Coaching: Talent Management and Employee Engagement

Quick quiz: What are the two most overheard buzz-phrases in the training and HR fields today?

Talent management and employee engagement.

Talent management – the idea that hiring the right people, developing them in planful ways that benefit them AND the organization, and grooming high potential employees for leadership positions – seems both novel and commonsense at the same time. Novel in that many organizations DON’T do this (or have even considered it). And commonsense in that it seems so glaringly obvious that that’s what we need to do.

Employee engagement is like that as well. Recently Towers and Perrin reported on the growing DISengagement of employees and suggested that successful organizations were those who strategically and systematically engaged employees. Again: WOW! and DUH!

The industry seems to be awakening to the importance of planning for the “care and feeding” of an organization’s most valuable (and highest cost) resource – its people. But what I’m fearful of is that as an industry we won’t recognize HOW to manage talent and HOW to engage employees.

The problem – I believe – lies in the articulation of the problem. To illustrate, let me use a financial example. After much auditing and rechecking, a company finds that its operating costs are double those of the industry average. A proclamation is made by leaders throughout the company to “cut waste” and “trim costs.” Everyone – managers, employees, EVERYONE – agrees that operating costs are too high. Suggestion boxes are strategically positioned and posters are posted. And little happens.

Cost cutting – truly effective cost cutting that results in sustained improvements over time – happens at the individual level; people cut costs one dollar at a time, one paperclip at a time. Reducing waste becomes an individual habit – and eventually, an organizational culture. Leading the charge are the front-line and mid-level managers.

In the same way, engaging and developing employees happens one employee at a time by frontline and mid-level managers. And engaging and developing employees ISN’T simply about being nice! Frontline and mid-level managers need to be able think a) strategically to support their team or department goals and b) individually to address the unique motivational drivers of each team member.

How do effective managers engage employees?

• Provide me – the worker – the opportunity to contribute in a meaningful way to a powerful “cause”.


• Recognize and reward my talents and efforts in a fair, equitable, and transparent way; I want to know that my contributions matter.


• Help me help the organization and myself. Provide me with the direction, tools, training, and opportunity to contribute in meaningful ways.

Engaging employees does not happen by proclamation; it happens one employee at a time. And it happens through engaged, competent managers. There is no greater force in the battle for talent development and employee engagement than talented managers who know how to engage and develop their greatest resource – their staff.

If you manage employees, the burden of talent development and employee engagement lies with you. You don’t need to wait for corporate direction on this one. In my mind, it’s the reason you exist. And it’s the best, hardest job you’ll ever have.

Terry

According to David Sirota, co-author of The Enthusiastic Employee: How Companies Profit by Giving Workers What They Want (Wharton School Publishing), companies who create environments where employee morale is high – such as Intuit and Barron's – tend to outperform their competitors. (The authors' research is based on the results of 2.5 million employee surveys taken since 1994.) For example, the share price of companies who were identified to have high morale increased an average of 16% in 2004, compared to “low morale” companies whose increase was a mere 3% and to the industry average or 6%.

How do you foster high morale? Sirota explains that employees want three things:

• Equity. Employees want to be treated fairly. They want to know that their efforts will result in fair pay. They want to be treated as adults with skills, experience, and potential.
  
• Sense of Achievement. Employees want to be proud of what they do and for the organization they work for.
  
• Camaraderie. Employees want friends. They want to be part of a team.

Sirota further states, “Recognition is also important. Employees do not have to be told that you love them, but you want to be appreciative of good work. It sounds very corny, but people are corny. People need this kind of feedback.”

So, if employee development begins with “catching people doing something right and telling them,” why don’t we as managers do more of this? Why don’t we spend a minute giving employees what they want? Why don’t we spend a minute giving feedback on a job well done and another minute discussing ways to do it even better/faster next time?

What do YOU think?

Credibility and Coaching

Coaching works because there’s an implicit trust between coach and coachee. The coachee trusts the intentions of the coach.

