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.