- Email: [email protected]
The coaching paradox
int. J. Hospitality Management Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 3-10, 1997 © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 0278-4319/97 $17.00 + 0.00
Pergamon
PII: S0278-4319( 96 )00046-I
Discussion Paper The coaching paradox Michelle Krazmien and Florence Berger Cornell University School of Hotel Administration, Ithaca, New York, U S A
As managers have shiftedfrom controlling to empowering their employees, coaching has become a vital managerial tool. The primary goal of this paper is to begin a dialog on coaching that will facilitate theoretical development and empirical testing. We surveyed hotel managers to determine what they think coaching is, how they approach it, and how often they attempt to use it. The results of this exploratory analysis uncovered two coaching paradoxes: (1) managers attest that coaching is imperativefor developing high caliber employees, yet they do not understand how coachingfits into the psychodynamics of the workplace; and (2) managers believe that they spend a high proportion of their workday coaching employees, yet critical analysis of their coaching incidents reveals that much of what they believe to be coaching actually is not coaching. Studying both these paradoxes sheds light on three primary misconceptions about coaching: (1) coaching is reactive and either a form of discipline or reward; (2) coaching is training; and (3) coaching requires only part-time attention. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
Key words:
coaching change
training
empowerment
organizational
Introduction
The demands of today's competitive business environment, coupled with customers' increasing service expectations, compel managers to achieve greater levels of productivity and service despite diminishing capital and human resources. In response to this challenge, the manager-employee dynamic has been altered radically. Managers now empower their employees to enable them to work in more self-directed environments that ultimately lead to higher levels of production. As managers have shifted from controlling to empowering their employees, coaching has become an essential managerial tool. By providing a brief overview of the coaching literature and then talking to managers about how they coach, we attempt to open a dialog about coaching that may lead to theoretical development and empirical testing concerning coaching in the workplace.
4
Michelle Krazmien and FlorenceBerger
Literature review The coaching literature can be divided into four domains: (1) the effect of organizational change on the use of coaching; (2) the role of coaching in the field of sports; (3) the practical guidelines to successfully coach employees; and (4) the psychosocial dimensions of coaching.
Coaching induced by organizational change The strategic changes that organizations have made in response to their dynamic environments have been twofold: (1) some organizations have shifted production and service responsibilities directly to line level employees; and (2) other companies, in order to attain more beneficial economies of scale, have reduced the size of their overall employee base. These phenomena have resulted in an empowered workforce---employees have been given greater responsibilities as well as the resources necessary to complete these responsibilities. The concept of training empowered employees to adopt work philosophies that emphasize the value of good customer service has also grown in importance (Thornburg, 1993). Companies can emphasize customer service through a variety of coaching mechanisms, such as simply creating an added awareness by managers and supervisors to stress and reward customer service (Thornburg, 1993). Evered and Selman (1989) extol coaching as an effective managerial tool for getting things done through people. Coaching includes the daily guidance and instruction which helps employees to improve work performance and build competency (Capozzoli, 1993). To accomplish this, coaching involves managerial assistance, guidance, or instruction that focuses on employees' specific performance deficiencies. This process provides the constructive feedback that keeps employees focused on the demands of their job.
The sports coaching analogy Much of the managerial coaching literature compares managerial coaching to coaching for athletics (Lombardi, 1992; Farmbrough, 1991; Chiaramonte and Higgins, 1993). Kanter and Zolner (1986) utilized the sports and business coaching analogy when they suggested that the approach to athletic coaching had changed, resulting in greater decision making by players, and that the approach to business coaching also had changed. They drew the parallel that changes in the business world resulting from both technological development and ever increasing skill levels resulted in greater employee involvement, just as it had in the world of sports. Moreover, they argued that many successful corporate leaders utilized strategies that paralleled those principles followed by successful athletic coaches. Their comparisons focused on several characteristics. First, they emphasized the need for constant improvement and steady performance in both arenas. Second, they underscored the fundamental aspects of both types of coaching--focusing attention both on the development of internal resources and on the development of the group. Finally, they emphasized that both develop a recognition system that rewards the success of the team rather than individuals. Recently, generalized sporting analogies have been challenged. Popper and Lipshitz (1992) contend that during the last 10 years the view of the managerial coaching process has expanded beyond the world of sports. The transfer of strategies from the sporting arena to the business arena oversimplifies the coaching process. While success for both types of coaches depends on how well others perform tasks, their operating environments are
The coaching paradox
5
dissimilar. Thus, sports comparisons are criticized because they fail to incorporate the psychodynamics of the workplace and the importance of environmental analysis.
