By Rick Fullerton, Ph.D.

This article addresses the assumptions and confusion surrounding performance improvement and coaching. By exploring these areas we may develop new ways of seeing how managers and other members of organizations can work and learn together

Understanding the Context - Control or Empowerment

In exploring performance improvement and coaching with managers, I have noted two recurring themes. For many, performance improvement is a management task that is rooted in assumptions of power and control. When viewed from this perspective, managers see themselves as fulfilling their duty when they take action to define standards, monitor performance, give feedback, instruct employees, and dispense rewards. Those holding this view describe themselves as being responsible, loyal, dedicated, organized, and pro-active in managing the performance of their staff. In this context, standards, order, efficiency, routine, and predictable results are highly valued.

At the same time, many others offer a complementary view, a view where the managers' prime role is to create an environment in which outstanding results are achieved. The focus of these people is on clarifying vision, building capabilities, and supporting staff in expanding their contribution. According to this view, the design of the work process allows natural feedback on performance from many sources - the work itself, clients, suppliers, colleagues, central agencies, as well as the manager. Perhaps most significantly, the managers see their primary role being to support and nurture those who produce organizational results or services.

Those familiar with management literature will recognize MacGregor's classic 'Theory X - Theory Y' assumptions in these two descriptions. An article by Jim Selman and Roger Evered, 'Coaching and the Art of Management', extends this idea and applies it specifically to coaching. Similarly, Laura Divine's article, 'A Coach is a Coach is a Coach?', published in1997 by CCMD, explores the range of approaches to coaching. The key message for managers from these and other sources is that there is a fundamental and continuing tension in most of us, in our teams, in our organizations, and in society, between the need to control and the need to release or empower. This tension has some very practical implications for managers and how performance improvement and coaching are handled.

Let's look now at six dilemmas that this tension produces and explore the implications for managers.

Dilemma #1: Requested versus Imposed Help

It is always easier and more effective to support a request for help in learning or improving than it is to initiate such a conversation as a manager. Ideally, the context and work culture will encourage all members - including the manager - to request coaching and solicit performance feedback when appropriate. Where this is not the case, managers can learn how to address this.

For a more immediate performance concern, perhaps where the individual may not know there is a need to improve, the first step would be to help the person access the relevant information - help them recognize the possibility of improving. If it is simply a matter of providing feedback or new information, this can usually be handled directly. For more complex learning or improvement challenges, it is best to ask permission before proceeding with the matter. This demonstrates a level of respect and mutual interest in the process and the intended outcomes. Most importantly, when people explicitly accept an offer of coaching, they are by definition more committed than when they have no choice in the matter.

Dilemma #2: Fixing versus Nurturing Others

Most managers are predisposed to solve problems. And in organizational hierarchies, those who are promoted to managerial positions are often chosen in part for their skill and track record in getting things done - for fixing things. So it is little wonder that the natural tendency when they see something wrong is to fix it - whether it be a leaky faucet, a crooked picture, or misspelled word, or an inappropriate work habit. Unfortunately though, not many people like to be 'fixed' by others. And as we come to understand the complexities of human behaviour, we also recognize that fixing others can be more difficult and less effective than we might assume.

Dilemma #3: Finding Flaws versus Seeing Possibilities

Managers, at times, may need to take immediate action - as in a crisis. Yet, for the most part, the route to sustained excellence is found in helping people learn - in helping them solve their own problems. Management is more like growing a garden than repairing that leaky faucet.

Managers these days have their hands full with demands to do more with less, to redesign work processes, implement changes, limit expenditures, and satisfy stakeholders. One strategy for surviving is to manage by exception - just pay attention to what is different. Over time, this results in a great ability to zero in on the flaws, while ignoring everything else. Manager excel in seeing what doesn't work, picking apart fuzzy proposals, and criticizing everything and everyone. Some see this as the overuse of the 'devil's advocate' role.

In addition to identifying what is wrong, managers also are called to help create the future by imagining what is possible. When dealing with coaching, this implies being able to see beyond the past or current perceived shortcomings. An effective coach must be able to relate to their coachee based on their potential. Managers are called upon to deal with co-workers and colleagues as people who are continuing to grow and develop. One managerial role is to help them see the possibilities that may be invisible to them and, further, to offer to support them in their learning journey.

Dilemma #4: One way versus Two way Relationship

Many managers believe in their bones that when they are dealing with performance improvement or coaching matters, their role is to be a detached, helpful authority figure. They add value by assessing, informing, instructing, directing, and supporting. For the most part, these are 'one way' communications initiatives, often grounded in assumptions of "I'm OK, You're Not OK". What is significant here is that in typical control oriented interactions, the manager can effectively handle the situation without actually becoming engaged personally in the solution. The focus is totally on the person who receives the help and the relationship might best be described as professional or distant. Certainly, the manager in such a situation would not be expected to share in the learning or improvement personally.

