Think Sports and Academic Institutes to Make Coaching Programs Effective

“We’rethinking of bringing in coaches for our people … would you consider being oneof them ?”, somebody asked me. I said that I would be happy to, but that I was sceptical,given my experience with how coaching at the workplace is generally organised. Heunderstood and laughed.“Ican always whip up something about how to improve the effectiveness of coachingin our organisation, and get done with my bit during the meeting of thetask-force … but can we, between ourselves, have an honest discussion on thesubject ?”, someone else asked me. We did have a discussion a few days laterand it was very easy to agree on most things.Afterorganising my own thoughts on the matter, this is what I have to say.Thinksports and academic institutes if you want to make coaching in the workplace moreeffective. Remember we’re talking about adults here. It’s different and easierwith children, since someone else makes the decisions and choices for them, andthey are good learners. Not so, for adults.Thewhole business begins with a person’s choice to opt for coaching or not.Someone could either be opposed to ‘extra’ coaching, confident of imbibing the requiredlearning from the existing system. Or believe that true learning happens via numerousinteractions and experiences with several people in uncontrolled settings. Oreven that he or she is ‘good enough’ and is not in need of any more coaching. Imean, parents, relatives and friends could impress upon this person the need forand the benefits of coaching. Finally, the choice has to be of the personconcerned.Perhaps,as many good sportspersons and scholars have opted for coaching in their lives,as those who have not. For coaching in the workplace to have a good start, itis fundamental to provide employees in the target group with this choice. Asmuch as it is, to allow them to change their mind.Thesecond consideration is this. Someone who desires coaching also makes a choiceof where or who to go to for getting coached. That someone has chosen to join aparticular sporting or education academy for the purpose of getting ahead inlife riding piggy-back on its influential patrons or famous teachers, or out ofpeer pressure, or because of its convenient location, should be for no one tojudge. That someone has chosen to join an academy for the love of learning, orbecause of a genuinely great coach, or even because of the likelihood of arelationship of mutual trust and preference with the coach there, should not beanyone’s bother either.Perhaps,as many good sportspersons and scholars have been the products of the rightchoices they have made, as those who haven’t. For coaching at the workplace tohead in the right direction, it is necessary to allow the employees who haveopted for coaching to consider their own motivations privately and then makeknown their list of preferred coaches. Whether from their organisation orwithout, from their business group or without.Coachesalso need to make similar choices. Of opting to coach or not. And, if they do maketheir services available, of deciding who to coach. Again, based on a privateconsideration of their motivations and preferences. If the choices of thecoachees shouldn’t be judged, neither should those of the coaches. That’s onlyfair.Perhaps,as many good sportspersons and scholars have been the products of the rightchoices and motivations of their coaches, as those who haven’t. For coaching inthe workplace to proceed further in the good direction previously determined,the coaches must choose from among all those employees who have chosen them. Theidea is to arrive at a coach-coachee matching just like sports and educationacademies arrive at their admissions lists. The coach is as high on the coachee’spreference list, and the coachee is as high on the coach’s preference list, asthe matching process allows for. Too bad, if, as an outcome of a fair process,the employee had to settle for an undesirable or less than desirable coach.Ifpotential coaches and coachees need more familiarity with one another, theorganisation must provide information and opportunities of interaction to thembefore they prepare their respective lists of preference. There could beapplication forms, credentials and statements of purpose submitted by the coachesand the coachees. Thematching process would most likely throw up a situation where each coach hasmore than a few people to coach. In sports and in education, coaches handletheir coachees in a group, and while doing so, they address the individualneeds of each coachee too. It’s efficient use of the coach’s time and effort. Thecoachees get wider learning from watching others being taught. The coach’s aswell as the coachees’ performance and behavior are out in the open, and publicencouragement and shame work wonders for both parties. Besides it’s more secureand fun to have co-travellers.Giventime and support, the coach-coachee group work their own rules of engagement, theirown understanding of what’s working and what’s not, their own dynamicteaching-learning methods, and their own standards of progress. Broadly, ifthings are ok, coachees accept the realities of life that some among them progressbetter than the others, that some among them have louder voices than theothers, that the ways of teaching-learning work better with some than withothers, and so on.Thereremains the matter of one more choice before we close the deal on making coachingin the workplace more effective. Both the coach and the coachee can choose todisengage with one another at any time. Amicably. As self-respecting adultswould.Didn’tI already say something like ….Perhaps,as many good sportspersons and scholars have opted for coaching in their lives,as those who have not;Perhaps,as many good sportspersons and scholars have been the products of the rightchoices they have made, as those who have not;Perhaps,as many good sportspersons and scholars have been the products of the rightchoices and motivations of their coaches, as those who have not.