Coaching guidelines For managers wanting to improve their coaching skills, there exists a plethora of step-bystep guides in academic literature and trade journals alike (Capozzoli, 1993; Gaines, 1993; Aurelio and Kennedy, 1991; Lawson, 1992; Knippen and Green, 1989; Jacobs, 1989; Osigweh and Hutchinson, 1989). While the checklist orientation of these articles outlines the concept of coaching, most unfortunately oversimplify the process. By creating standard guidelines for coaching, ignoring the diverse environments involved, and failing to delve into the psyche of either the manager or the employee, these articles offer only instant solutions, not long term strategies. Case and Kleiner (1992) argue against such narrow thinking. They believe that coaching transcends a formulaic, structured method, or managerial tool. Rather, it is a full scale managerial program individually tailored to guide employees toward maximizing their potential within the working environment. With multiple broad-based programs to choose from, coaching can be developed to fit the individual, the organization, and the situation.
Psychosocialdimensions of coaching There exists a modicum of research that examines the social-psychological dimensions of managerial coaching. A base of literature is emerging that looks at coaching from a mentoring perspective. Kram (1985) and Noe (1988) analyzed how mentoring affects careers through vocational (career coaching) and psychosocial (social support) relationships. Their research revealed that managers who believed that they were mentors utilized both career and social support. Further, Scandura (1992) investigated the link between both vocational coaching and social support and the career mobility of protrgrs. He surveyed a random sample of 244 manufacturing managers and found that those managers who displayed coaching abilities had more employees who moved to higher salarY levels and/or received promotions. This study failed to determine a causal link between coaching and the advancement of protrgrs. Finally, another survey administered to 411 employees of a medium-sized US manufacturing organization determined that the majority of managers and supervisors in the organization did not adjust their roles to coach their employees (Longenecker and Scazzero, 1993). Thus, most of these managers did not fully understand the social-psychological dimension of coaching.
Coaching defined What is lacking in all of this literature is a formal definition of coaching that has a management focus and a comprehensive analysis of how managers coach. Obviously, coaching is a difficult concept to completely grasp--managers understand that, when used correctly, coaching is quite beneficial; however, using it correctly is seemingly quite difficult. In an effort to expand practitioner's as well as academics' understanding of the coaching concept, the following definition is proposed: Coaching is the ongoing process of assessing employee performance and providing constructive feedback for the purpose of clarifying performance standards and motivating employees to improve current job performance.
6
Michelle Krazmien and Florence Berger
By viewing coaching as an ongoing managerial process, coaching allows managers to develop employees' levels of job competence and improve their performance by analysing and discussing (face-to-face) the reasons why the unsatisfactory performance occurred. Further, the ongoing nature of coaching is facilitated through the use of constructive feedback, as managers monitor and support employees' efforts to achieve their performance goals.
An exploratory study To better understand how hotel managers coach their employees, we surveyed 94 hotel managers about the effect coaching has on the overall success of the organization. Managers also answered questions concerning the percentage of their work week spent coaching employees and were given the opportunity to write open-ended descriptions of their three most recent coaching incidents. Content analysis of these incidents was performed to better understand the numerous coaching frameworks under which the managers were working. Our sample consisted of 62 managers and 32 assistant managers; 48 of the respondents were female and 44 were male. Nine departments throughout the hotel were represented with the majority of participants being from the food and beverage department. There were no significant differences found among these subsamples.
Much talk, little walk Every manager in the sample rated the coaching of employees as very important to the hotel's success. Responses about percentage of the work week spent coaching ranged, however, from 0% to 100%, with the distribution skewed to the low end. It is incongruous that most managers spent only a small percentage of their time coaching, given the high importance they ascribe to teaching.
Analysis of critical coaching incidents Every coaching incident that the managers described was coded using the categories (1) accurate and proactive, (2) accurate but reactive, or (3) inaccurate. Definitions for these terms follow: 1. Accurate and proactive coaching occurs when managers have a solid understanding of coaching and utilize its techniques before, during, and after situations occur; 2. Accurate but reactive coaching occurs when managers have a solid understanding of coaching but utilize its techniques only in response to a situation; and 3. Inaccurate coaching occurs when the managers do not understand what coaching is. It is interesting to note that the majority of respondents described coaching incidents that were coded as inaccurate. Thus, it can be inferred that most managers do not actually understand the coaching process. Out of the 45 % of responses which were coded as accurate descriptions of coaching, almost 85% were reactive rather than proactive. Hence, while managers may have some understanding of coaching, they do not utilize coaching techniques to their fullest potential.
