We are all aware of the growing proliferation of "executive coaches" and the increased use of their services in corporations wishing to leverage leadership as a competitive advantage. My sense is that the demand is outpacing the supply, which has allowed many well-intentioned (and maybe ambitious or desperate) people to wake up one morning and proclaim, "Hey, I'm a coach!" In response, more organizations are looking harder at credentials, such as certification through processes approved by the International Coach Federation (ICF).
If there is good news in this proliferation, it is the possibility that coaches can be made accessible to layers of leaders below the most elite ranks. This is the population that we at Kenexa often encounter when trying to help mid-level managers productively use the feedback they receive through the 360 feedback processes. There is an increasing interest in using phone coaching as a cost-effective means to provide coaching resources to leaders who are receiving feedback for the first time, to leaders may have difficult messages to absorb and respond to, and to those who simply need help in planning the next steps. Another method is to train a cadre of internal coaches to perform a similar role.
"Coaching" in the context of 360 feedback is quite different from traditional coaching relationships that exist over multiple sessions, which can last three to six months, and include a wide range of objectives, depending on the goals of the leader. The type of coaching I am addressing in this article usually comprises one or two sessions, generally over the phone, and lasts 60-90 minutes (sometimes longer). The goals of the session can vary slightly depending on the leader's experience with 360 feedback and his/ her situation, but more typically, the goals have been predetermined and communicated to the participants and usually include:
This type of interaction requires that the coach do more talking and guiding than is advisable under the typical coaching process. Given the limited amount of time, there is great pressure to accomplish the goals because there typically is no opportunity to carry the discussion over to another session. In these settings, the coach will have worked with the organization to agree on some standard process recommendations that must be consistently communicated during coaching (e.g., how to do the development planning). When coupled with the coach's deep expertise in 360 feedback, it is inevitable that a fair amount of guiding will occur. Instead of the recommended 80:20-listening-to-talking ratio for the coach, it is normal to have a ratio closer to 50:50 during this type of coaching session.
Calling this "coaching" may also be problematic in terms of setting unrealistic expectations (or fears), particularly if the leader has prior experience with a coach. I struggle to suggest alternatives, but some labels that come to mind are "feedback coaching" or "facilitated feedback." Whatever we call it, this type of coaching should be clearly defined, taking into account not only the goals of the process, but a clear definition of the roles of the participants, including the leader, his/her manager (boss) and the coach.
The Roles of Participant, Boss and Coach I recently reviewed the first draft of a manuscript for a new book on 360 feedback, which motivated me to begin thinking about writing this treatise. The author's philosophy was very much focused on the "development only" use of 360 feedback, which, if you have read any of my other articles, you know I believe to be problematic. To that point, this soon-to-be-published book frequently notes the value of a coach in the context of 360 feedback and ignores the possible role of the participant's manager, whom we will call the "boss" in this trilateral relationship of coach, boss and participant.
Bypassing the boss in this approach is somewhat of a necessity in the pure "development only" scenario because those proponents most often recommend (or even require) that the feedback data NOT be shared with anyone other than the participant (and coach, when applicable), including (or especially) the boss. Not sharing the feedback with anyone is supposed to create a "safe" environment for the participant who can then use the feedback in any way he/ she sees fit, including doing nothing with it. Not sharing with the boss is particularly important because the boss can be reasonably expected to be in some way influenced by the data when making future judgments and decisions about the participant, including performance ratings.
In this trilateral relationship, the coach then becomes the confidant and advisor for the participant in lieu of the boss. How ludicrous is that? In most cases, the coach is expected to help guide the participant toward the accurate, constructive use of the feedback in a virtual information vacuum that is created by having no insights beyond what the feedback report provides and the participant chooses to share. (By the way, this information vacuum is compounded by not sharing and discussing the feedback with the feedback providers because that is prohibited. Nevertheless, that's an article for another day.)
