is doing many things wrong; the good golfer is doing many things right. An astute manager will not only look for the obvious deficiencies, such as reports that are completed haphazardly, but also such subtle deficiencies as mentoring and role modeling that need improvement.
Coaching the Star Leverages Team Power As hierarchies flatten and functional departments are replaced by customer-driven processes, the definition of star performer will inevitably change. Individual performance is becoming an oxymoron in the reengineered organization. Individuals who achieved stellar status because of individual accomplishments must adapt to the interdependent missions of teams. Employees will still be called upon to go above and beyond the call of duty to make a customer happy. But these heroic efforts will increasingly be team-driven and supported. Performance defined by individual effort will be anathema in a system in which interdependence drives out independence. Stated differently, stars are important in hierarchical organizations in which interdepartmental competition is the norm, employees work for managers rather than customers, and rewards foster individual goals. They are much less important in flattened organizations in which interdepartmental cooperation is the norm and incentives are keyed to group and organizational performance. Coaching can and should help stars rethink their relationship with the team, their role in improving team performance. and their responsibility in mentoring other team members. In achieving these three goals, coaching expands a star’s role in the organization. Rather than simply being the best at achieving a narrowly defined personal goal. the star now has broader influence in the organization and can therefore help it as a whole. If stars are to have a role, not to mention a future, in the reengineered firm of tomorrow, they must change their attitudes and behaviors from motives driven by independence to those driven by interdependence. They must perceive sharing knowledge and skills with team members as beneficial for all. In the reengineered organization, stars are defined by the behavioral models they provide for others, the mentoring they give to newer employees, and their willingness to learn new skills--even if learning those skills takes them outside their comfort zone. Just as a star’s role is redefined in the reengineered firm, so too is the manager’s, A manager must motivate a star to see himself as a team player and a role model for peers. In coaching, managers help stars focus on and internalize the
Coaching
the Star: I
importance of interdependence. And managers themselves must become students of the subtlety and nuance of motivating stellar performers.
COACHING THE STAR: BARRIERS
E
ven though stars are necessarily the “favored children” of the corporate family and coaching them is increasingly important, four barriers inhibit managers from providing that coaching: corporate culture, defensive routines, a sense of entitlement, and the demands of the coaching session.
Corporate Culture There is little doubt that deciding when and how to conduct a coaching session is not only a reflection of the coach’s skills and values, but also of the corporation’s values and norms. Thus, coaching the star is a subtle yet powerful reflection of corporate culture. Perhaps the most significant corporate norm affecting the decision to coach the star is the extent to which management believes the star is special and therefore deserves dispensation. Management must consider the potential mixed messages it sends when it coaches one employee for “sloppy or incomplete paperwork” but disregards or minimizes that same behavior from a star who would be difficult to replace. Consistency of coaching is indeed a marker of corporate culture, values, and philosophy. Some employees play a pivotal role in accounting for large sales revenues or profits. They may also be crucial because of the expertise they possess. A highly successful transplant surgeon is an example of the former, a brilliant strategist with company- and industry-specific information is an example of the latter. To the extent that the respective corporate cultures believe these stars deserve special dispensation. to that same extent will these stars fail to receive coaching even when they need or deserve it.
“Perhaps the most significant corporate norm affecting the decision to couch the star is the extent to which management believes stars are special and therefore deserve dispensation. M
Defensive Routines One of the givens for any coaching session is the likelihood that the coached employee will feel “picked on” and act defensively Moreover, this defensiveness is likely to be anticipated by the coach. whose inhibitions would increase. This
simple interpersonal dynamic is even more pronounced because of the star’s defensive routines. Stars pride themselves for earned independence and a strong sense of self-efficacy. Some thrive on constructive feedback; others, however, have never heard it, do not welcome it, and are unlikely to convert it to positive action. Being regarded as anything less than perfect is deadly in their eyes. Chris Argyris’s analysis of highly successful, academically accomplished management consultants provides anecdotal evidence supporting the difficulty in coaching stars. According to Argyris (1991>, high achievers base their actions on four ValWS:
to remain in unilateral control; to maximize winning and minimize losing; l to suppress negative feelings; and l to be as rational as possible. In total, these values are reflected in defensive routines screening out precisely the kind of information that would help stars continue learning and thus main_ tain their performance. In avoiding embarrassment or a sense of incompetence, the high achiever reverts to single-loop thinking. which is characterized by one dominant quality: failure to engage in introspection and avoiding self-critical analysis. In short, when single-loop learners make mistakes, they do not go back and probe the reasons for their having made those mistakes. Thus, says Argyris, “people who rarely experience failure end up not knowing how to deal with it.” When confronted with negative performance evaluations, these stellar consultants tend to blame recalcitrant clients. excessive work loads. or unrealistic expectations. Their need to act in concert with the four basic beliefs creates perceptual filters that screen out constructive coaching. l l
“Obviously, not ail stars become egomaniacs or power-hungry despots. Still the potential for being seduced by stellar status is a constant threat. M
Sense of Entitlement Just as some corporate cultures foster the belief that stars should be rewarded but not counseled. so too will some stars believe that their performance merits special treatment. Many an execLitive has wished for a star performer, had the wish fulfilled, and then realized the poignant truth of the Chinese curse, “May all your dreams come true.” Our dreams have a dark side, and we must carefully consider the consequences if our wishes are granted. Some stars may labor under a false
sense of entitlement. Because of their stellar performance, they may feel that any shortcomings are minor and that management should be grateful to have them on the payroll. Stars soon become accustomed to the spoils of success-the extrinsic and intrinsic rewards associated with outperforming their peers. Moreover, the accolades from management coupled with financial perks can be a powerful aphrodisiac, seducing the performer into self-aggrandizement and, for some, egomaniacal behavior. Obviously,
not
all stars
become
egomaniacs
or
power-
hungry despots. Still, the potential for being seduced by stellar status is a constant threat. To the extent the star is seduced by power and ego, team contributions will be minimized and personal contributions maximized. A star sales rep may not appreciate the support staff that helped produce all those sales and fulfill the orders. Or a production manager who consistently surpasses quality standards may not appreciate the efforts of the purchasing department in screening and negotiating with vendors. If management enables this sense of entitlement by “winking“ at performance deficiencies, then the first honest attempt to coach the star would be difficult and delicate indeed.