The coaching paradox
7
Coachingmisconceptions Analysis of these critical incidents of Section 3 suggests that managers do not fully understand the concept o f coaching. Indeed, three myths, or misconceptions, about coaching are prevalent.
Misconception 1." coaching is reactive and either a form of discipline or reward Employees were using the hotel telephone for personal use. Those using the telephones were given both verbal and written warnings. As a result, illegal telephone use has decreased. I maintain control of the keys throughout all locations of the hotel and utilize proper sign-in and sign-out sheets. Thus, guest satisfaction is ensured. A guest reported that a bellman was driving too fast. I consulted with the bellman and needless to say, he is no longer employed with us. Our bonus system is tied into the coaching process. If employees are doing a good job, they make more money. We have an employee of the month club which awards good performance. Yesterday, an employee went above and beyond the call of duty. I sent him/her a gift certificate for dinner at our restaurant. Coaching does not consist of warnings, either verbal or written, and it does not involve managers keeping control o f all power and responsibility. Furthermore, coaching is neither a reward system nor a component of a compensation or benefit package. Rather, coaching involves assisting employees as they become empowered and begin to take on greater responsibilities. Thus, the first misconception that this research uncovered involved the definition of coaching. M a n y managers regard coaching as a tool used for punishment or reward, after the behavior has occurred. However, inherent in the definition of coaching is a positive, proactive orientation. In fact, coaching should be used as "a positive process of enabling strengths to be used productively" (Allenbaugh, 1983), not in the negative and reactionary ways that some of the managers in our study thought it should. Reward and punishment schemes are closely related in the employees' m i n d s - - w h e n they do well, they are rewarded and vice versa. However, when coaching is utilized in this manner, it loses its effectiveness because employees see it as a direct response to their behavior and abilities.
Misconception 11: coaching is training The front desk was quizzed on market codes and market rates and I explained the importance of tracking business. A new employee to the reservations department is shown how to use the computer terminal in order to take actual reservations. Initial training for new employees is most important regardless of their experience levels. To cross train employees to learn other stations. Instruct clerks one-on-one to show them specifically how some procedures should be completed.
8
MichelleKrazmienand FlorenceBerger
Since coaching can be utilized to teach employees new skills or tasks and should be utilized to improve an employee's current performance, it is not surprising that the line between coaching and training is blurred. In fact, coaching and training, while separate and distinct, are complementary. Virtually every contact with the employee provides an opportunity for coaching. Indeed, coaching should be continuous because, while "training is essential, ...90% of all training objectives will be lost with-out follow-up coaching" (Lorenzen, 1987). Since training is a structured and formal organizational activity, employees often concentrate so intensely on learning new information that practice and follow-up are overlooked. The fundamentals of a new skill are learned or knowledge pertaining to certain issues is increased. Moreover, training is often conducted in large groups. Finally, the employees may not be involved in the decision to train or in the selection of training topics, and the timing of the training may not be suitable. As a result, basics may be learned but finesse usually is not developed. In contrast with training, coaching is less formal and is often provided on an individual needs basis. Managers determine when coaching is appropriate through observation and feedback. Coaching does not replace formal training; rather, it supplements and supports more formal efforts. It is important that you deliberately select coaching as the appropriate method of intervention rather than simply respond by coaching whenever a performance problem arises.
Misconception 1II." coaching requires only part-time attention I coach on an ad hoc basis, usually when approached by an individual for help. I usually address employee concerns during our weekly meeting. Our monthly meeting is devoted solely to coaching the new employees. Last week, an employee asked for me to clarify some standard procedures. He usually asks for help when he needs it. I keep ~i"list of things that I need to address with my employees. Wffen I have a chance, I speak with them. Inherent in the definition of coaching is the element of continuous feedback. Coaching is not a part-time process. Rather it is an ongoing function as managers continually look for opportunities to coach their employees through feedback on performance problems or praise on successful completion of a responsibility. To facilitate this type of coaching, it is important that employees feel comfortable asking their managers questions. This process provides managers with opportunities to coach that are initiated by employees. For this to occur, as managers address employees' questions, they must be careful not to provide quick answers. Instead, they must encourage employees to think through the situations and develop their own'solutions and strategies. Managers can accomplish this by guiding and asking leading questions. When employees' questions are answered with questions, employees are given opportunities to think and to make decisions for themselves, thus facilitating the !earning process. While managers must continually watch for opportunities to coach, when they see that employees need coaching, they must set aside time specifically for this conversation. Such scheduling makes employees feel that their work is essential and warrants attention. This is
The coachingparadox
9
vital because employees who feel important are more likely to react positively to coaching sessions.
A scenario and a three-step model The following scenario provides a useful illustration of how coaching can be applied to a variety of managerial situations: John is a hardworking assistant catering manager. He consistently hands in his weekly reports both punctually and professionally prepared, while maintaining one of the highest bookings figures in the entire catering office. However, John has a problem conveying ideas and information when his is presenting to a large group of people--he rushes through his presentations so quickly that the meaning of the important information is lost. As his direct manager, you have decided to coach him on making formal group presentations. The coaching steps include: Step 1: Observe and assess John's performance: these observations should be accurate, unbiased, and objective--not evaluative. Step 2: Engage in the coaching conversation: This is a seven-level process: 1. Review the employee's responsibilities from the hotel's viewpoint and his or her expectations about the job and its responsibilities: this step allows you to develop a common ground for the discussion. 2. Directly address the problem which has been observed: use clear and specific descriptions. 3. Allow the employee to respond to your assessment of the problem: encourage the employee to respond but keep the discussion on track. 4. Review job expectations with the employee: review your performance expectations and restate learning objectives. 5. Set clear and measurable performance goals: work with the employee to establish concrete and measurable goals. 6. Discuss and develop a plan for improvement: it is important that the employee has a say in how the change process will occur. 7. Secure employee commitment to change: employee must see that there is a problem and want to change the behavior. Step 3: Monitor the employee's progress and provide frequent, timely feedback: this feedback should be specific and may be either positive or negative. Obviously, the three-step coaching model described above can and should be modified to meet the needs of specific coaching situations. This model emphasizes that coaching is neither reactive nor a form of discipline or reward; is not training; and requires more than part-time attention.
Conclusion Managers need a better understanding of coaching as a dimension of their managerial duties. While managers acknowledge the importance of coaching to their organizations,
10
Michelle Krazmienand FlorenceBerger
they are not coaching their employees on a continuous basis. This is unfortunate because the dynamics of today's business environment has led to greater employee empowerment and broad employee responsibilities, thus increasing the need for employees to be coached. The shift away from controlling employees has mandated that managers focus more on helping their employees to grow within their job which further enhances the necessity for coaching. In order to assist managers as they mature into their new role as coaches, managerial research must explore further than present explanations. More research is necessary to help managers better incorporate coaching into their repertoire of managerial tools. This is imperative for the future of managers, employees, and ultimately, the organization.
References AUenbaugh G. E. (1983) Coaching. A management tool for a more effective work performance. Management Review 21-26 Aurelio S. and Kennedy J. (1991) Performance coaching: a key to effectiveness. Supervisory Management 36(8), 1-2. Capozzoli T. (1993) Developing productive employees. Supervision 54(10), 16-17. Case T. and Kleiner B. (1992) Effective coaching of organizational employees. Management Research News 15(10), 1-5. Chiaramonte P. and Higgins A. (1993) Coaching for high performance. Business Quarterly 58(1), 8187. Evered R. and Selman J. (1989) Coaching and the art of management. Organizational Dynamics 18(2), 16-32. Farmbrough H. (1991) Enter the business coach. Management Today December, 68-69. Gaines H. (1993) Ten ways you can help your employees succeed. Supervisory Management 38(2), 8. Jacobs D. (1989) Coaching to reverse poor performance. Supervisory Management 34(7), 21-28. Kanter R. M. a~d Zolner J. (1986) What the "new" coaches can teach managers. Management Review 75(11), 10-1 I. Knippen J. and Green T. (1989) How to effectively coach employees. Supervision 50(12), 3-5. Kram, K.E. 0985). Mentoring at Work. Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL. Lawson K. (1992) First you train, then you coach. Bottomline 9(3), 34-35. Lombardi V. (1992) Coaching for teamwork. Executive Excellence 9(4), 9-10. Longenecker C. and Scazzero J. (1993) Total quality management from theory to practice: a case study. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 10(5), 24-31. Lorenzen J. (1987) How to translate theory into execution. Manage 39(2), 34-35. Noe R. (1988) An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology 41, 457-479. Osigweh C. and Hutchinson W. (1989) Human Resource Management 28(3), 367-383. Popper M. and Lipshitz R. (1992) Coaching on leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 13(7), 15-18. Scandura T. (1992) Mentorship and career mobility. Journal of Organizational Behavior 13(2), 169174. Thornburg L. (1993) Companies benefit from emphasis on superior customer service. HR Magazine 38(10), 46-49.