Limitations of the Coach As noted earlier, the extent of the coaching relationship is typically limited to one or two meetings (usually by phone), especially if the coach is an external resource who is being paid for on a fixed rate. There can be more flexibility in the access to the coach if he/she is a trained internal person. Nonetheless, the coach should be an independent trained professional, which usually means that he/she will not have a current working relationship with the participant.
Some challenges created by this setup: The coach has limited knowledge of the participant's history and current situation. Remember that we are assuming that this relationship will last for a limited, fixed period—down to even one session. Given the need to focus on the feedback data, this will give the coach limited time to understand the context of the feedback. This can sometimes be addressed partially through some pre-coaching questionnaires, but we know those vary widely in quality, thoroughness and even honesty. Speaking of honesty, we must assume that the participant will be reluctant to share the bad stuff—information that the boss is more likely to have access to.
The coach will be forced to make assumptions (and encourage the participant to do the same) about the meaning of the feedback. We know that 360 feedback is a very artificial form of communication and is accomplished initially by raters checking boxes and maybe offering write-in comments. Then, depending on the design of the feedback report and the participant's abilities, he/she must try to figure out what the messages are. The probability of error in this process is extremely high. The raters, for example, may be reading something into an item that is much different from its original intent, or may be giving a rating that really is more about the rater's personal agenda than the behavior of the participant. Regardless, it is almost impossible to expect that a biased participant and an uninformed coach will come to the correct conclusion about the message and resulting action plan all the time. In effect, this is misdiagnosis and improper prescription, as noted in the book, How Doctors Think.
The solution: the participant must review his/her feedback with the raters to confirm (or disconfirm) the feedback and to engage them in the creation of the development plan and, ideally, follow through in the coming months. The coach's job is to encourage the participant to have an open mind until hypotheses can be confirmed, similar to doctors in How Doctors Think where the author proposes, "Sometimes the key to success is uncertainty."
What is most important to address from the feedback may not be just the lowest scores. As coaches, we are constantly battling the leader's immediate tendency to jump to the lowest scoring items and obsess on those. For starters, this ignores the high scores, or strengths, which is also the good news that the participant should celebrate and continue to leverage. We also know that 360 feedback scores are typically generated by small groups of raters where one or two raters can have too much influence on the scores. Outlier ratings may also be due to the phenomenon previously described where people have different interpretations of words, such as "resources," which can run the gamut from budget to time to equipment to information to who knows what. In the end, the question of what is most important is a decision that should be made between the participant and his/her boss.
The coach will eventually (or even immediately) exit the relationship. With most of our clients, the ultimate objective of the 360 feedback process is to create sustainable change in behaviors valued by the organization (i.e., leadership competencies). Since the coach cannot be around to create accountability and alignment, it will fall to the boss to ensure that there is follow-through on the part of the participant. This is true of almost all coaching relationships, but is particularly salient in this context when the duration may only be one or two sessions. It only makes sense that the boss be part of the process from the very beginning to allow him/her to do his/her job. In fact, some clients will design the process to have the meeting with the coach to also have the boss present.
The coach will have limited knowledge of what is a good "SMART" development plan. Different organizations will define the SMART acronym using various terms, and a coach who is removed from the real situation can do a pretty good job in reviewing development objectives for things like specificity, measurability, actionability and timeliness (or time-bound). One important part of most SMART definitions is Realistic, a requirement that has direct implications for having access to resources that are usually under the control of the boss. Ultimately, the boss is typically the "keeper of the key" to the development kingdom, that is, the decider on the distribution of formal and informal resources. Formal resources usually translate into budget (e.g., attending training). Informal resources can include job experiences, developmental assignments and mentoring relationships, for starters.
The Role of the Boss
I recently attended a workshop on talent management that was co-facilitated by Dr. Morgan W. McCall, Jr. I know him best from his book, "The Lessons of Experience" co-authored with Michael M. Lombardo and Ann M. Morrison while at the Center for Creative Leadership (he is now at the University of Southern California). During his presentation, he made this statement, "The most important factor in an employee's development is his/her immediate supervisor." During a break, I confirmed my take on that statement with him, and he indicated that there is no specific data to support that contention, but that it reflected his experience across more than 25 years of practice in this area. It certainly makes sense to me.
