Back to blog

How do we get managers to be better coaches?

Seed Gardener

Recent­ly, we invit­ed behav­iour­al change guru Sam Nether­wood of Mudano to join our own Natasha Wal­lace for a coach­ing con­ver­sa­tion (dis­guised as a webi­nar). Sam is an old friend of Clear Review and was part of the team that imple­ment­ed Clear Review at AQA. Natasha is our Chief Con­scious­ness Offi­cer and, among oth­er things, coach­es every­one at Clear Review and makes sure we bal­ance per­for­mance with wellbeing. 

One of the key take­outs from our recent UK Per­for­mance Man­age­ment Report was a capa­bil­i­ty and avail­abil­i­ty gap. HR lead­ers expressed con­cerns about team man­agers hav­ing the time — and the skills — to hold qual­i­ty con­ver­sa­tions with their team mem­bers. There’s a big ques­tion around the skill gap — we know, for exam­ple, that 80% of organ­i­sa­tions in our research offered train­ing to man­agers to have these coach­ing con­ver­sa­tions — but, for the pur­pos­es of this piece, we’ll focus on availability.

When we look at an employ­ee who’s not grow­ing and devel­op­ing in the right way (in oth­er words, to suit the aspi­ra­tions of the team and the wider busi­ness) we tend to home in on the things they can do to cor­rect this. We might send them on a course. We might even set a Per­son­al Devel­op­ment Plan with a view to giv­ing them tar­gets they need to hit to con­tin­ue in their role. We look at the indi­vid­ual and try to fig­ure out ways that the indi­vid­ual can accom­mo­date the needs of the team. 

The chal­lenge with this, as Sam points out in the webi­nar, is that organ­i­sa­tions are com­plex sys­tems. And it’s dif­fi­cult to improve the per­for­mance of a sys­tem by tin­ker­ing with the indi­vid­ual parts. Every ele­ment inter­acts with oth­er ele­ments, form­ing a depen­dent set of con­di­tions and work­ing parts. Chang­ing one may give you unfore­seen effects in another. 

Now con­sid­er this anal­o­gy: if a gar­den­er plants and nur­tures a seed and the seed dies, he or she doesn’t blame the seed for not grow­ing. The first thing they look to is the envi­ron­ment. Just as it is with our com­plex organ­i­sa­tion or sys­tem, a gar­den is a series of co-depen­dent fac­tors. Soil. Water. Sun­shine. And so on. 

Now let’s go back to our orig­i­nal point. If you want your man­agers to be bet­ter coach­es — bet­ter man­agers, in fact, who are able to take the time and expend the effort to make their peo­ple gen­uine­ly bet­ter and more effec­tive — then you need to ask whether the sys­tem is geared to make that hap­pen. Because as we all know anec­do­tal­ly — and as our research bears out — man­agers spend the vast major­i­ty of their time being sub­ject experts. This exper­tise in their area has got them to where they are, but after a cer­tain point it becomes a lim­it­ing fac­tor. Rather than coach­ing and guid­ing their teams to fill the gap that they’ve left, they con­tin­ue to half-fill the gap them­selves. Much of their time is spent mark­ing” oth­er people’s work; point­ing out errors; immers­ing them­selves in the detail. The best esti­mate, tak­en from a num­ber of stud­ies in this area, is that most man­agers spend no more than 15% of their time (and usu­al­ly much less than that) actu­al­ly man­ag­ing peo­ple. And the sys­tem sup­ports them in this. Very rarely is a man­age­r­i­al role geared towards improv­ing the effec­tive­ness and expe­ri­ence of the peo­ple who work for them. 

Man­agers need to be incen­tivised to man­age. It needs to become a require­ment of their role: some­thing that they are encour­aged to do and mea­sured on. Train­ing can be help­ful here, but even the right train­ing isn’t always deliv­ered in the right way. Take coach­ing con­ver­sa­tions and future-focussed feed­back: we take peo­ple out of their dai­ly work­ing lives and send them off to do a course in how to do these things more effec­tive­ly, then we drop them back in their same old envi­ron­ment and ask them to apply what they’ve learned. But we don’t often stop to ask whether the con­di­tions are right for them to act on this new knowledge. 

What does that mean? It could mean giv­ing peo­ple room to fail, for exam­ple: offer­ing peo­ple with the right poten­tial enough auton­o­my to learn and devel­op whilst being aware that they may make a mess of the project. Fail­ure can be a valu­able learn­ing tool. But cre­at­ing safe-to-fail” con­di­tions takes time and plan­ning: resources that are always in short supply. 

There’s a huge amount of wis­dom in this webi­nar, includ­ing exam­ples from Sam’s own expe­ri­ence in behav­iour­al change, all sup­ple­ment­ed by Natasha’s vast expe­ri­ence pro­mot­ing psy­cho­log­i­cal safe­ty and sus­tain­able high performance. 

You can lis­ten to the full webi­nar here.

You can down­load our lat­est research, the UK Per­for­mance Man­age­ment Report 2019, here.

Relat­ed articles

Employee Coaching: Strategies for Success
We’ll break down everything you need to know about successful employee coaching and provide strategies to garner a culture of corporate coaching.
Read article
The conundrum of the manager-coach
Are we asking too much of managers? Our data suggests that employees have an appetite for more performance conversations that managers don't have the time or training to fulfil. Discover the detail in the UK Performance Management Report 2019.
Read article