Coaching the Coaches?

Who’s Coaching New Coaches?

When an organisation decides to bring coaching into its culture, the focus is usually on its employees. Yet the coaches themselves are often left to endure rigid training, which stands at odds with the coaching philosophy. If organisations genuinely believe in coaching, why don’t they extend this to their new coaches?

What’s Wrong with Training Compared to Coaching?

Training enforces a rigid structure, pushing predetermined information towards the participant. This approach is inflexible and impersonal, falling short of individual needs. In contrast, coaching is a dynamic, two-way relationship tailored to the individual’s unique needs and objectives.

Why Do Organisations Stick to Training New Coaches?

Many organisations default to traditional training methods, even for roles better suited for coaching. This inclination towards training could be seen as a glaring oversight and a lack of genuine commitment to the coaching approach.

Is Training New Coaches a Misstep?

Absolutely. Training, with its push approach, is fundamentally ill-equipped for roles that demand behavioural change and personal development. Especially in the realm of Collaborative Knowledge Work. By clinging to training for their new coaches, organisations contradict and undermine their supposed endorsement of coaching.

Why Is Coaching New Coaches the Superior Option?

Coaching, unlike training, draws out an individual’s inherent potential. It enhances both the effectiveness and empathy of new coaches and helps foster a real coaching culture within the organisation.

What’s the Next Step?

Organisations might choose to move beyond training and embrace a coaching-centric approach universally, starting with their newest coaches. Doing so is not just lip service to a trend; it’s a necessary evolution for genuine development.

Is Coaching Itself Beyond Reproach?

As we sing the praises of coaching over training, it’s crucial to consider a larger issue: Is coaching itself the end-all solution for organisational development? No. According to quality management expert W. Edwards Deming’s 95/5 rule, most problems (95%) are the fault of the system, not the individual. Coaching often targets individual behaviours—the “5%”—and overlooks systemic issues that could be the root cause of performance limitations. Organisations might choose to scrutinise their coaching programmes to ensure they’re not just treating symptoms while ignoring the disease.

Conclusion: Where Does This Leave Us?

If organisations are serious about adopting coaching, they might choose to apply the coaching approach at all levels, including new coaches. However, it’s worth reflecting on whether coaching itself, focused as it often is on the “5%”, is enough to address the underlying systemic issues that are impeding progress. To achieve lasting change and growth, organisations must consider systemic improvements as paramount. Anything less represents a missed opportunity.