Part of the deep influence the boss has on the quality of an individual's development has to be determined by just how good a manager he/she is on a day-to-day basis, providing feedback, being a role model and so on. However, part of being a good manager/ boss is also fulfilling the role of supporting the job and career development of team members through formal opportunities (e.g., training) and informal opportunities (e.g., job experiences), as well as incorporating development into the performance management process (in most organizations).
Coaching Run Amuck
When does a coach go too far? The answer is when the coach thinks he/she is the boss. With all best intentions, coaches want to take the participant as far down the road as possible in productively using the feedback. This can be defined as having the participant walk away with a fully formed development plan. I contend that this is ill-advised and is unlikely to accomplish the ultimate objective of creating sustained behavior change in the correct areas. In other words, this type of relationship may result in misdiagnosis and/or inability to create the support and accountability needed to obtain meaningful results.
While Figure 1 may be overly simplistic, it nonetheless captures some minimal steps that can be taken within this limited interaction with the leader that result in some Action being taken. This can include:
When the process only allows for one session, this creates an openended feeling with little accountability or closure. At a minimum, a second session is needed. One benefit is in allowing the coach to further guide the participant and manager reactions and confirm next steps. Just as important, the expectation of having a second session (or more) creates one form of accountability because the participant knows he or she will have to answer to the coach for the commitments he or she has made.
Suggested Solutions
"What about the problem with having the boss see the feedback?" Early in this article, I noted that this could potentially cloud the boss's views of the participant, possibly influencing future evaluations and decisions. Ignoring this possibility (which some processes indeed do) creates a significant risk of inconsistent (translated "unfair") use of the feedback. The solution to this problem is to require that all feedback is made available to the bosses, and to train (and monitor) the bosses on the proper use of the feedback, potentially including integration into decisions, such as appraisal, staffing, high potential identification and succession planning. That will put pressure on the process to produce reliable and valid data, but why would we want to generate unreliable and invalid data, whatever the use? (For guidance as to how to design a valid 360 feedback process, see Bracken and Timmreck, 2001 and Bracken, Timmreck, Fleenor and Summers, 2001).
As you can also imagine, I in no way wish to minimize the value of a coach in this setting. With a 360 feedback process, the organization is making a significant investment in the development of its leaders, both in hard (dollars) and soft (time) costs. When the participant is open to receiving coaching, we almost always find that they walk away with a different view than when he/she started, ranging from correct interpretation of the report to new insights to new ideas on next steps. Trained coaches insert quality and consistency into a process that is difficult to manage in real time. Their presence also signals to all parties that the organization acknowledges the challenges of making the 360 feedback process a tool for individual, team and organizational changes that occur one person at a time, and that each leader should have the opportunity to receive the feedback and support needed to succeed. Whether every leader will seize that opportunity is another matter and, that too, is another topic for another day.
References
Bracken, D.W., and Timmreck, C.W. Guidelines for multisource feedback when used for decision making. In Bracken, D.W., Timmreck, C.W., and Church,
A.H. (eds.), The Handbook of Multisource Feedback. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.
Bracken, D.W., Timmreck, C.W., Fleenor, J.W., and Summers, L. 360 feedback from another angle. Human Resource Management, 2001, 40(1), 3-20.
Groopman, J., How Doctors Think. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007.
McCall, Morgan W., Jr., Lombardo, Michael M., and Morrison, Ann M., The Lessons of Experience. Lexington: Lexington Books, 1988.
3 Ways HR Can Be Smarter
HR needs to change perceptions. That can be done only by being a credible business leader (not a partner), knowing your commercial and HR stuff, and being able to build the business case for people-based initiatives and challenging the … Read more...
3 Ways HR Can Be Smarter
HR needs to change perceptions. That can be done only by being a credible business leader (not a partner), knowing your commercial and HR stuff, and being able to build the business case for people-based initiatives and challenging the … Read more...
