Does Coaching work in any kind of organisation? As you probably guessed: no. In this podcast, we expand on the previous episode and talk about some of the organisational factors that should be in place to make coaching work.
We will borrow Rinses Likertβs timeless model of 4 organisational styles to show where coaching fits in. These styles are:
Your organisation is characterised by force and punishments. Not much carrot, mostly sticks. The organisation is used to be lead from the top. Members of the workforce participate to execute work, but are not expected to contribute ideas.
How does Coaching fit in here? Not much at all. In a system such as this, Leaders who want to coach will likely be met by peers who do not agree and team members who do not appreciate it. Coaching will likely be seen and used a tool to fix people and correct them.
It is strange to the outsider, but there are still many organisations out there that are mainly ruled by fear. Itβs a sad state, and unfortunately, as simple coaching intervention wonβt help much to fix that.
A benevolant authoritative Leader is still firm in their authority position. However, their motive is positive/benevolant towards the well-being of their people. They still believe that a patronising approach is the best choice and they will invite ideas and solutions from their people very sparingly. Decisions are still made by Leadership. Communication is mostly downward and in the style of telling.
The benevolence definitely makes it less of a threatening experience. However, constant patronising and lack of autonomy of team members and workforce will in the end lead to a good degree of apathy. Productivity is generally still quite low with this style.
Itβs again surprising, how many organisations there are in which seemingly all members (Leaders and Followers) have neatly arranged themselves in their system of mutual dependency. The βoldβ Japanese company contract comes to mind for me. The invisible contract, seen from the employee point of view: βYou hire me for a lifetime, I do whatever you say and trust you look after me. As long as you do, I am loyalβ.
If this exists, Leaders have already gained a deep sense of the value of the possible contribution of their team members. They will deliberately seek their input before decisions are made. This could be typically for two reasons: (1) to find great ideas that the Leader has not considered and/or (2) to make people feel involved and create engagement this way.
The most enlightened Leaders who use this approach will even consult and involve their team members for team-based goal setting.
Now, the really important driver for this system to work well is the feedback loop: If employees see that their contribution was considered and shaped the outcome, it motivates and engages them to do this again. If employees see that they are being asked for input, but what they say just ends up
in a black hole with no response whatsoever, they will learn that it is a waste of time.
In the end, an organisation that manages to move from a mostly benevolant authoritative system to a consultative system can win a lot of trust with their workforce if they do it well.
This final system is most closely related to high productivity and motivation. Members of the workforce are expected to participate in decision-making by default. Leaders just know itβs better business and it is the main reason why they hired their people.
In this style, Leaders want to resort to authoritative measure only as a last resort. They know that by pulling rank and relying on positional power, they destroy trust and discretionary effort. Leaders in this system will want to form equal partnerships with their team members on the types of work that really matters.
Lastly, Leaders in this system exhibit a strong Coaching Mindset, that means they just believe that their people have lots to give if they just have the freedom.
These 4 organisation styles can exist at any level in your organisation. If you are unlucky to live in an exploitative authoritative company, the idea of coaching wonβt thrive for example. However, you coulld also be in a Silicon Valley startup that is participative in general, but where our immediate Manager establishes rank and becomes coercive and dictating.
What science shows is that the last link matters the most. The own Line Manager is the direct link between a member of the workforce and the organisation. If that Line Manager establishes a participative system and uses coaching as a dominant leadership style, they have a chance to reap much higher engagement and productivity from their team members.
-Maik
Resources: Rinses Likertβs 4 Organisational Styles: https://www.businessballs.com/organisational-culture/likerts-management-systems/
Maik Frank
Maik is a PCC Executive Coach and the founder of IntelliCoach.com. He has coached and trained over 400 People Leaders to improve their communication skills and offers guaranteed measurable growth to his clients. He also hosts the Coaching Leader Podcast.
Follow me
π LinkedIn
Get 1 Coaching Skills per Week
Every Sunday, we pick a tool, idea or skill from our paid courses and share it for free in our 1% Better Newsletter! You get practical things to apply right away in your upcoming conversations!
Feedback from our Readers:
"I am inspired to thank you for the valuable input that arrives in the inbox every week. Every Sunday, I take something from it for the coming week β thank you for that!" (Joachim H.)
"Super helpful. I'm in this position mentioned in the newsletter at the moment with a new coworker. I've used the suggested line with a level of success! I'll give this a go this week as well." (Mark D.)
"This is golden, Maik! You read my mind with this newsletter. Thank for you many times!" (Mubina A.)
π’ IntelliCoach Pte Ltd.
Based in Singapore
UEN 201814680E
π Contact Us
π₯ About us
We create a world where every People Leader knows how to coach their team members. We give Leaders and Teams a magical toolkit to increase their performance and growth.