CHAPTER 5

Coaching in Transformational Change

Introduction

In the previous chapter, we discussed the use of mentoring in managing change to ensure the swift integration of staff after the merger and to enhance the employability of under-represented groups. All forms of mentoring discussed in the previous chapter are used in a positive context to develop the mentees. Coaching, on the other hand, have both the positive and negative connotations based on how this intervention is perceived by the organizations and senior executives.

Coaching is used by some organizations to improve the performance of their under-performing managers and executives. In these organizations, coaching has negative connotations, as the recipients are seen as lacking certain skills and capabilities. The context in which coaching is used to prod senior officials as part of their performance management is discussed in the section on performance coaching in this chapter.

Developmental coaching is utilized in some organizations to develop talented staff members. First-time chief executives, as well as some experienced executives who are implementing transformational changes in an organization for the first time, receive coaching for confidence building and to determine the future direction of their organization. Coaching for the confidence building of senior executives is discussed under developmental coaching as well.

Some organizations use team coaching to enhance team cohesion and to cultivate innovative ideas. Team coaching is used in some organizations to bring different teams together to deal with emotionally charged situations after the merger.

Coaching for Underperforming Directors

The “coaching for underperformance” is also referred to as “performance coaching,” “coaching for performance management,” and “coaching to improve performance.” Some organizations view coaching as a cure to improve the performance of the members of staff who are falling short of their organizational targets. In these organizations, there seems to be a stigma attached to coaching. Rather unsurprisingly, staff working in these organizations do not come forward asking for coaching for their continuous professional development. In these organizations, chief executive or senior directors recommend coaching for certain managers and senior staff who are not meeting their targets.

Performance deficit is noted by line managers and senior executives, who then initiate conversations with underperforming managers and persuade them to attend coaching sessions.

In these cases, the issues affecting the senior manager’s performance are discussed, and a plan of action for improvement is agreed between the underperforming senior managers or directors and their line managers. The coaches are normally hired by the line managers in these organizations, who hold very senior positions such as senior director or chief executive.

In organizations, where coaching is used or perceived as a corrective mechanism, the officials will not come forward to request coaching for personal development. Because of this stigma, in organizations where coaching is linked with poor performance, the executives might opt for training, as opposed to coaching for their leadership development.

Some authors, such as Ellinger et al. (2003), Toit (2007), Peterson (2009), and Robinson-Walker (2012) believe that there is a link between coaching and poor performance. Peterson (2009, 127) classed coaching for underperformance or not meeting important expectations, as “performance management” and differentiated it from developmental coaching, which according to him is “forward looking.” Bachkirova (2011, 1) started the introduction of her book with this sentence: “coaches often say that their coaching is developmental, but when asked what they mean by this, the answers are always very different.” She observed that in some cases, descriptions of developmental coaching are “practically indistinguishable from any other type of coaching.” Developmental coaching is discussed in the next section.

In agreement with the findings of Robinson-Walker (2012) that most health care and nurse leaders in the United States still view coaching as a code for an intervention for poor performance, some organizations in the UK have the same view.

In summation, within some organizations, coaching is viewed as an external intervention to help underperforming managers and executives. The examples of underperformance can relate to staffing issues, inadequate staff management, and the inability to provide leadership during organizational change. The use of coaching to deal with performance deficit by some organizations seems to portray coaching as an off-putting prospect for senior officials who might wish to receive coaching for their professional development. For their leadership development, executives choose training and mentoring instead. Senior executives, who perceive coaching as a “corrective mechanism” for their underperforming colleagues, would find mentoring as a valuable intervention for their own leadership development.

In the existing coaching and mentoring literatures, there is no relationship between performance coaching and mentoring. However, in some organizations, performance coaching and mentoring might be inversely related. This potential relationship has to be explored in future studies to inform coaching and mentoring practitioners. Additionally, the use of coaching to deal with under-performing senior executives appears to have been overlooked by scholars in the UK.

Developmental Coaching

In this section, different characteristics of developmental coaching are presented. Developmental coaching is also referred to as: “executive coaching,” “senior management coaching,” “strategy coaching,” “confidence coaching,” and “one to one coaching.” Coaching can be used for various developmental purposes, such as to enhance leadership potential, to improve financial or entrepreneurial skills, or to boost the confidence of newly appointed senior executives. Some organizations utilize coaching to polish the leadership potential of aspiring managers. Coaching in this context is focused on releasing the full potential of senior officials. Some organizations use coaching to exploit the potential to generate income and to save costs. This can lead to nonprofit making organizations launching a commercial arm.

New processes and procedures are developed and implemented across the merged organizations, or as part of a transformational change, to develop new and efficient ways of doing business. Coaching can act as an enabler of new ways of working.

Many charities and nonprofit making organizations are shifting their financial models to incorporate income-generating initiatives. There is an emphasis on cost reductions and the swift implementation of new working practices after the merger. Senior executives provide leadership to implement change and establish efficient procedures in their organizations and performance and developmental coaching can be used to address organizational needs.

