Leaders as coaches

Phil Jackson (past basketball coach of Chicago Bulls and Los Angeles Lakers) would never dream of doing it. Neither would Bill Parcells (coach of the Dallas Cowboys). In fact, I can’t think of any sport where the coach would find it acceptable. But, leaders—who are also coaches—do it all the time. What am I talking about? I’m talking about leaders who try to coach employees without ever seeing them in action.

Leaders are coaches.

Leaders, who have supervisory responsibilities for employees, have come to see the value of coaching. Most leaders see themselves as the coach of their direct reports. That is, they see the need to offer their employees insights that will increase the effectiveness and capacity of those employees. I find though, as I coach leaders that many of them who see themselves as a coach spend little to no time actually observing their direct reports “in action” during the game. In other words, leaders try to coach employees without ever watching them do their jobs.

Leaders are coaches.

If there is one quality that marks a coach, it’s proximity. You can’t coach someone for very long from a distance. You have to be close enough to understand that person’s world and how that person operates in that world. Without first hand observation your coaching is, at best, guesswork.

The distant coach has two problems. First, coaching from afar doesn’t allow the leader to form his or her own perceptions about the employee. The data the coach uses to coach is all second hand—either coming from the employee or from those who work with or around the employee. The problems with this are legion and obvious. The distant leader plays more the role of detective, trying to discover what happened or what isn’t happening. This creates a chasm between the leader and the employee. In this scenario, the leader is not an ally with the employee, but a hunter who is gathering information to show the employee where he or she has gone wrong.

The second problem of a distance coach is trust. Trust is also gained through proximity. The closer we move toward each other, the more trust is needed to maintain the relationship. Coaching requires trust because the employee must open himself/herself to the leader in order to receive the insights that will help him/her grow. In return, the leader must earn trust if he or she expects the employee to remain pliable. If a leader, therefore, never watches an employee “in action” it sends a message about that employee’s value. Employees who never experience their leader’s presence are less likely to appreciate that leaders coaching. It’s that simple.

Leaders are coaches.

If you’re a leader-coach, how would your employees rate your proximity? Are you too distant? If so, your coaching is in danger of being received more as unanchored information rather than insight based on observation and engagement. Of course, you can be too close to your employees as well. That’s called micro managing. But that’s for another e-blast. Proximity coaching means that you care enough about the development of your employees to watch them perform. This means you will have to appropriately insert yourself into environments where they are working or leading. As you do this, your credibility will go up in the eyes of that employee and you just might learn new things about a part of your community or organization you had been unaware of up to that point.

Leaders are coaches.

Be close enough to be a good one

Comments

[callie]

Brilliant.