By contrast, other managers seek to create a mutual learning relationship with those they coach or help to improve. As learning partners or committed listeners, they recognize that the juice that makes coaching work is to be found in the quality of relationship. And while perhaps not essential, an element of reciprocity and shared commitment to learning is a very desirable ingredient. So, for these managers, it would be natural to approach the conversation as a joint inquiry where the question is "what can we discover together that will add value".

Dilemma #5: Blaming versus Celebrating Breakdowns

We have all learned that behaviour that is rewarded tends to be repeated, behaviour that is punished is not. These simple yet widely accepted principles guide many of our managerial practices and also much of our social policy. Consequently, managers are tempted to rely on reward and punishment as key instruments of influence in helping improve performance or coach others. That reward and punishment works, at least in the short run, is well supported in both literature and practice. Managers and employees alike can give examples of how they respond to incentive compensation or prospects of negative sanctions. It is also important to recognize that when managers dispense reward and punishment it underlines the power and control dimension of our organizational roles.

With respect to performance improvement and coaching, there are choices about how we look at 'mistakes' - those behaviours that do not produce desired results or that do not conform to defined standards (e.g. shouting at a visa applicant or not delivering a report on time). If instances like these are viewed as 'mistakes' or 'failures or 'personal shortcomings', a typical response would be to punish the offending employee - with criticism, a reprimand, poor appraisal rating or other such consequence. Where the sub-standard behaviour is repeated or becomes a trend, managers may generalize the punishment. The person becomes labeled as a poor performer, becomes the subject of gossip, and becomes a costly and non-productive problem employee. If the situation deteriorates, the only options may be to remove the person from the work place or find ways to cope. Of course, sometimes the reward and punishment works well and the performance improves.

What if we saw organizational behaviour as being the product of a complex system rather than of individual action? The great quality guru, J. Edwards Deming said that virtually all performance problems were the result of poor systems design, not individuals. Given this perspective, and the reality of 'co-lateral damage' when we engage in punishment, we might well question the net benefit of such strategies.

Managers also have other options. An insightful administrator who worked with Agriculture Canada, once said that there were only two options: we were successful or we had a learning opportunity. So if our commitment is to improve, the 'mistake' can best be seen as a gift - for it provides the grist for learning. The deviation from desired performance also flags the opportunity to assess the system design. If managers can create a work culture that both strives for excellence while celebrating breakdowns, it is possible to engage people in significant organizational innovation and learning.

Dilemma #6: Incremental Change versus Step Change

Another dilemma related to performance improvement and coaching involves the type of change that is envisaged. Some managers will naturally look at their past experience, analyze it, find the shortcoming or flaws, and figure out what steps to take to improve things. This process is essential in making organizations efficient at serving stakeholders. And as noted above, good managers excel at this kind of continuous improvement. Indeed, much of the success of modern organizations rests on the shoulders of incremental change, which author Chris Argyris calls 'single loop learning'.

By comparison, managers can also promote 'double loop learning' - fundamental shifts that provide more dramatic shifts in effectiveness. At an organizational level, double loop learning might result in a change of vision or strategic approach (e.g. citizen centered service or government on line). Meanwhile, when we help individuals, double loop learning involves developing new ways of observing or changing the context in which a person operates. For example, when a person begins to see 'breakdowns' as learning opportunities to be shared rather than mistakes to be hidden, great things can happen. Similarly, when people clarify their personal career vision, it frequently releases amazing energy and creativity that was not previously available.

Whether viewed at an individual, team, or organizational level, a step change is associated with a paradigm shift - a new context, vision, or way of seeing the possibilities. Since such breakthroughs are not an extrapolation of the past, before they occur, they are always unpredictable and unprecedented. The roots are in the conversations of those who create them - not in the organizational record books. Yet, as the new context or vision is adopted, as everyone begins to see through the new lenses, all the experiences of the past will appear to make sense and support the new way.

Suggestions for Reflection and Application

In this article, we have explored dilemmas faced by managers as they deal with performance improvement and coaching. Rather than offer easy answers or quick fixes, an attempt was made to shed light on the nature of the tension that exists in people and in organizations as they strive to work together for the common good. In closing, here are some thoughts on how you might continue your exploration of this important topic:

1. When you want to coach someone, ask permission first.
2. Get together with your staff to develop ways to learn from mistakes.
3. Make a list of all the ways in which you like to be controlled by others. Put a star on those you enjoy; two stars for those that add to your work effectiveness.
4. Talk about control and empowerment with your peers. Reflect on what tensions or conflicts you experience. Seek to understand yourself better.
5. Make a list (perhaps with your team / co-workers) of all the things you could do to design a 'high control' workplace.
6. Make a list (perhaps with your team / co-workers) of all the things you could do to design an empowering workplace.