However trust simply is the ticket to the show; it’s the price of admission.

What makes coaching work – REALLY work – is credibility. The coachee respects the credibility of the coach. That credibility comes in a number of flavors, but we’ll focus on the two primary areas where credibility can be built:

• Credibility as a player


• Credibility as a coach

Let’s say that you’re a new classroom trainer. Would you rather be coached by someone who’s never actually trained, or by someone who’s been there and done that? Most of us would prefer a coach with credibility in having done our job.

Now let’s say that you’re choosing between two coaches of equal experience and credibility in doing the job. Would you rather be coached by someone new to the activity of coaching, or by someone who’s coached many others to success before you? Most of us would prefer a coach with credibility as a coach.

So, how do you build credibility with your coachee?

First, recognize that credibility begins with sharing. Having the greatest credentials in the world means nothing if others don’t know about them. What is your experience as a player? As a coach?

Second, appropriately and judiciously reveal your experiences. Share your experiences in context. Here are some examples:

• “That’s a great way to position the product. In my experiences as sales rep, I’ve found that when features are tied directly to customer needs….”


• "I agree. I think one of the highlights of my training career was when I was able to build a relationship with one of my toughest students….”


• “You’re at a breakthrough place with this skill. In my tenure as coach, I’ve seen a lot of folks get to this point….”

Third, use disclosure to build empathy AND credibility. Disclosure is revealing something – maybe a bit more personal than credentials – about yourself. The act of disclosure helps break down barriers. Here are some examples of the coach disclosing:

• “I used to get really nervous before I did a presentation. Actually, I STILL get nervous, but I handle it differently now….”


• “I remember the toughest customer I ever faced. He caused me to turn in my resignation letter. Fortunately, my boss….”


• Note that disclosure should remain at a professional level and it should be helpful to the coachee. Sharing secrets about your family life or gossip about others in the office isn’t disclosure, it’s needy, pathetic, and/or destroys credibility.

Entelechy’s Coaching Model also helps the coach build credibility because the coach’s role throughout the coaching process is primarily to support and build. When the coachee accurately states, “I think if I had practiced the presentation more, I would have been less nervous and would have come across as more confident,” the coach may respond with, “I agree. I know that when I haven’t practiced enough, I feel less confident in what I’m saying. And sometimes, I know that’s cost me the sale….”

Do you agree? Do you disagree? Do you have ways in which YOU build credibility? Tell me what YOU think...

Coaching and the Impetus for Improvement

Over the weekend I was sharing thoughts with two of my favorite authors, Marshall Goldsmith who wrote the current best-seller, What Got You Here Won’t Get You There, and Henry Mintzberg who wrote the revealing book, Managers, Not MBAs.

The subject of our conversation was the impetus for improvement. Marshall had shared an article he wrote in which he and co-author Howard Morgan stated:

Time and again, one variable emerged as central to the achievement of positive long-term change: the participants’ ongoing interaction and follow-up with colleagues. Leaders who discussed their own improvement priorities with their co-workers, and then regularly followed up with these co-workers, showed striking improvement. Leaders who did not have ongoing dialogue with colleagues showed improvement that barely exceeded random chance. This was true whether the leader had an external coach, an internal coach, or no coach. It was also true whether the participants went to a training program for five days, went for one day, or did not attend a training program at all. (Leadership is a Contact Sport, http://www.marshallgoldsmithlibrary.com/docs/articles/LeaderContactSport.pdf)

Henry had actually provoked the discussion by pointing to his website: http://www.coachingourselves.com/, which “offers [managers] a powerful framework to learn from your own colleagues within your own organization.”

I agree that change/development is most effective when the person proactively seeks feedback from others (as Marshall suggests in his article) and dialogue with colleagues (as Henry suggests). Unfortunately, many – I would argue MOST – people in organizations DON’T proactively seek feedback or set up support groups.

