Responsesto Coaching Questions
Responsesto Coaching Questions
Coaching is an imperative and fundamental aspect in supporting aclient or a learner. In coaching, it is essential to identify thecapacities and weaknesses of the learner to ensure that the processis comprehensive and effective (Chan & Burgess, 2015). Michaeland Maria have different dispositions and view the performancemanagement differently, but they have comparable outcomes. Maria isoverly directive and has little tolerance for underperformance, butis open to considerations while Michael is sarcastic, insincere, andhas a negative attitude towards coaching discussions. In thisregards, the coaching process directed to the two managers shouldfocus on their attitude and dispositions. Maria is unaware of hermanaging problems, for example, she is unaware that she is overlydirective, but she is open to discussions and considerations onenhancing on adjusting her focus and relations with employees. Thus,the process should start with discussing the responses in herassessments. On the other hand, Michael cultivates a negativeattitude towards discussions and becomes wary in deliberating hismanagement style issues. Thus, the coaching process should start withcoaching exploration to establish comportments that need to beaddressed in the coaching gatherings. According to Werner andDeSimone (2012), managers with negative attitudes and those whobecome defensive should be treated as poor managers and performerswhose comportments need modification.
The two cases are different, and each manager’s disposition isdifferent. However, both require coaching especially to enhancerelationships with employees thus, the coaching process should beattuned to each manager’s issues. Counseling and mentoring shouldcomplement the coaching process. In this regards, I would tailor thecoaching process towards mentoring and counseling by focusing on theweaknesses of Maria and Michael. Maria should cultivate flexibilityin directing employees. Instead of showing intolerance tounderperformance, she should focus on employee engagement anddevelopment. As such, I would advise her to improve her relation andcoaching skills especially on observation, reflection, andexploration of employees’ dispositions. Moreover, I would structurethe process towards Maria and her employees by advising her to focuson consensus and inclusion. Maria relates to her employees in anauthoritarian manner thus, the focus on her should center onengaging the employees extensively.
On the other hand, Michael is wary of the discussion to change hisbehaviors thus, the process should identify whether he has thecapacities and skills indispensable to resolve the issue. Moreover,the process should identify whether Michael requires skillsdevelopment especially given his insincerity and sarcasm. Going byFournies’ analysis on coaching, I would structure the process todeal with Michael’s specific behaviors directly by confronting him.In utilizing Fournies process, I would get Michael to agree that hehas a problem in relating, and he needs to change. Fournies contendthat getting an employee to agree that a problem exists and requireimprovement is the fundamental basis for coaching (Werner &DeSimone, 2012). After, getting Michael to agree that improvement isneeded, I would then reciprocally deliberate the alternativeresolutions to the problems, often prompting him for ideas, and thenjointly agree on actions to take to resolve the issue. Later, I wouldfollow with Michael’s assistant to determine whether Michael hasattuned to the actions developed, as well as, recognize theimprovement created.
Communication skills are indispensable in coaching processes, andsince both Michael and Maria have failed to effectively communicatewith their subordinates, I would recommend feedbacks, listening, andother basic communication skills. Both Maria and Michael shouldcreate a balanced aspect of speaking and listening by listening totheir subordinates’ ideas and letting their subordinates contributeto discussions, decision-making, and arguments. For Maria, she shouldbecome a good observer mainly in observing subordinates’ behaviorsand performances while Michael should become honest in allcommunications. Both should give positive feedback to subordinateswhen they ask questions instead of laying blame on them, reflect onwhat employees say, and focus on subordinates with productivityissues.
It importantly matters whether I am coaching as an outsider or asupervisor since the responsibility between an outsider and asupervisor differs greatly. Werner and DeSimone (2012) contend that amanager or an overseer bears a great accountability on the coachingprocess as they have everyday engagement with the learner. Unlike anoutsider, a supervisor is exclusively equipped with knowledge,opportunity, information, authority, and standards to develop thecoaching process while an outsider lacks the authority andcomprehensive information on tailoring the coaching processextensively (Chan & Burgess, 2015). Maria is receptive and opento discussions thus, she would be best suited with a peer coach.Michael is defensive thus, his immediate supervisor or an e-coachwould be best suited for him as the supervisor has extensiveknowledge on all attributes existing in the firm and which may affectMichael’s disposition.
Coaching is animportant aspect in evaluating an employee’s performance. Wernerand DeSimone (2012) contend that Fournies proposes a five-phasediscussion procedure, which supposes that a supervisor or a coach hasconducted a comprehensive coaching evaluation. The objective of thediscussion is to get an employee contend that a problem exists(Werner & DeSimone, 2012). In the case provided, getting theserver agrees that a problem exists will involve commitment andmutual agreement from both the supervisor and the employee. For anemployee to change, they must agree that a performance issue existsthus without the employee agreeing that an issue exist, they cannotchange. As such, I would describe the behavior to the employee, aswell as, offer its implications to the employee and the firm.Moreover, I would ask the server questions that will help extract theserver’s agreement to the presence of the problem behavior and itsimplications to the employee and the firm. I would tailor thequestions to reflect on the situation, as well as, allow the employeeto understand the position effectively.
After, getting the server to agree that change is required, I wouldthen jointly deliberate the alternative solutions to the problems,often prompting the server for ideas, and then jointly agree onactions to take to resolve the issue. If the server does not agreethat a problem exists, then I would handle the server per the firm’sdisciplinary policies such as suspension, warning, or take aprogressive discipline. By disciplining the server, it will realizethe implications of its actions and agree that a problem exists oragree to solve the problem. If the server does not realize theimplications, then firing or transfer would serve as the best option.
Werner and DeSimone (2012) argue that Fournies and Kinlaw contendthat a coach should get employees to verbally agree that a problempersists. Fournies asserts that an employee faced with a performanceissue will face it while Kinlaw asserts that the employee may resistsand become emotional. Fournies approach should be best suited to thecase since he argues that an employee’s disinclination to agree asbecause of a supervisor incompetence or the employee’s disbelief inthe capacity of the supervisor. According to Fournies’ argument, ifthe employee fails to agree that a problem exists, the management canuse another coach, for example, an outsider. In fact, the server iscapable of completing the tasks thus, a peer coach would be bustsuited for the server.
Chan, J., & Burgess, J. (2015). Coaching the coaches: Adevelopment program in a Hong Kong organization. HumanResource Management International Digest, 23(6),30-33.
Werner, J. & DeSimone, R. (2012). Human resource development.Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning