Great coaches are not always managers
Is coaching a sole responsibility of managers in your organization? Then you might need to think about it again.
In the real work environment, managers face too many demands and too much time pressure, and working with subordinates to develop skills tends to slip to the bottom of the to-do list. To understand how managers can improve coaching and developing their team, Gartner surveyed 7,300 employees and managers across a variety of industries; they followed up by interviewing more than 100 HR executives and surveying another 225. The focus was to identify what the best managers are doing to develop employees in today’s busy work environment.
The research identified four distinct coaching profiles:
1. Teacher Managers coach employees on the basis of their own knowledge and experience, providing advice-oriented feedback and personally directing development.
2. Always-on Managers provide continual coaching, stay on top of employees’ development, and give feedback across a range of skills.
3. Connector Managers give targeted feedback in their areas of expertise; otherwise, they connect employees with others on the team or elsewhere in the organization who are better suited to the task.
4. Cheerleader Managers take a hands-off approach, delivering positive feedback and putting employees in charge of their own development.
The revelations in the research relate not to the prevalence of the various styles but to the impact each has on employee performance.
Surprising insights:
- There is very little correlation between time spent coaching and employee performance. It’s less about the quantity and more about the quality.
- Those hypervigilant Always-on Managers are doing more harm than good. Employees coached by Always-on Managers performed worse than those coached by the other types—and were the only category whose performance diminished as a result of coaching. This is due to 3 reasons: 1. The continual stream of feedback they offer can be overwhelming and detrimental; 2. They spend less time assessing what skills employees need to upgrade, they tend to coach on topics that are less relevant to employees’ real needs; 3. They are so focused on personally coaching their employees that they often fail to recognize the limits of their own expertise.
- In finding the connection between coaching style and employee performance, the research found a clear winner: Connectors. The employees of these managers are three times as likely as subordinates of the other types to be high performers.
- The Connector coach outsources the coaching to other experts instead of doing it all by himself. The coach remains deeply involved, identifying expertise, facilitating introductions, and monitoring progress.
Adopting this type of coaching behavior requires a shift in mindset because being a Connector requires a manager to recognize that he’s not qualified to teach a certain skill and to admit that deficiency to a subordinate. This is something that doesn't come naturally.
But to get started, here are some suggestions from the researchers:
1. Focus on the depth and quality of development conversations
- Understand your employees’ aspirations and the skills needed to develop towards that direction
2. Open up the conversations on personal development up to the team
-Encourage team members to help one another and allow the to coach each other. Let them benefit from each other's strengths.
3. Broaden the scope by connect with colleagues across the organization
-This will also enhance the relationship building skills of your staff and grow their network within the organization. In addition, most of the time there are many talent in other departments who are very willing to share. Take advantage of it.
“The big takeaway is that when it comes to coaching employees, being a Connector is how you win.” - Gartner
Source:
Coaching vs. Connecting: What the Best Managers Do to Develop Their Employees Today,” by Gartner (white paper)
Managers Can’t Be Great Coaches All By Themselves. Harvard Business Review (May-June 2018)