Demands of the Session The three preceding barriers underscore the inherent frustration in coaching a star-frustration for both the coach and the star. Added to that is the mixed agenda inherent in all coaching sessions. John Gardner (1993), an astute observer of the human condition in organizations. captures nicely the interpersonal problems of coaching the star: Pity the leader who is caught between unloving critics and uncritical lovers. Leaders need.. advisers who will guide them lovingly but candidly through the minefields of arrogance, overweening pride, fixed ideas, vindictiveness, unreasoning anger, stubbornness, and egotism. Coaching the star is, in many respects, balancing the competing motivations of an “unloving critic“ and an “uncritical lover.” Moreover, this balance is difficult and delicate, partly because both parties lack experience. Managers generally link coaching to substandard performers, expressions of personal frustrations, and implied or explicit negative consequences. For many, coaching is the uncomfortable but required preliminary step before termination. In short, the session tends to balance the often antagonistic goals of coaching (focused performance improvement) and counseling (affiliative support).
Whetten and Cameron (1991) draw a distinction between coaching and counseling and underscore the inherent overlap in the two types of interpersonal communications. “Of course, many problems involve both coaching and counseling,” they maintain. “Frequently, managers have to give direction and advice (coaching) as well as help facilitate understanding and willingness to change (counseling).” On one hand, the discussion tends to be skill-focused, targeting performance gaps and proposed solutions for closing those gaps. On the other hand, it addresses psychological maturity and adjustment: ego, interpersonal style, baante, and perspective. Though seemingly straightforward, given objective measures of expected versus actual performance, this agenda is indeed problematic, given the defensive routines of stars and the cultural conditioning of most managers. STRATEGIES FOR OVERCOMING THE BARRUZRS he following strategies do not necessarily guarantee that all coaching sessions with T all stars will be successful. However, they are presented as general guidelines for overcoming the four barriers just discussed and as a starting point for managers to develop their personal strategies for coaching their own stars.
Culture Shift: From Stars to Teams Perhaps the most important cultural issue management must face in dealing with stars is the shift from independence to interdependencefrom performance based on individual accomplishments to performance based on team effort. Stars will not be coached or counseled successfully if management preaches teamwork but implicitly rewards the lone eagle. Moreover, the cultural change must unequivocally sanction any behavior that disrupts system performance, even if that disruption is caused by a star. Consider the following example of how a hospital dramatically shifted its culture in dealing with a star performer. During the course of a team-building assignment at a large, full-service metropolitan teaching hospital, a group of nurses were asked to discuss their perceptions of the medical staff. The nurses were in agreement that one surgeon in particular created more strife and stress “than all the other doctors put together.” They also agreed that even though they documented their complaints to the hospital’s management, they were sure the surgeon would never be disciplined, and that if he was, it would be done informally through the “old boy’s network,” amounting to no more than a wink. As a heart surgeon, he generated the largest fees of any
Coaching
the Star: Rationale
and Strategies
attending physician at the hospital and was thus treated like a king. One of the nurses, highlighting what she saw as the hypocrisy of team building at the hospital, complained, “They expect us to have teamwork while tolerating Attila the Hun.” Normally this observation would have been right on target. However, a convergence of three forces set the stage for a counseling session with the surgeon-a session that never would have occurred without those forces. First, the hospital was experiencing high turnover among its surgical nurses and the high cost of recruiting replacements. Second, third-party insurers were beginning to question the high cost of this surgeon’s procedures relative to benchmark procedures. And third, interns and residents were tactfully voicing their frustration with the star in informal networks. In a session chaired by the chief of staff and the top administrator, the surgeon was presented with specific complaints and a “strong suggestion” that a change in his style could create a win-win situation for the total hospital team. The session did help change the surgeon’s behavior. He became committed to controlling emotional outbursts. Within a short period of time, his relationship with nurses and other hospital staffers was less acerbic and more collegial. The coaching session turned a self-centered star into a team member. When dealing with stars who will be difficult and costly to replace, management must answer two interrelated questions: 1. At what point do we confront the star? 2. Are we willing to compromise our corporate ethics, values, and employee morale to appease the star? Once these questions are carefully considered, management takes the first step in developing a strategy for dealing with stars who believe they are irreplaceable, or have been treated that way. In the case of the cardiac surgeon, top hospital administrators realized that a coaching session with the star could no longer be denied or delayed. Finally, coaching the star is problematic if the corporate culture implicitly, and merit systems explicitly, boost individual rather than team efforts. A sales rep could make bonuses every year even though the company loses money. Or the production manager is singled out for kudos but the purchasing department is never acknowledged. Managing from a pay-for-performance
“Stars will not be coached or counseled successfully if management preaches team work but implicitly rewards the lone eagle.”
51
model, stellar performance should Ix rewarded. but not at the expense of the team. Supportive Style We stated earlier that the human resources literature is replete with advice on how to coach the marginal employee but contains precious little on how to coach the star. Another consistent theme is that regardless of who is receiving the coaching it should be communicated in a style that is supportive, thereby minimizing the employee’s defensiveness. The characteristics of that style are well documented. In essence, the verbal and nonverbal tone and intent of the session must implicitly communicate a desire to help the star. At the conclusion of the session, the star must believe that the agenda was open and honest, the overall intent wds to help, and that his sense of dignity was enhanced throughout the session. To use Gardner’s phrase, “The coaching should be concluded lovingly and candidly.” LJnlike the average or marginal employee, a star is motivated by a strong sense of self-efficacy and need for achievement. Appealing to these needs is crucial for coaching a star, so the discussion should begin with supportive comments. Stars pride themselves on the positive distance they create from the rest of the pack. Being perceived as a member of this pack may demoralize and hurt performance indefinitely rather than inspire the star to maintain or regain lost ground.