My premise is that 10-20% of the population will proactively seek feedback and self-improvement; call them the “talented top”. Ten to twenty percent will actively oppose any change; call them the “belligerent bottom.” The 60-80% in the middle may be receptive to directed development through coaching. Furthermore, I believe that the receptiveness of this “malleable middle” to developmental coaching is the result of things a coach can influence such as the relationship, perceived credibility of the coach, perception of the coach’s motives, etc.

I believe that the coach can influence the coachee’s willingness to change. I believe that HOW a coach coaches will influence the coachee’s reaction – be it defensively digging in or opening up.

Do you agree? Do you disagree? Tell me what YOU think.

Coaching - An Act of NOT Giving

In my experience with coaches, there exists an overwhelming desire to tell the coachee what to do. This, of course, is typically met with an equal and opposite desire by the coachee to NOT do as the coach suggests. I don’t mean that coachees overtly reject out of hand what the coach recommends; coachees tend to defend their approach or their action, or at the very least, explain why they did what they did.

Why this reaction? Why do we humans feel the need to explain ourselves, even when we KNOW that our actions may not have been the smartest?

As much as I think he’s been reading a bit too much of his own press, I do believe that Dr. Phil has a few incredible techniques. The one technique that I have admired most – and the one that seems to immediately turn around a seemingly hopeless situation – is a simple question. When his “coachees” are defensively trying to explain why they did what they did or why they are who they are, he asks, “So, how’s that working for you?”

The question, “How’s that working for you?” cuts through the posturing of “why” and focuses on the real issue – results. Asked another way, “Is doing what you’re doing getting you to where you want to be?”

If the answer is “yes, thank you, I think my approach is working quite nicely,” then there’s no amount of coaching, cajoling, or counseling that will convince the coachee otherwise.

If the answer is “no, that’s not getting me to where I want to go,” then an opportunity for coaching exists.

I believe that coaches would be more effective if they gave LESS of themselves (their insights, their perspectives, their “wisdom”) and act more as an objective mirror.

Do you agree? Do you disagree? Tell me what YOU think!

Time OR Priorities?

Thanks for your posts, everyone. You have sparked more thought!

Time seems to be the big issue, but I think I'm hearing most everyone saying that lack of time is a symptom, not the real problem explaining why managers/supervisors don't coach more.

Lack of time – from my perspective – equals shifted priorities. When managers believe that their responsibilities are to get out the reports, prepare the budgets, manage the expenses, respond to customers, sign the paperwork, prepare the strategy, communicate up, etc., there’s no perceived time for coaching.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that we all agree that managers/supervisors don't recognize coaching as a priority.

How can we reshift the priorities of managers so that they make coaching a priority? (I think there's an intrinsic side and an extrinsic side to this.)

I'm looking for lots of ideas because I'm thinking of putting together a survey of best practices and this would be one area on the survey.

Terry

WHY won’t supervisors and managers coach?

As I prepare to write a book on developmental coaching, one constant nagging question haunts me: WHY won’t supervisors and managers coach?

According to a variety of studies, many employees – good employees – don’t feel that they receive the coaching they need to improve performance. After surveying 2,600 US workers, New York-based Mercer Human Resource Consulting (April 2003) found that:

• Only one-fourth of employees indicated that their managers coach them to improve performance.
  
• Forty-two percent say that their manager gives them regular feedback on their performance.
  
• Just 29% say that they are rewarded when they do a good job.

Towers Perrin, another New York-based consulting firm, concluded from surveying 35,000 U.S. workers that only one-fifth of workers are highly engaged in their jobs. While an equal amount of surveyed workers are disengaged in their work, Towers Perrin suggests that the middle three-fifths – “the massive middle” – offers the best opportunity for managers and supervisors. “Strengthening this group’s level of engagement may be the most critical task virtually every employer faces today.”

Despite the overwhelming evidence that points to the value of coaching as a way to develop talent, encourage growth, engender loyalty, generate commitment, and demonstrate leadership, many people in coaching roles don’t coach.

Why?