Pergamon
PII: S0278-4319( 96 )00046-I
Discussion Paper The coaching paradox Michelle Krazmien and Florence Berger Cornell University School of Hotel Administration, Ithaca, New York, U S A
As managers have shiftedfrom controlling to empowering their employees, coaching has become a vital managerial tool. The primary goal of this paper is to begin a dialog on coaching that will facilitate theoretical development and empirical testing. We surveyed hotel managers to determine what they think coaching is, how they approach it, and how often they attempt to use it. The results of this exploratory analysis uncovered two coaching paradoxes: (1) managers attest that coaching is imperativefor developing high caliber employees, yet they do not understand how coachingfits into the psychodynamics of the workplace; and (2) managers believe that they spend a high proportion of their workday coaching employees, yet critical analysis of their coaching incidents reveals that much of what they believe to be coaching actually is not coaching. Studying both these paradoxes sheds light on three primary misconceptions about coaching: (1) coaching is reactive and either a form of discipline or reward; (2) coaching is training; and (3) coaching requires only part-time attention. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
Key words:
coaching change
training
empowerment
organizational
Introduction
The demands of today's competitive business environment, coupled with customers' increasing service expectations, compel managers to achieve greater levels of productivity and service despite diminishing capital and human resources. In response to this challenge, the manager-employee dynamic has been altered radically. Managers now empower their employees to enable them to work in more self-directed environments that ultimately lead to higher levels of production. As managers have shifted from controlling to empowering their employees, coaching has become an essential managerial tool. By providing a brief overview of the coaching literature and then talking to managers about how they coach, we attempt to open a dialog about coaching that may lead to theoretical development and empirical testing concerning coaching in the workplace.
4
Michelle Krazmien and FlorenceBerger
Literature review The coaching literature can be divided into four domains: (1) the effect of organizational change on the use of coaching; (2) the role of coaching in the field of sports; (3) the practical guidelines to successfully coach employees; and (4) the psychosocial dimensions of coaching.
Coaching induced by organizational change The strategic changes that organizations have made in response to their dynamic environments have been twofold: (1) some organizations have shifted production and service responsibilities directly to line level employees; and (2) other companies, in order to attain more beneficial economies of scale, have reduced the size of their overall employee base. These phenomena have resulted in an empowered workforce---employees have been given greater responsibilities as well as the resources necessary to complete these responsibilities. The concept of training empowered employees to adopt work philosophies that emphasize the value of good customer service has also grown in importance (Thornburg, 1993). Companies can emphasize customer service through a variety of coaching mechanisms, such as simply creating an added awareness by managers and supervisors to stress and reward customer service (Thornburg, 1993). Evered and Selman (1989) extol coaching as an effective managerial tool for getting things done through people. Coaching includes the daily guidance and instruction which helps employees to improve work performance and build competency (Capozzoli, 1993). To accomplish this, coaching involves managerial assistance, guidance, or instruction that focuses on employees' specific performance deficiencies. This process provides the constructive feedback that keeps employees focused on the demands of their job.
The sports coaching analogy Much of the managerial coaching literature compares managerial coaching to coaching for athletics (Lombardi, 1992; Farmbrough, 1991; Chiaramonte and Higgins, 1993). Kanter and Zolner (1986) utilized the sports and business coaching analogy when they suggested that the approach to athletic coaching had changed, resulting in greater decision making by players, and that the approach to business coaching also had changed. They drew the parallel that changes in the business world resulting from both technological development and ever increasing skill levels resulted in greater employee involvement, just as it had in the world of sports. Moreover, they argued that many successful corporate leaders utilized strategies that paralleled those principles followed by successful athletic coaches. Their comparisons focused on several characteristics. First, they emphasized the need for constant improvement and steady performance in both arenas. Second, they underscored the fundamental aspects of both types of coaching--focusing attention both on the development of internal resources and on the development of the group. Finally, they emphasized that both develop a recognition system that rewards the success of the team rather than individuals. Recently, generalized sporting analogies have been challenged. Popper and Lipshitz (1992) contend that during the last 10 years the view of the managerial coaching process has expanded beyond the world of sports. The transfer of strategies from the sporting arena to the business arena oversimplifies the coaching process. While success for both types of coaches depends on how well others perform tasks, their operating environments are
The coaching paradox
5
dissimilar. Thus, sports comparisons are criticized because they fail to incorporate the psychodynamics of the workplace and the importance of environmental analysis.