Creating Impact Even though the overall tone of the coaching session should allow the star to save face and maintain dignity, the coach must also candidly and directly confront the star’s need for defense and possibly denial. Denial and difficulty in confronting this will increase to the extent that upper management “winks” at the star while tolerating foibles or outright abrasiveness. Argyris (1994) states: Admittedly, being considerate and positive can contribute to the solution of simple loop problems like cutting costs. But it will never help people figure out why they lived with problems for years on end, why they covered up those problems, why they covered up the cover-up, why they were so good at pointing to the responsibility of others and so slow to focus on their own. Upon realizing one’s performance is even slightly in question, the star might react with excuses, defensiveness, or even coworker accuse52
tions (single-loop learning). Some remarks might ordinarily merit rebuttal, but counter-arguments that destroy the mood and risk successfully redirecting the star’s questioned behavior should be avoided. If the star is rationalizing (“You’re only picking on me to show you’re a strong leader”) or in denial (“I’m the star, others are simply jealous of me”), refrain from armchair psychological diagnoses. Follow the simple rule of “Say what you see.” LIescribe behavior and consequences, not inferences and assumptions. Allow the star to maintain dignity, but don’t enable denial and rationalization.
Dominant Themes Obviously, the specific themes in any coaching session with a star will depend on the specific problems and opportunities the star might present. Comments could range from advising the once high achiever who now experiences burnout to coaching the top producer going through a divorce or abusing drugs. However, given the structural and cultural shifts of contemporary organizations-from hierarchical control to cross-functional interdependence, from stars to teams-certain themes will be dominant in most sessions with stars. Specifically, the most dominant themes are likely to be redefining the self and mentoring or coaching others. A strategic model for redefining the self is provided in the provocative work of Quinn, Anderson, and Finkelstein (1996). They argue that the most valuable asset of any organization is its collective, professional intellect. In turn, management must begin to manage this asset with greater effectiveness and efficiency than it ever has. To help organizations manage this asset, Quinn et al. present a taxonomy of four types of knowledge: l cognitive knowledge (know what); l advanced skills (know how): l system understanding (know why); and l self-motivated creativity (care why). Stars already know how and what, but they may be lacking in the other two types of knowledge. They treat individual stellar performance as an end unto itself rather than part of a systemic whole. Independence supersedes interdependence. Coaching sessions that focus on systems understanding (knowing why) should alleviate this problem. A related theme in this session should be caring why. It is one thing for stars to understand intellectually that their performance is interdependent with other team members; it is quite another to support that conception emotionally. Caring why means that stars will actively look for ways to focus and channel their talents and gifts to create team and organizational success. The
star will exert energy to teach, counsel, and assist
team members so that they too can become stars. The theme for redefining the self thus becomes one of understanding, sharing, and cooperating. Stars in flattened, reengineered organizations must suppress their ego, share knowledge whenever and wherever it is needed, and admit ignorance even if that admission creates personal vulnerability. Information sharing, both giving and receiving, is thus a dominant theme for coaching stars in tomorrow’s organizations. A second theme is the increased role stars will play in mentoring and coaching their coworkers. Stellar performers who seemingly believe they are independent may come to believe that both their customers and the organizations that employ them are totally dependent on them. Their success at moving the product, closing the sale, or generating revenues may lead to an overly developed sense of self-importance. Coaching that provides them with a “reality check” concerning the role of support personnel is crucial. The salesperson must understand his role in the value chain (production through after-sale support) rather than focus on the sale exclusively. Assisting the supporting organization to raise its capacity for stellar performance means that the star sales rep can become a champion and agent for cultural change. Rather than bemoaning the fact that poor product design and poor marketing support prevent him from selling more, coaching could help the sales rep become a force for improving product design and marketing. Providing important feedback, discussing emergent market trends, and motivating support personnel are examples of what a star can do to elevate the performance of support staff. Stars are recognized as such by their peers and set examples whether or not they choose to do so. When management coaches a star team member, that member must understand and appreciate the power of informal influence he exerts and his potential to elevate the entire team. Kelley and Caplan’s (1993) case study provides evidence of how coaching can achieve these goals. Based on a grounded expert model of what “stellar engineers do,” Bell Labs sponsored a training program to operationalize, demystify, and teach stellar performance. The results were dramatic. Compared with a nonparticipating control group, participants were rated higher on such indices as spotting and fixing problems, getting work done on time with high quality, pleasing customers, and working well with other departments. Moreover, the impact was especially strong for women and minority managers. An expert model, suggest Kelley and Caplan, “makes the loop explicit and accessible to all.” The content of the training models used at Bell Labs was developed through collaboration Coaching the Star: Rationale and Strategies
Figure 1 Coaching
the Star: Barriers
and Strategies
I
BARRIERS
Corporate Stars’ defensive
culture w routines
Sense of entitlement Demands
of the session
e w
* Coaching the Star
e *
STRATEGIES FOR OVERCOMING
m
Cultural shift: stars vs. teams
a
Supportive
I
style
553 Creating impact a
Dominant
themes
L
with and analysis of the stars in that lab. These stars shared their expertise, thus improving the performance of the entire lab. Figure 1 summarizes the barriers inhibiting the coaching of stars and strategies for overcoming these barriers. The barriers and strategies are depicted in a force field analysis.
S
tars in the galaxy may shine forever; those on a payroll will not. However, it is possible to extend and expand stellar performance. For years, managers have tried to achieve these dual goals through perks, bonuses, and other extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. For a variety of reasons, coaching has usually not received the same emphasis and attention. Yet if stars are to realize their full potential, they must be coached. Bernice Fitz-Gibbon once observed, “A good ad should be like a good sermon: it must not only comfort the afflicted-it must also afflict the comfortable.” Similarly, coaching the star is likely to be both comforting and afflicting. Yet if we fail to coach stars because of our discomfort or their defensiveness, we fail to tap an invaluable organizational resource. Stellar performance is not self-perpetuating, and if not channeled properly, it could disenchant the total organization. If companies hope to reflect the value and benefits of constant incremental improvement and crossfunctional teamwork, then they must coach their stars. 0 References Chris Argyris, “Good Communication That Blocks Learning,” Hurvard Business Review, July-August 1994, pp. 77-85. Chris Argyris, “How to Teach Smart People to Learn,” Harvard Business Review, June 1991, pp. 99-109.
