Why Coach?

Research tells us that classroom training (whether it be real or virtual) is only appropriate for 15% of development needs (Rummler 1995). Not only does this cause concern about the effectiveness of training events, it also raises the tantalising question of what is appropriate if training is not?

The broad answer is workplace rather than classroom development. Research shows that regular interaction, rather than one-off events, leads to enhanced skills and increased performance.

The diagram above has been created as a result of applying a range of performance improvement techniques to varying organisations over a 20 year period. It indicates that with a 'clean sheet of paper' (i.e. no preconceptions or bad habits, as with new starters or new roles), people easily accept, in a training environment, the acquisition of new skills and approaches and the need to master them.

However, with individuals that already have a perception of what is right and wrong and, in some cases, extremely entrenched opinions, a different approach needs to be used. Not only do we need to explain why new skills are needed, we also need to sensitively reassure people that they and their (old) skills are not redundant, but need to be adapted and updated.

If we are attempting to change behaviour, as opposed to initiating it, coaching is shown to be a more effective tool.

In order to develop further the rationale for this model and the positioning of coaching, we need to be familiar with the relationship between management intervention and performance/behaviour change.

With individuals that already have a perception of what is right and wrong and, in some cases, extremely entrenched opinions, a different approach needs to be used.

The US organisation Technikron, specalists in performance measurement, conducted research into the level of intervention needed to drive behavioural change.

They concluded that to change behaviour, a manager needs to interact with an individual, on average, 2-3 times a week. This raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of more traditional performance management tools, such as annual appraisal and performance reviews.

While we accept that most good managers talk to their people more often than just at appraisal time, our experience tells us that this is not a series of regular interactions which are carefully planned to reinforce changes in behaviour and provide coaching, when needed.

Danger of re-training

There seems to be growing evidence that organisations accept that people will go through the same training (refreshers) at regular intervals. This implies two unhealthy traits within the organisation:

• There is no consequence for not applying skills in the workplace; and
  
• People can take away and/or apply as much or as little as they like.

Once this becomes accepted practice it also has an impact on the quality of training delivered. If people are not measured in their application of what they have learnt, then the training does not need to ensure comprehension, let alone competence.

The other major implication is centred on who is nominated for training in the first place.

Research suggests that the primary reason for training is poor performance or skill weakness, but those with areas for obvious development are not those who implement training well and willingly in the workplace. There is clear evidence that, "those who need it most use it least" (Dettaman and Steinberg, 1993).

Questions must therefore, be raised about both the economics of re-training and the validity of the practice.

The Skill Development Model and its implications

The model above shows that individuals go through three stages when acquiring skills. Typically, the first and last stages, those of awareness and application, are workplace activities and in the main, management responsibilities. The two figures on the left hand side of the model illustrate important points. The 35%-40% marks the point where people end up after training (on a competence scale of 1%- 100%). This means that the majority of the acquisition of competence takes place in the workplace.

It is broadly accepted within the training fraternity that while training allows people to explore new ways of doing things and hopefully exposes them to 'best practice', it does not create experts.

If expertise is acquired in the workplace and not the classroom, then we must ensure that development activities happen there. Primarily, people need to be given feedback on their competence and coached.

Without specific application strategies, companies are wasting between 91 and 95 cents of every dollar they spend on training.

Prosell's 20 years experience tells us that, proportionately, time and effort needs to be expended in the following areas to successfully take an individual through the skill development process:

• Awareness 25%
  
• Practice 35%
  
• Application 40%

The 5%-9% figure expressed in the model is where the research tells us people end up after 4 - 5 months if nothing is done in the application phase.

This is a startling figure and perhaps explains why many people in business have a cynical view of the value of training. It seems they are right. Without specific application strategies, companies are wasting between 91 and 95 cents of every dollar they spend on training.

Practice and feedback

It is commonly understood that people develop skills through one primary mechanism, practice and feedback. Conventional training tends to be squeezed for time and it is inevitably the practice sessions that are sacrificed. Too much content and not enough practice creates uncertainty in application, through issues of confidence and competence.

If a person cannot, through practice, feedback and practice again, achieve a point of competence ("I have practiced this to the point where I feel competent to do it in the workplace"), they have no confidence in applying skills.

The implications of this are that many people (over 75% in one study) actually avoid applying skills trained because they have no confidence that they will be effective.

Those organisations that use coaching as a development tool do not seem to face these issues.

Near and far learning

Noted behavioural scientists, Detterman and Steinberg, published a book in 1993 entitled Transfer on Trial. The book focused on the issue of learning transfer (the measurable transfer of learning and skills from classroom to workplace).

Their research concluded that 86% of training did not transfer effectively due to a lack of measurement, support and feedback (all key components of coaching). They also spoke about the difference between near and far learning as a critical issue.

Far learning means completing exercises which are broad, generic and explore our understanding of principles. Detterman and Steinberg’s research concluded that people found it difficult to relate broad principles to specific work situations - and as a result did not apply skills effectively.

Near learning produces significantly better results. It involves focussing on the specific skills needed, through customised and intelligently constructed exercises, so that the individual is practicing exactly what they are being asked to do in the workplace.

Coaching is the ultimate example of near learning - it says to the individual, "We are going to practice this until you feel you are doing it effectively and then evaluate as you do it live". As a result it is significantly more effective in ensuring learning transfer.

Performance management and coaching

Performance management practices (appraisal, review, goal setting, etc) all become uncomfortable, bureaucratic exercises if those responsible cannot add value and direction through coaching. If neither party feels value is being added by the other, then both view the process as lacking in worth and tend to avoid it.

This also is reflected in a more serious deficiency that is commonly observed in management practice. If a manager cannot rectify a performance deficiency they seem to imply that this is not their responsibility but solely that of the individual.

These situations end up with a management style of “I point out your weaknesses and you have to fix them”. If one considers the fact that research tells us that the main reason people leave jobs is dissatisfaction with the way in which they are managed (Institute of Directors, UK survey, 1989), then managers’ inability to coach and develop may be having a much more serious impact.

By contrast, the repetoire of a good coach is much broader, with the need to demonstrate a reasonable grasp of:

• Performance management
  
• Motivation
  
• Counselling
  
• Development and support
  
• Evaluation and feedback
  
• Performance measurement
  
• Goal setting and KPI tracking

Feedback also tells us that competent coaches add genuine value to their team and have much better relationships with their people. Becoming a competent coach, therefore, also creates competency in a number of essential areas.

_{References: Douglas Dettaman and Robert Steinberg, Transfer on Trial: Intelligence, Cognition and Instruction, Ablex Publishing, 1993
Geary Rummler and Alan Brache, Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space in the Organisation Chart, Jossey-Bass Inc., 1995}

Peter Fullbrook, CEO, Prosell. Established in 1985 and with offices in Sydney, New York and London, Prosell are at the forefront of providing blue-chip organisations with proven, thorough and objective-led performance-improvement solutions. Our exhaustive knowledge of both business and consumer markets has helped create a portfolio of services, all aimed at creating and delivering sustainable, quantifiable improvement in both domestic, European and Asian environments. Phone the Australian office: 1300 559 493 or visit the Prosell Web Site: www.prosell.com.au
First published: 8 August 2005.
Last updated: 30 May 2006.