Coaching guidelines For managers wanting to improve their coaching skills, there exists a plethora of step-bystep guides in academic literature and trade journals alike (Capozzoli, 1993; Gaines, 1993; Aurelio and Kennedy, 1991; Lawson, 1992; Knippen and Green, 1989; Jacobs, 1989; Osigweh and Hutchinson, 1989). While the checklist orientation of these articles outlines the concept of coaching, most unfortunately oversimplify the process. By creating standard guidelines for coaching, ignoring the diverse environments involved, and failing to delve into the psyche of either the manager or the employee, these articles offer only instant solutions, not long term strategies. Case and Kleiner (1992) argue against such narrow thinking. They believe that coaching transcends a formulaic, structured method, or managerial tool. Rather, it is a full scale managerial program individually tailored to guide employees toward maximizing their potential within the working environment. With multiple broad-based programs to choose from, coaching can be developed to fit the individual, the organization, and the situation.
Psychosocialdimensions of coaching There exists a modicum of research that examines the social-psychological dimensions of managerial coaching. A base of literature is emerging that looks at coaching from a mentoring perspective. Kram (1985) and Noe (1988) analyzed how mentoring affects careers through vocational (career coaching) and psychosocial (social support) relationships. Their research revealed that managers who believed that they were mentors utilized both career and social support. Further, Scandura (1992) investigated the link between both vocational coaching and social support and the career mobility of protrgrs. He surveyed a random sample of 244 manufacturing managers and found that those managers who displayed coaching abilities had more employees who moved to higher salarY levels and/or received promotions. This study failed to determine a causal link between coaching and the advancement of protrgrs. Finally, another survey administered to 411 employees of a medium-sized US manufacturing organization determined that the majority of managers and supervisors in the organization did not adjust their roles to coach their employees (Longenecker and Scazzero, 1993). Thus, most of these managers did not fully understand the social-psychological dimension of coaching.
Coaching defined What is lacking in all of this literature is a formal definition of coaching that has a management focus and a comprehensive analysis of how managers coach. Obviously, coaching is a difficult concept to completely grasp--managers understand that, when used correctly, coaching is quite beneficial; however, using it correctly is seemingly quite difficult. In an effort to expand practitioner's as well as academics' understanding of the coaching concept, the following definition is proposed: Coaching is the ongoing process of assessing employee performance and providing constructive feedback for the purpose of clarifying performance standards and motivating employees to improve current job performance.
6
Michelle Krazmien and Florence Berger
By viewing coaching as an ongoing managerial process, coaching allows managers to develop employees' levels of job competence and improve their performance by analysing and discussing (face-to-face) the reasons why the unsatisfactory performance occurred. Further, the ongoing nature of coaching is facilitated through the use of constructive feedback, as managers monitor and support employees' efforts to achieve their performance goals.
An exploratory study To better understand how hotel managers coach their employees, we surveyed 94 hotel managers about the effect coaching has on the overall success of the organization. Managers also answered questions concerning the percentage of their work week spent coaching employees and were given the opportunity to write open-ended descriptions of their three most recent coaching incidents. Content analysis of these incidents was performed to better understand the numerous coaching frameworks under which the managers were working. Our sample consisted of 62 managers and 32 assistant managers; 48 of the respondents were female and 44 were male. Nine departments throughout the hotel were represented with the majority of participants being from the food and beverage department. There were no significant differences found among these subsamples.
Much talk, little walk Every manager in the sample rated the coaching of employees as very important to the hotel's success. Responses about percentage of the work week spent coaching ranged, however, from 0% to 100%, with the distribution skewed to the low end. It is incongruous that most managers spent only a small percentage of their time coaching, given the high importance they ascribe to teaching.
Analysis of critical coaching incidents Every coaching incident that the managers described was coded using the categories (1) accurate and proactive, (2) accurate but reactive, or (3) inaccurate. Definitions for these terms follow: 1. Accurate and proactive coaching occurs when managers have a solid understanding of coaching and utilize its techniques before, during, and after situations occur; 2. Accurate but reactive coaching occurs when managers have a solid understanding of coaching but utilize its techniques only in response to a situation; and 3. Inaccurate coaching occurs when the managers do not understand what coaching is. It is interesting to note that the majority of respondents described coaching incidents that were coded as inaccurate. Thus, it can be inferred that most managers do not actually understand the coaching process. Out of the 45 % of responses which were coded as accurate descriptions of coaching, almost 85% were reactive rather than proactive. Hence, while managers may have some understanding of coaching, they do not utilize coaching techniques to their fullest potential.