A. Bandura, “Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency,” Americart Psychologist, 37(1982): 122-147. 53
John
Gardner.
cc’ss (New York:
quoted in John O’Neil. J’urudax I’ittman. 19931, p. 222.
c!f‘.Sz~c-
James 13. Quinn, Philip Anderson. and Sydney Finkrlstein, “Managing Professional Intellect: Making the Most of the Best.” 7Jurzurd R2lsim.s.s Ke/+zr: MarchApril 1996, pp. 71-80, I’. Tharenoc. S. Ldimcr. and I>. Couroy. “How Ijo You Make It to the Top? An I~x~tmination of Influences on Women’s md Men’s Managerial Advancement,” Acrrclcvq’ c~f’:~lula~l~~~~?2~l~t.~~~llr~~ul, .i 7 ( 19%): X99-937.
M.E. Gist and Terence Mitchell, “Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of its Determinants and Malleability.” kxuknz~)~ c~f~~~uqpwze~2t J~c?Jieu’, April 1992. pp. I83211. Robert Kelley and Janet Caplan, “How l!ell Labs Creates Star Performers.” Hur?wd Hzo2rws.s Rc~lGw, JulyAugwt 1993, pp. 128-139.
Whctten and Kim Cameron. Jk2dqtCqy dIu?zughremer~tSkill.s (N ew York: FIarper-Collins, 1991). Ihvicl
W. Whitely. T.M. Dougherty. and G.F. theher, “Reb tionship of Career Mentoring and Socioecormnic Origin to Managers :md Professionals Early Career Progress,” Acacletr~~~~ ~~,2~~u~iu~:c~me~~t,~o~~r)1ul. 34 (1991): 331-351.
Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries. “Leudcrs Who Self-lhstruct: The Causes and Cures,” O?gu~~izutiowl D,)vzumic.s. Spring 1989, pp. b-25. Michael Lonibardo. offthe 7k?ck; !Yhj’ and HOUR S7rccesfirl Ex-ectllim~s Get Dcruilwi. Tech. Report No. 21. Center for Creative Leadership. Greenslmro, North Carolina, January 1983.
Lyle Sussman is a professor of management at the University of Louisville, Kentucky: Richard Finnegan is First Vice President of Human Resources at Sun Trust Banks, Inc., Orlando, Florida.
he manager’s role has always reflected the dominant paradigms of the times. During the Scientific Management era of 1900-1920, the manager’s role was to maintain close supervision in a specified span of control and elicit maximum efficiency from workers. During the Human Relations era of 1930-1950, the manager still monitored efficiency but through a prism colored by employees’ attitudes, values, and needs. In the modern era of “rightsizing,” empowerment, and reengineering, the manager has evolved into a coach and facilitator. As managers in the new millennium enact this role, they will undoubtedly confront the typical problems inherent in trying to raise the performance level of any problem employee: When do I confront the employee? What exactly should 1 say? How should I say it? Should I be assertive and matter-of-fact or empathic and consultative? How do I emphasize motivation while minimizing punishment? What should I do if and when the employee becomes defensive? When managers seek answers to these questions in the relevant management literature, they typically find the “problem” employee defined as one whose performance (task and/or interpersonal) falls below expectations. But suppose the problem employee is a star. What about a star whose performance exceeds that of peers but could be enhanced even further? Or a stellar performer whose personal drive and initiative were once highlighted as a model for others to emulate but are now detrimental to team cohesiveness? Management literature provides little if any counsel for the manager confronted with a problem employee who is also a star. Our purpose here is to provide that counsel in outlining strategies and guidelines for coaching the star. First, we underscore the reasons why coaching the star is increasingly important in contemporary organizations. Second, we summarize the major barriers that often inhibit managers
T
Coachmg
thtz Star: Rationale
and Strategies
from providing that coaching. Third, we recommend strategies for overcoming those barriers, thereby motivating the star to continue the stellar achievements managers have come to expect. THE GROWING IMPORTANCE OF COACHING THE STAR
S
lnhibiting factors prevent many stars from receiving the coaching they need. Foftunately, several strategies can overcome those barriers,
tars have always been the focus of management attention-perhaps disproportionately so. No less a management expert than Frederick Taylor used Schmidt, a steel worker, as an example of “a first class man” to demonstrate the advantages of new work methods. The literature on mentoring provides empirical evidence that personal coaching and counseling are selectively targeted toward those who senior managers believe will be future stars. We do not argue that stars fail to receive coaching. Rather, we posit that coaching the star is even more important for today’s organization than it was in yesterday’s, and is of even greater concern for today’s managers than their earlier peers. We base this assertion on three premises: 1. Coaching the star expands the upper limits of the organization. 2. Coaching the star expands the coach. 3. Coaching the star leverages the power of teams. Expanding
the Upper
Limits
As organizations become increasingly composed of interdependent, cross-functional teams, the weakest team member may define the upper
47
limits of the team’s p~rforrn~ln~~. Ohviouslp, those weakest members must he coached or counseled. Most managers, however, already have an inherent i3ias toward cnac%ing the weakest employee and must consciously and systematically change their coaching orientation toward stars. This thesis gains credence and support when we consider the converging goals of Total Qu:aliry Management (TQM) and ~c~&w (constant ancl upward illlpr~)~~~ln~nt). If these goals are to IX more than I3uzzwords and platitudes, 11~~1i~a~~rn~llrmust not only pull up the lower end of the performance distribution hut push out the upper end as tvell. Downsizing, outsourcing, and reengineering have created lean oqqtnizations in which the Managemenr M;tntra has h~~ome “Do more with less.” There is little doubt that the employees who survived downsizing represent the l-test and the brightest of their respective ~r~~1ni~tit)ns. Nevertlieless, if the talent, motivation, and skills of the survivors were
“lnsteud, employees me divides intotwo grou~s-su~stu~~ur~
and
ucce~tu~le-use
the seminars ty~icully
teach supervisors to couch
only
those
who
are substff ndurd. n
man;cgers focus their co:iching efforts on the lower end of this distril~ution. the hesr they can hope for is that rhc Rottom end of the distrihulion tvill he raised. However+ this m:tnagerial eff01T will not push the upper end of the performance distril)tttit)n. Employees who are 8lre:idy exceeding performanc‘t’ standttrds may not receive advice on how to perform even hcttcr. Even if poor performers iii:ttch thta level of stars, orgmizational ptrformanc‘e still has not escwded the lttwl dcfincd hy tht” smrs. In other worcls. the hottotn of the range has txcn I-xonglX even higher, hut the top of the range is still maffecW_~. Corpornte cxaniplcs of ~0n~il~Li~~llypushing the upper limits of perftmnance are provided by Andcrsen Consulting and Microsoft. Only 10 percent of the u:1r~fully sc+5ctecl professionals at Anderscn rvcr join the ranks of partner. %milarly, Mic-rosoft trirs to force out 5 pa-cent of its once highly screened employees. Tllrougl~ objective pmise. honest feetlha~k, and stretch goals, these comP;inies provide hen&mark ciatn in their industries.
