How you SHOULD introduce a coaching culture...utopia vs pragmatism

The landscape of organisational culture has been in rapid evolution over the past couple of decades, with the idea of "coaching cultures" in particular gaining significant traction. And why wouldn't we be enthusiastic about coaching cultures? The vision of a coaching culture is one full of resilient employees who feel empowered, teams that proactively collaborate behind a shared purpose and processes that continuously innovate.

The reality in many cases, however, tends to leave something to be desired. Organisations that have operated for decades under a command-and-control structure stumble through workshops in which leaders seem to be told they need to:

• stop giving instructions and start asking open questions instead
• stop giving judgemental feedback and start valuing people for "bringing their whole selves to work", warts and all
• stop worrying about hitting operational metrics, instead make sure you switch your phone off to spend more time with the family and encourage your team members to do the same

In some cases it's not just true that they seem to be told these things, they're laid out for them in black-and-white as the Only Correct Approach to take.

When should the dream stay as a dream?

For some people the attraction of the utopian vision for what a coaching culture could be is intoxicating. It's an evergreen garden in which individuals glide along at their own pace, naturally leaning into personal development through the power of questioning and self-discovery.

But we live in the real world. The deadlines that were looming are still very much present, and the bottom line is as paramount as ever. The true sustainability and effectiveness of an approach that people have an aversion to, especially when it appears to be affecting the numbers, is unsurprisingly going to be called into question.

One of the key challenges organisations face when adopting a coaching culture is in the fundamental tension between a coaching mindset and the need for senior leaders to make decisions with authority.

Leaders can feel put under pressure as the expectations on them change, forcing them to have to adapt the fundamental pillars of their people leadership. The role of a leader in a coaching culture relies on a level of ambiguity, where the boundaries of accountability become blurred.

Where does accountability live in a coaching culture?

Perhaps the most extreme version of this is in those organisations who have taken on the vision of Frederic Laloux 's fascinating book Reinventing Organizations. In it, certain key principles of Spiral Dynamics are applied in an organisational setting to suggest that organisations can evolve to become self-managed (referenced as "teal" organisations). In these sorts of organisations the emphasis is on distributed decision-making and the empowerment of individuals.

One organisation in particular I'm currently involved in, Chiltern Music Therapy , has introduced this sort of approach. In the way they work as empowered individuals and teams they demonstrate the potential this sort of approach can have in helping an organisation thrive. The effectiveness of the organisation as a whole is improved as therapists can make impactful decisions as part of their day-to-day; it's not without its challenges, but which organisation is?

The reality for most organisations is that flattened hierarchies don't appear overnight and in a lot of cases might not be attractive. Stories like the London Whale in which an estimated $2 billion was lost come about specifically because of the lack of supervision and oversight of working practices. Even within the coaching profession, which prides itself on being non-directive, we have the Global Code of Ethics and the ICF's Code of Ethics , which show no shame in telling us how we should behave.

Who are we to look to?

An independent coach and HR consultant is a client of mine and gave me permission to share about an interaction we had. In one of our sessions she was talking about an organisation she was working with, which had appointed her to introduce frameworks supporting a coaching culture, based on a report written by a third party.

She expressed her frustration about how the report's recommendations section was overrun by instructions and advice. "Every sentence includes the word 'should'!" she pointed out. "They shouldn't do that if they're looking to establish a coaching culture."

"Shouldn't they?" I asked, putting blatant dramatic emphasis on her own use of the word she'd rejected only a second before.

Sometimes those of us who support organisations in adopting coaching cultures risk confusing the power of non-directiveness with an idea that being directive is always inappropriate. And yet this perspective is transparently hypocritical; telling people they must not give instructions is like celebrating somebody having given up smoking by offering them a cigarette.

In this sort of arena it's common for people to feel confused. How to actually introduce a coaching culture, no honestly is the sort of title we expect to see at every coaching conference. Do we need to challenge ourselves more on what space we provide for expert advice, even within coaching cultures?

I have a memory - I may have invented it - of a line from the film The Incredibles. In it, the bad guy has put effort into creating technology that offers everybody the ability to become a superhero and he says something like: "In a world where everyone's incredible, no-one is."

There are many potential sources of expertise, and it's important that we don't mistake the equal inherent worth of every individual with the distinct value some individuals provide in certain circumstances. If, in our adoption of coaching cultures, we devalue subject matter expertise and appropriate leadership authority, we'll inadvertently stifle the very innovation and growth we're looking to catalyse.

What does this look like when it's done well?

To achieve a truly sustainable and effective coaching culture, we need to strive for a more nuanced and mature approach. This means balancing the benefits of empowerment and self-discovery with the need for strong leadership, particularly in large and complex organisations where the potential impact is that much greater on its employees and the wider systems with which they interact.

Doing this demands a recognition that there are times when directive instruction and expert advice are not only appropriate but absolutely essential for driving growth and success in alignment with a shared purpose.

Perhaps the ultimate key to success lies in selectively incorporating the best attributes of coaching cultures in a piecemeal fashion, introducing each at a rate appropriate for the organisational context. For example, active listening is a good habit for all of us to develop, and the quality of a leader is probably directly correlated with the quality of their reflective practice (Side note: Organisations that want their leaders to act more like coaches should probably introduce a framework of "leadership supervision").

Alongside these examples there might be vital roles that justify being preserved indefinitely, such as individual accountability and commensurate decision-making authority. Organisations that successfully strike this delicate balance will create an environment that harnesses the power of coaching skills throughout its operations, while still maintaining the clarity and direction necessary for long-term success.