The term coachable, or coachability, is generally referenced in relation to the individual. Research in this space has looked at the correlation between the coachability of individuals, their performance, adaptability and potential, suggesting that individuals focus on developing their coachability for growth and success, and for organisations to focus on the coachability of individuals as part of their recruitment and talent processes. The limitation here, however, is the view that coachability is essentially an internal attribute with no evidential consideration of the influence of environment. Adopting the view that coachability is influenced by both internal and external attributes; for organisations to effectively achieve a coaching culture, the first question that needs to be asked is: are our organisational systems, processes and values conducive to coaching? Do we have a coachable culture?
A coachable person is defined as someone who values feedback as the key to their development. They actively seek feedback, and use this feedback to take action in ways that drive personal development and growth. Weiss (2020) explains that “managers who have highly coachable employees can provide more specific, constructive developmental feedback to employees who are receptive to, rather than defensive of this feedback”, and “are significantly more agile and adaptable than their less coachable counterparts”.
With this in mind, without dismissing the influence of internal attributes on coachability, it is important to consider the following:
Does the organisational environment create a safe space to seek feedback?
Neuroscience of coaching has proven that people need to be in a reward state to engage the part of the brain that is responsible for constructive thinking, rational decision making and problem solving, which is necessary to achieve new thinking, change and growth. This research also shows the importance of psychological safety on encouraging a reward state.
When people feel physically, emotionally or socially threatened, the effective part of the brain is not incorporated in decision making, inhibiting their ability to receive feedback rationally, think creatively, collaborate and empathise with others. People in this state often stick to current ways of thinking and working to maintain a sense of comfort and safety.
Do your organisational systems, values and processes promote psychological safety in the workplace? Does your performance management system build confidence and capability or drive a defensive compliance mentality? Are your leaders taught how to provide constructive feedback and support people to make decisions and take risks in their role? How are mistakes regarded and responded to – as opportunities to learn, or something to avoid at all costs?
Do your systems, processes and priorities support a coaching mindset in leaders?
Coaching is about developing a growth mindset. It is trusting and believing that people have the answers within, and are capable of learning, developing and changing. Coaching mindset is about remaining curious and asking questions with the purpose of helping people form their own solutions and supporting them to take action. It takes patience and trust in the process, as well as trust in the capabilities of the individual. For leaders to embody a coaching mindset, they too need an environment that enables and supports them to establish genuine trust, autonomy and accountability with their team.
Are your leaders provided with the space and opportunity required to connect with their team and tailor coaching based on the needs and priorities of the individual? Are existing targets, KPIs and focus on adherence to process supporting or inhibiting leaders’ willingness to coach? Are mistakes, experimentation, and risk taking encouraged or discouraged?
What is the current perception of coaching?
Historically, workplace “coaching” has been used as a performance management tactic to address under-performance and problem employees. As such, the term coaching can carry a negative connotation in some industries and organisations. If the purpose and intention of coaching is to solely address performance and behaviour problems, coaching will trigger a threat/defensive response inhibiting their ability to engage the part of the brain required for effective thinking. An important step to developing employee coachability is instilling trust in the purpose of coaching and the process by clearly communicating the purpose and benefits of coaching for all members of the organisation.
Is coaching used to focus on closing gaps in performance, or to encourage growth mindset, build confidence and facilitate development? Are leaders encouraged to follow a standardised coaching processes to achieve pre-determined goals, or are they encouraged to build trusting relationships, focus on the needs of the individual and the quality of the conversation.
Is the language in coaching focused on ‘what should be’ or ‘what could be’?
Comments