Coaching the Star Expands
the Coach
Our personai experience in canducting pcrformane appraisal and effective a)aching seminars provides anecdotzcll support for our earlier observation that the inherent problems of ooaching increase in difficulty when the target of coaching is a star. When participants are asked, “How do you coach a star?” responses fall into one of two categories: laughter or 13~f~1~l~~I~d looks. They either feel the question is silly. or they think it’s intriguing hut don’t have a c+lue. Moreover, the literature on employee coaching represents ~1 consistent theme: Coach the employee who fzils to meet the standards, reward and praise the employee who meets or exceeds standards. Consider the legal and clefensivf2 strategies taught in many HK seminars and workshops. In response to an apparent market need, seminar leaders focus on 1eg;iI ways to address subst:mdard workers in or&r to comply with laws. A principal rc;Lson for this approach is high-stakes empltq~ee relations liahtity. Departmenr of Lal3or initiatives to ensure qua1 opportunity for protected c1assc.s c~omt3inccl with civil court actions Ieivc ii’1~1rl~1~~rs intir~i~~i~lt~~land confused. Rarely art” 11~11~~1~~rs taught to improve the p~rfor1ll~in~~ t)f esc2llent workers. Instead. c‘mployc”t”s 211-t’ clividecl into two grc)ui)s-s~1l)st:tntlarct and ;1cceptal3le--and the seminars typic:1lly teach supcrvisors to co:i~h only those who arc suhstancf~1rd. The sentiment of ;1 to-year III? veteran supports this conclusion: Attend any human resoures ~1ss~)~~1ti~)r~ meeting, and thr rypical topic is how to sr:ty out of legal troul3le-not how to grow 11business and provide jobs to the community. The most pq3ular topics are federal laws: ADA. OS-IA, I’MLA, OFCCI? CQHRA. EKISA, EPA, NLKA. AI>EA. USFIIRA, and EEOC. (Cantoni I9951
This is undouhtcclly :1 dramatic and difficult shift. A major difference between coa&ing the m:trginal ~nployee and couching the star is that defici~ncics for the former ;1ru likely to be glaring, whereas cteficienc*ics for the latter may he si1tXle. For cxa1~~~3le, c*oa&ing 21golfer who has
never broken 100 is much easier than coaching a golfer who consistently breaks par. The bad golfer is doing many things wrong; the good golfer is doing many things right. An astute manager will not only look for the obvious deficiencies, such as reports that are completed haphazardly, but also such subtle deficiencies as mentoring and role modeling that need improvement.
Coaching the Star Leverages Team Power As hierarchies flatten and functional departments are replaced by customer-driven processes, the definition of star performer will inevitably change. Individual performance is becoming an oxymoron in the reengineered organization. Individuals who achieved stellar status because of individual accomplishments must adapt to the interdependent missions of teams. Employees will still be called upon to go above and beyond the call of duty to make a customer happy. But these heroic efforts will increasingly be team-driven and supported. Performance defined by individual effort will be anathema in a system in which interdependence drives out independence. Stated differently, stars are important in hierarchical organizations in which interdepartmental competition is the norm, employees work for managers rather than customers, and rewards foster individual goals. They are much less important in flattened organizations in which interdepartmental cooperation is the norm and incentives are keyed to group and organizational performance. Coaching can and should help stars rethink their relationship with the team, their role in improving team performance. and their responsibility in mentoring other team members. In achieving these three goals, coaching expands a star’s role in the organization. Rather than simply being the best at achieving a narrowly defined personal goal. the star now has broader influence in the organization and can therefore help it as a whole. If stars are to have a role, not to mention a future, in the reengineered firm of tomorrow, they must change their attitudes and behaviors from motives driven by independence to those driven by interdependence. They must perceive sharing knowledge and skills with team members as beneficial for all. In the reengineered organization, stars are defined by the behavioral models they provide for others, the mentoring they give to newer employees, and their willingness to learn new skills--even if learning those skills takes them outside their comfort zone. Just as a star’s role is redefined in the reengineered firm, so too is the manager’s, A manager must motivate a star to see himself as a team player and a role model for peers. In coaching, managers help stars focus on and internalize the
Coaching
the Star: I
importance of interdependence. And managers themselves must become students of the subtlety and nuance of motivating stellar performers.
COACHING THE STAR: BARRIERS
E
ven though stars are necessarily the “favored children” of the corporate family and coaching them is increasingly important, four barriers inhibit managers from providing that coaching: corporate culture, defensive routines, a sense of entitlement, and the demands of the coaching session.