The coaching paradox
7
Coachingmisconceptions Analysis of these critical incidents of Section 3 suggests that managers do not fully understand the concept o f coaching. Indeed, three myths, or misconceptions, about coaching are prevalent.
Misconception 1." coaching is reactive and either a form of discipline or reward Employees were using the hotel telephone for personal use. Those using the telephones were given both verbal and written warnings. As a result, illegal telephone use has decreased. I maintain control of the keys throughout all locations of the hotel and utilize proper sign-in and sign-out sheets. Thus, guest satisfaction is ensured. A guest reported that a bellman was driving too fast. I consulted with the bellman and needless to say, he is no longer employed with us. Our bonus system is tied into the coaching process. If employees are doing a good job, they make more money. We have an employee of the month club which awards good performance. Yesterday, an employee went above and beyond the call of duty. I sent him/her a gift certificate for dinner at our restaurant. Coaching does not consist of warnings, either verbal or written, and it does not involve managers keeping control o f all power and responsibility. Furthermore, coaching is neither a reward system nor a component of a compensation or benefit package. Rather, coaching involves assisting employees as they become empowered and begin to take on greater responsibilities. Thus, the first misconception that this research uncovered involved the definition of coaching. M a n y managers regard coaching as a tool used for punishment or reward, after the behavior has occurred. However, inherent in the definition of coaching is a positive, proactive orientation. In fact, coaching should be used as "a positive process of enabling strengths to be used productively" (Allenbaugh, 1983), not in the negative and reactionary ways that some of the managers in our study thought it should. Reward and punishment schemes are closely related in the employees' m i n d s - - w h e n they do well, they are rewarded and vice versa. However, when coaching is utilized in this manner, it loses its effectiveness because employees see it as a direct response to their behavior and abilities.
Misconception 11: coaching is training The front desk was quizzed on market codes and market rates and I explained the importance of tracking business. A new employee to the reservations department is shown how to use the computer terminal in order to take actual reservations. Initial training for new employees is most important regardless of their experience levels. To cross train employees to learn other stations. Instruct clerks one-on-one to show them specifically how some procedures should be completed.
8
MichelleKrazmienand FlorenceBerger
Since coaching can be utilized to teach employees new skills or tasks and should be utilized to improve an employee's current performance, it is not surprising that the line between coaching and training is blurred. In fact, coaching and training, while separate and distinct, are complementary. Virtually every contact with the employee provides an opportunity for coaching. Indeed, coaching should be continuous because, while "training is essential, ...90% of all training objectives will be lost with-out follow-up coaching" (Lorenzen, 1987). Since training is a structured and formal organizational activity, employees often concentrate so intensely on learning new information that practice and follow-up are overlooked. The fundamentals of a new skill are learned or knowledge pertaining to certain issues is increased. Moreover, training is often conducted in large groups. Finally, the employees may not be involved in the decision to train or in the selection of training topics, and the timing of the training may not be suitable. As a result, basics may be learned but finesse usually is not developed. In contrast with training, coaching is less formal and is often provided on an individual needs basis. Managers determine when coaching is appropriate through observation and feedback. Coaching does not replace formal training; rather, it supplements and supports more formal efforts. It is important that you deliberately select coaching as the appropriate method of intervention rather than simply respond by coaching whenever a performance problem arises.
Misconception 1II." coaching requires only part-time attention I coach on an ad hoc basis, usually when approached by an individual for help. I usually address employee concerns during our weekly meeting. Our monthly meeting is devoted solely to coaching the new employees. Last week, an employee asked for me to clarify some standard procedures. He usually asks for help when he needs it. I keep ~i"list of things that I need to address with my employees. Wffen I have a chance, I speak with them. Inherent in the definition of coaching is the element of continuous feedback. Coaching is not a part-time process. Rather it is an ongoing function as managers continually look for opportunities to coach their employees through feedback on performance problems or praise on successful completion of a responsibility. To facilitate this type of coaching, it is important that employees feel comfortable asking their managers questions. This process provides managers with opportunities to coach that are initiated by employees. For this to occur, as managers address employees' questions, they must be careful not to provide quick answers. Instead, they must encourage employees to think through the situations and develop their own'solutions and strategies. Managers can accomplish this by guiding and asking leading questions. When employees' questions are answered with questions, employees are given opportunities to think and to make decisions for themselves, thus facilitating the !earning process. While managers must continually watch for opportunities to coach, when they see that employees need coaching, they must set aside time specifically for this conversation. Such scheduling makes employees feel that their work is essential and warrants attention. This is
The coachingparadox
9
vital because employees who feel important are more likely to react positively to coaching sessions.