Corporate Culture There is little doubt that deciding when and how to conduct a coaching session is not only a reflection of the coach’s skills and values, but also of the corporation’s values and norms. Thus, coaching the star is a subtle yet powerful reflection of corporate culture. Perhaps the most significant corporate norm affecting the decision to coach the star is the extent to which management believes the star is special and therefore deserves dispensation. Management must consider the potential mixed messages it sends when it coaches one employee for “sloppy or incomplete paperwork” but disregards or minimizes that same behavior from a star who would be difficult to replace. Consistency of coaching is indeed a marker of corporate culture, values, and philosophy. Some employees play a pivotal role in accounting for large sales revenues or profits. They may also be crucial because of the expertise they possess. A highly successful transplant surgeon is an example of the former, a brilliant strategist with company- and industry-specific information is an example of the latter. To the extent that the respective corporate cultures believe these stars deserve special dispensation. to that same extent will these stars fail to receive coaching even when they need or deserve it.
“Perhaps the most significant corporate norm affecting the decision to couch the star is the extent to which management believes stars are special and therefore deserve dispensation. M
Defensive Routines One of the givens for any coaching session is the likelihood that the coached employee will feel “picked on” and act defensively Moreover, this defensiveness is likely to be anticipated by the coach. whose inhibitions would increase. This
simple interpersonal dynamic is even more pronounced because of the star’s defensive routines. Stars pride themselves for earned independence and a strong sense of self-efficacy. Some thrive on constructive feedback; others, however, have never heard it, do not welcome it, and are unlikely to convert it to positive action. Being regarded as anything less than perfect is deadly in their eyes. Chris Argyris’s analysis of highly successful, academically accomplished management consultants provides anecdotal evidence supporting the difficulty in coaching stars. According to Argyris (1991>, high achievers base their actions on four ValWS:
to remain in unilateral control; to maximize winning and minimize losing; l to suppress negative feelings; and l to be as rational as possible. In total, these values are reflected in defensive routines screening out precisely the kind of information that would help stars continue learning and thus main_ tain their performance. In avoiding embarrassment or a sense of incompetence, the high achiever reverts to single-loop thinking. which is characterized by one dominant quality: failure to engage in introspection and avoiding self-critical analysis. In short, when single-loop learners make mistakes, they do not go back and probe the reasons for their having made those mistakes. Thus, says Argyris, “people who rarely experience failure end up not knowing how to deal with it.” When confronted with negative performance evaluations, these stellar consultants tend to blame recalcitrant clients. excessive work loads. or unrealistic expectations. Their need to act in concert with the four basic beliefs creates perceptual filters that screen out constructive coaching. l l
“Obviously, not ail stars become egomaniacs or power-hungry despots. Still the potential for being seduced by stellar status is a constant threat. M
Sense of Entitlement Just as some corporate cultures foster the belief that stars should be rewarded but not counseled. so too will some stars believe that their performance merits special treatment. Many an execLitive has wished for a star performer, had the wish fulfilled, and then realized the poignant truth of the Chinese curse, “May all your dreams come true.” Our dreams have a dark side, and we must carefully consider the consequences if our wishes are granted. Some stars may labor under a false
sense of entitlement. Because of their stellar performance, they may feel that any shortcomings are minor and that management should be grateful to have them on the payroll. Stars soon become accustomed to the spoils of success-the extrinsic and intrinsic rewards associated with outperforming their peers. Moreover, the accolades from management coupled with financial perks can be a powerful aphrodisiac, seducing the performer into self-aggrandizement and, for some, egomaniacal behavior. Obviously,
not
all stars
become
egomaniacs
or
power-
hungry despots. Still, the potential for being seduced by stellar status is a constant threat. To the extent the star is seduced by power and ego, team contributions will be minimized and personal contributions maximized. A star sales rep may not appreciate the support staff that helped produce all those sales and fulfill the orders. Or a production manager who consistently surpasses quality standards may not appreciate the efforts of the purchasing department in screening and negotiating with vendors. If management enables this sense of entitlement by “winking“ at performance deficiencies, then the first honest attempt to coach the star would be difficult and delicate indeed.
Demands of the Session The three preceding barriers underscore the inherent frustration in coaching a star-frustration for both the coach and the star. Added to that is the mixed agenda inherent in all coaching sessions. John Gardner (1993), an astute observer of the human condition in organizations. captures nicely the interpersonal problems of coaching the star: Pity the leader who is caught between unloving critics and uncritical lovers. Leaders need.. advisers who will guide them lovingly but candidly through the minefields of arrogance, overweening pride, fixed ideas, vindictiveness, unreasoning anger, stubbornness, and egotism. Coaching the star is, in many respects, balancing the competing motivations of an “unloving critic“ and an “uncritical lover.” Moreover, this balance is difficult and delicate, partly because both parties lack experience. Managers generally link coaching to substandard performers, expressions of personal frustrations, and implied or explicit negative consequences. For many, coaching is the uncomfortable but required preliminary step before termination. In short, the session tends to balance the often antagonistic goals of coaching (focused performance improvement) and counseling (affiliative support).
Whetten and Cameron (1991) draw a distinction between coaching and counseling and underscore the inherent overlap in the two types of interpersonal communications. “Of course, many problems involve both coaching and counseling,” they maintain. “Frequently, managers have to give direction and advice (coaching) as well as help facilitate understanding and willingness to change (counseling).” On one hand, the discussion tends to be skill-focused, targeting performance gaps and proposed solutions for closing those gaps. On the other hand, it addresses psychological maturity and adjustment: ego, interpersonal style, baante, and perspective. Though seemingly straightforward, given objective measures of expected versus actual performance, this agenda is indeed problematic, given the defensive routines of stars and the cultural conditioning of most managers. STRATEGIES FOR OVERCOMING THE BARRUZRS he following strategies do not necessarily guarantee that all coaching sessions with T all stars will be successful. However, they are presented as general guidelines for overcoming the four barriers just discussed and as a starting point for managers to develop their personal strategies for coaching their own stars.
Culture Shift: From Stars to Teams Perhaps the most important cultural issue management must face in dealing with stars is the shift from independence to interdependencefrom performance based on individual accomplishments to performance based on team effort. Stars will not be coached or counseled successfully if management preaches teamwork but implicitly rewards the lone eagle. Moreover, the cultural change must unequivocally sanction any behavior that disrupts system performance, even if that disruption is caused by a star. Consider the following example of how a hospital dramatically shifted its culture in dealing with a star performer. During the course of a team-building assignment at a large, full-service metropolitan teaching hospital, a group of nurses were asked to discuss their perceptions of the medical staff. The nurses were in agreement that one surgeon in particular created more strife and stress “than all the other doctors put together.” They also agreed that even though they documented their complaints to the hospital’s management, they were sure the surgeon would never be disciplined, and that if he was, it would be done informally through the “old boy’s network,” amounting to no more than a wink. As a heart surgeon, he generated the largest fees of any
Coaching
the Star: Rationale
and Strategies
attending physician at the hospital and was thus treated like a king. One of the nurses, highlighting what she saw as the hypocrisy of team building at the hospital, complained, “They expect us to have teamwork while tolerating Attila the Hun.” Normally this observation would have been right on target. However, a convergence of three forces set the stage for a counseling session with the surgeon-a session that never would have occurred without those forces. First, the hospital was experiencing high turnover among its surgical nurses and the high cost of recruiting replacements. Second, third-party insurers were beginning to question the high cost of this surgeon’s procedures relative to benchmark procedures. And third, interns and residents were tactfully voicing their frustration with the star in informal networks. In a session chaired by the chief of staff and the top administrator, the surgeon was presented with specific complaints and a “strong suggestion” that a change in his style could create a win-win situation for the total hospital team. The session did help change the surgeon’s behavior. He became committed to controlling emotional outbursts. Within a short period of time, his relationship with nurses and other hospital staffers was less acerbic and more collegial. The coaching session turned a self-centered star into a team member. When dealing with stars who will be difficult and costly to replace, management must answer two interrelated questions: 1. At what point do we confront the star? 2. Are we willing to compromise our corporate ethics, values, and employee morale to appease the star? Once these questions are carefully considered, management takes the first step in developing a strategy for dealing with stars who believe they are irreplaceable, or have been treated that way. In the case of the cardiac surgeon, top hospital administrators realized that a coaching session with the star could no longer be denied or delayed. Finally, coaching the star is problematic if the corporate culture implicitly, and merit systems explicitly, boost individual rather than team efforts. A sales rep could make bonuses every year even though the company loses money. Or the production manager is singled out for kudos but the purchasing department is never acknowledged. Managing from a pay-for-performance
“Stars will not be coached or counseled successfully if management preaches team work but implicitly rewards the lone eagle.”
51
model, stellar performance should Ix rewarded. but not at the expense of the team. Supportive Style We stated earlier that the human resources literature is replete with advice on how to coach the marginal employee but contains precious little on how to coach the star. Another consistent theme is that regardless of who is receiving the coaching it should be communicated in a style that is supportive, thereby minimizing the employee’s defensiveness. The characteristics of that style are well documented. In essence, the verbal and nonverbal tone and intent of the session must implicitly communicate a desire to help the star. At the conclusion of the session, the star must believe that the agenda was open and honest, the overall intent wds to help, and that his sense of dignity was enhanced throughout the session. To use Gardner’s phrase, “The coaching should be concluded lovingly and candidly.” LJnlike the average or marginal employee, a star is motivated by a strong sense of self-efficacy and need for achievement. Appealing to these needs is crucial for coaching a star, so the discussion should begin with supportive comments. Stars pride themselves on the positive distance they create from the rest of the pack. Being perceived as a member of this pack may demoralize and hurt performance indefinitely rather than inspire the star to maintain or regain lost ground.
Creating Impact Even though the overall tone of the coaching session should allow the star to save face and maintain dignity, the coach must also candidly and directly confront the star’s need for defense and possibly denial. Denial and difficulty in confronting this will increase to the extent that upper management “winks” at the star while tolerating foibles or outright abrasiveness. Argyris (1994) states: Admittedly, being considerate and positive can contribute to the solution of simple loop problems like cutting costs. But it will never help people figure out why they lived with problems for years on end, why they covered up those problems, why they covered up the cover-up, why they were so good at pointing to the responsibility of others and so slow to focus on their own. Upon realizing one’s performance is even slightly in question, the star might react with excuses, defensiveness, or even coworker accuse52
tions (single-loop learning). Some remarks might ordinarily merit rebuttal, but counter-arguments that destroy the mood and risk successfully redirecting the star’s questioned behavior should be avoided. If the star is rationalizing (“You’re only picking on me to show you’re a strong leader”) or in denial (“I’m the star, others are simply jealous of me”), refrain from armchair psychological diagnoses. Follow the simple rule of “Say what you see.” LIescribe behavior and consequences, not inferences and assumptions. Allow the star to maintain dignity, but don’t enable denial and rationalization.