A scenario and a three-step model The following scenario provides a useful illustration of how coaching can be applied to a variety of managerial situations: John is a hardworking assistant catering manager. He consistently hands in his weekly reports both punctually and professionally prepared, while maintaining one of the highest bookings figures in the entire catering office. However, John has a problem conveying ideas and information when his is presenting to a large group of people--he rushes through his presentations so quickly that the meaning of the important information is lost. As his direct manager, you have decided to coach him on making formal group presentations. The coaching steps include: Step 1: Observe and assess John's performance: these observations should be accurate, unbiased, and objective--not evaluative. Step 2: Engage in the coaching conversation: This is a seven-level process: 1. Review the employee's responsibilities from the hotel's viewpoint and his or her expectations about the job and its responsibilities: this step allows you to develop a common ground for the discussion. 2. Directly address the problem which has been observed: use clear and specific descriptions. 3. Allow the employee to respond to your assessment of the problem: encourage the employee to respond but keep the discussion on track. 4. Review job expectations with the employee: review your performance expectations and restate learning objectives. 5. Set clear and measurable performance goals: work with the employee to establish concrete and measurable goals. 6. Discuss and develop a plan for improvement: it is important that the employee has a say in how the change process will occur. 7. Secure employee commitment to change: employee must see that there is a problem and want to change the behavior. Step 3: Monitor the employee's progress and provide frequent, timely feedback: this feedback should be specific and may be either positive or negative. Obviously, the three-step coaching model described above can and should be modified to meet the needs of specific coaching situations. This model emphasizes that coaching is neither reactive nor a form of discipline or reward; is not training; and requires more than part-time attention.
Conclusion Managers need a better understanding of coaching as a dimension of their managerial duties. While managers acknowledge the importance of coaching to their organizations,
10
Michelle Krazmienand FlorenceBerger
they are not coaching their employees on a continuous basis. This is unfortunate because the dynamics of today's business environment has led to greater employee empowerment and broad employee responsibilities, thus increasing the need for employees to be coached. The shift away from controlling employees has mandated that managers focus more on helping their employees to grow within their job which further enhances the necessity for coaching. In order to assist managers as they mature into their new role as coaches, managerial research must explore further than present explanations. More research is necessary to help managers better incorporate coaching into their repertoire of managerial tools. This is imperative for the future of managers, employees, and ultimately, the organization.
References AUenbaugh G. E. (1983) Coaching. A management tool for a more effective work performance. Management Review 21-26 Aurelio S. and Kennedy J. (1991) Performance coaching: a key to effectiveness. Supervisory Management 36(8), 1-2. Capozzoli T. (1993) Developing productive employees. Supervision 54(10), 16-17. Case T. and Kleiner B. (1992) Effective coaching of organizational employees. Management Research News 15(10), 1-5. Chiaramonte P. and Higgins A. (1993) Coaching for high performance. Business Quarterly 58(1), 8187. Evered R. and Selman J. (1989) Coaching and the art of management. Organizational Dynamics 18(2), 16-32. Farmbrough H. (1991) Enter the business coach. Management Today December, 68-69. Gaines H. (1993) Ten ways you can help your employees succeed. Supervisory Management 38(2), 8. Jacobs D. (1989) Coaching to reverse poor performance. Supervisory Management 34(7), 21-28. Kanter R. M. a~d Zolner J. (1986) What the "new" coaches can teach managers. Management Review 75(11), 10-1 I. Knippen J. and Green T. (1989) How to effectively coach employees. Supervision 50(12), 3-5. Kram, K.E. 0985). Mentoring at Work. Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL. Lawson K. (1992) First you train, then you coach. Bottomline 9(3), 34-35. Lombardi V. (1992) Coaching for teamwork. Executive Excellence 9(4), 9-10. Longenecker C. and Scazzero J. (1993) Total quality management from theory to practice: a case study. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 10(5), 24-31. Lorenzen J. (1987) How to translate theory into execution. Manage 39(2), 34-35. Noe R. (1988) An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology 41, 457-479. Osigweh C. and Hutchinson W. (1989) Human Resource Management 28(3), 367-383. Popper M. and Lipshitz R. (1992) Coaching on leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 13(7), 15-18. Scandura T. (1992) Mentorship and career mobility. Journal of Organizational Behavior 13(2), 169174. Thornburg L. (1993) Companies benefit from emphasis on superior customer service. HR Magazine 38(10), 46-49.