Dominant Themes Obviously, the specific themes in any coaching session with a star will depend on the specific problems and opportunities the star might present. Comments could range from advising the once high achiever who now experiences burnout to coaching the top producer going through a divorce or abusing drugs. However, given the structural and cultural shifts of contemporary organizations-from hierarchical control to cross-functional interdependence, from stars to teams-certain themes will be dominant in most sessions with stars. Specifically, the most dominant themes are likely to be redefining the self and mentoring or coaching others. A strategic model for redefining the self is provided in the provocative work of Quinn, Anderson, and Finkelstein (1996). They argue that the most valuable asset of any organization is its collective, professional intellect. In turn, management must begin to manage this asset with greater effectiveness and efficiency than it ever has. To help organizations manage this asset, Quinn et al. present a taxonomy of four types of knowledge: l cognitive knowledge (know what); l advanced skills (know how): l system understanding (know why); and l self-motivated creativity (care why). Stars already know how and what, but they may be lacking in the other two types of knowledge. They treat individual stellar performance as an end unto itself rather than part of a systemic whole. Independence supersedes interdependence. Coaching sessions that focus on systems understanding (knowing why) should alleviate this problem. A related theme in this session should be caring why. It is one thing for stars to understand intellectually that their performance is interdependent with other team members; it is quite another to support that conception emotionally. Caring why means that stars will actively look for ways to focus and channel their talents and gifts to create team and organizational success. The
star will exert energy to teach, counsel, and assist
team members so that they too can become stars. The theme for redefining the self thus becomes one of understanding, sharing, and cooperating. Stars in flattened, reengineered organizations must suppress their ego, share knowledge whenever and wherever it is needed, and admit ignorance even if that admission creates personal vulnerability. Information sharing, both giving and receiving, is thus a dominant theme for coaching stars in tomorrow’s organizations. A second theme is the increased role stars will play in mentoring and coaching their coworkers. Stellar performers who seemingly believe they are independent may come to believe that both their customers and the organizations that employ them are totally dependent on them. Their success at moving the product, closing the sale, or generating revenues may lead to an overly developed sense of self-importance. Coaching that provides them with a “reality check” concerning the role of support personnel is crucial. The salesperson must understand his role in the value chain (production through after-sale support) rather than focus on the sale exclusively. Assisting the supporting organization to raise its capacity for stellar performance means that the star sales rep can become a champion and agent for cultural change. Rather than bemoaning the fact that poor product design and poor marketing support prevent him from selling more, coaching could help the sales rep become a force for improving product design and marketing. Providing important feedback, discussing emergent market trends, and motivating support personnel are examples of what a star can do to elevate the performance of support staff. Stars are recognized as such by their peers and set examples whether or not they choose to do so. When management coaches a star team member, that member must understand and appreciate the power of informal influence he exerts and his potential to elevate the entire team. Kelley and Caplan’s (1993) case study provides evidence of how coaching can achieve these goals. Based on a grounded expert model of what “stellar engineers do,” Bell Labs sponsored a training program to operationalize, demystify, and teach stellar performance. The results were dramatic. Compared with a nonparticipating control group, participants were rated higher on such indices as spotting and fixing problems, getting work done on time with high quality, pleasing customers, and working well with other departments. Moreover, the impact was especially strong for women and minority managers. An expert model, suggest Kelley and Caplan, “makes the loop explicit and accessible to all.” The content of the training models used at Bell Labs was developed through collaboration Coaching the Star: Rationale and Strategies
Figure 1 Coaching
the Star: Barriers
and Strategies
I
BARRIERS
Corporate Stars’ defensive
culture w routines
Sense of entitlement Demands
of the session
e w
* Coaching the Star
e *
STRATEGIES FOR OVERCOMING
m
Cultural shift: stars vs. teams
a
Supportive
I
style
553 Creating impact a
Dominant
themes
L
with and analysis of the stars in that lab. These stars shared their expertise, thus improving the performance of the entire lab. Figure 1 summarizes the barriers inhibiting the coaching of stars and strategies for overcoming these barriers. The barriers and strategies are depicted in a force field analysis.
S
tars in the galaxy may shine forever; those on a payroll will not. However, it is possible to extend and expand stellar performance. For years, managers have tried to achieve these dual goals through perks, bonuses, and other extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. For a variety of reasons, coaching has usually not received the same emphasis and attention. Yet if stars are to realize their full potential, they must be coached. Bernice Fitz-Gibbon once observed, “A good ad should be like a good sermon: it must not only comfort the afflicted-it must also afflict the comfortable.” Similarly, coaching the star is likely to be both comforting and afflicting. Yet if we fail to coach stars because of our discomfort or their defensiveness, we fail to tap an invaluable organizational resource. Stellar performance is not self-perpetuating, and if not channeled properly, it could disenchant the total organization. If companies hope to reflect the value and benefits of constant incremental improvement and crossfunctional teamwork, then they must coach their stars. 0 References Chris Argyris, “Good Communication That Blocks Learning,” Hurvard Business Review, July-August 1994, pp. 77-85. Chris Argyris, “How to Teach Smart People to Learn,” Harvard Business Review, June 1991, pp. 99-109.
A. Bandura, “Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency,” Americart Psychologist, 37(1982): 122-147. 53
John
Gardner.
cc’ss (New York:
quoted in John O’Neil. J’urudax I’ittman. 19931, p. 222.
c!f‘.Sz~c-
James 13. Quinn, Philip Anderson. and Sydney Finkrlstein, “Managing Professional Intellect: Making the Most of the Best.” 7Jurzurd R2lsim.s.s Ke/+zr: MarchApril 1996, pp. 71-80, I’. Tharenoc. S. Ldimcr. and I>. Couroy. “How Ijo You Make It to the Top? An I~x~tmination of Influences on Women’s md Men’s Managerial Advancement,” Acrrclcvq’ c~f’:~lula~l~~~~?2~l~t.~~~llr~~ul, .i 7 ( 19%): X99-937.
M.E. Gist and Terence Mitchell, “Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of its Determinants and Malleability.” kxuknz~)~ c~f~~~uqpwze~2t J~c?Jieu’, April 1992. pp. I83211. Robert Kelley and Janet Caplan, “How l!ell Labs Creates Star Performers.” Hur?wd Hzo2rws.s Rc~lGw, JulyAugwt 1993, pp. 128-139.
Whctten and Kim Cameron. Jk2dqtCqy dIu?zughremer~tSkill.s (N ew York: FIarper-Collins, 1991). Ihvicl
W. Whitely. T.M. Dougherty. and G.F. theher, “Reb tionship of Career Mentoring and Socioecormnic Origin to Managers :md Professionals Early Career Progress,” Acacletr~~~~ ~~,2~~u~iu~:c~me~~t,~o~~r)1ul. 34 (1991): 331-351.
Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries. “Leudcrs Who Self-lhstruct: The Causes and Cures,” O?gu~~izutiowl D,)vzumic.s. Spring 1989, pp. b-25. Michael Lonibardo. offthe 7k?ck; !Yhj’ and HOUR S7rccesfirl Ex-ectllim~s Get Dcruilwi. Tech. Report No. 21. Center for Creative Leadership. Greenslmro, North Carolina, January 1983.
Lyle Sussman is a professor of management at the University of Louisville, Kentucky: Richard Finnegan is First Vice President of Human Resources at Sun Trust Banks, Inc., Orlando, Florida.