In organizations where coaching is seen positively as a developmental intervention, it forms part of staff development programs, along with mentoring and training options. Some executives experience receiving coaching as part of their management development programs. In some cases, senior executives receive coaching for confidence building. The factors necessitating confidence coaching can vary, but it can be particularly useful for first time appointed chief executives.

The first chief executive job of a large organization can be daunting. However, the coaches act as sounding boards and provide a safe reflective environment for first-time chief executives. As the role of the coach is to support and challenge the chief executive in a confidential way, providing them with safe space to talk about the issues, strategies adopted to tackle those issues, and a reflective assessment of what is working and what is not.

Coaching is also used to help executives in determining the future direction of their organizations after the merger. Some newly merged groups change the name and logo in an effort to create a fresh identity, whereas some organizations hold their history precious and do not wish to lose it after the merger. In these cases, logos and names before the merger are kept and installed alongside the new group name and logo on the group websites and correspondence. So after the merger, each organization ends up with two identities: the acquired group identity and their individual premerger identity. This process can be called having an identity within an identity. In these cases, senior executives can benefit from confidence coaching in creating a new organizational culture and a new group identity. Therefore, coaching is used for postmerger acculturation and confidence coaching empowers the chief executives to deal with organizational identity and culture at the postmerger stage.

Added confidence from coaching can help the executives in moving the organization forward and exercising leadership. Coaching can be used by newly appointed chief executives for confidence building or by existing chief executives, to help them introduce a new organizational culture following a merger. Some organizations incorporate coaching to develop leadership talent and to implement efficient working practices and procedures, which can be the start of a coaching culture in these organizations. Coaching is also used for the development of talented managers. Robinson-Walker (2012, 12) used the term “diamonds in the rough” to describe such talent. The coaching culture, according to Boyce and Hernez-Broome (2011), can be used to create a competitive advantage. This can lead to the organizations becoming financially and procedurally efficient.

Boyce and Hernez-Broome (2011) assert that coaching practices are evolving to address the needs of the changing nature of leadership and organizations. Leadership skills can be enhanced by coaching (Trenner 2013): some organizations are incorporating coaching to develop leadership talent, especially for newly appointed first-time senior executives. Fischer and Beimers (2009, 507) noted that the cliché of it being “lonely at the top” could be no more relevant than it was among executives in the nonprofit sector.

The use of confidence coaching to implement new organizational culture or to introduce new postmerger identity seems to be consistent with social identity theory in mergers (Seo and Hill 2005), especially where after the merger, new group identities, and logos are inaugurated. Tajfel (1972, 292) defined social identity as “the individual’s knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups, together with some emotional and value significance to him of group membership.” By creating a new group identity after the merger while keeping the premerger identities, the senior executives show their support for the importance of emotional belonging for staff.

Team Coaching

Team coaching in this book refers to arrangements where the whole team in an organization receives coaching together. Some of the team coaching themes can include: (1) team coaching to challenge poor performance, (2) coaching for stagnated teams, and (3) coaching for effective teamwork.

Team coaching is indispensable for organizations that aspire to be recognized as champions in their business sector. For example, if an organization aims to be the “Best Company to Work for,” understanding the perception of current staff is important. Independent workplace engagement specialists compile employee opinions and identify areas where companies can improve. As part of the Best Company’s survey, all staff members are subject to 360-degree feedback. The managers are rated by the teams they managed. This exercise provides the senior executives with an opportunity to assess the developmental needs of the managers.

Face-to-face communication with the managers who receive negative feedback from colleagues is important. The managers are provided with thinking space; they are invited to reflect on their own practice and are challenged when they are not seen as boosting the mood of their colleagues. Feedback from staff members are used as an opportunity to reinforce the organization’s vision and to make the managers aware of the need for improvement.

However, it is not appropriate to leave the managers to their own devices for improvement. Senior management has to organize appropriate developmental interventions to address any behavioral issues. The managers should have the courtesy to be challenged by their colleagues and the confidence to challenge their seniors for any poor or unprofessional behavior. The management development programs include elements of one-to-one coaching to address specific issues, coaching for team integration, and confidence coaching for junior managers.

Where coaching is initiated following feedback from colleagues, specific behavioral issues should be explored during one-to-one coaching, rather than during team coaching sessions.

Team coaching is used to facilitate innovative ideas among teams in some organizations. Scantiness of innovative ideas can be a potential problem for the organizations going through difficult times.

Even well-established organizations, by just maintaining the status quo, can find themselves in a problematic situation. Coaching in these circumstances can help senior officials to challenge their routine working practices and ingrain innovation. Therefore, team coaching is used in some organizations to develop fresh ideas and to embed an innovative organizational culture.

Team coaching is tailored for the developmental needs of different management levels. The developmental needs depended on organizational objectives, an individual’s leadership style, and his or her position in the organization and level of self-awareness.

Team coaching improves joint accountability and responsibility. If a coach is hired to develop the whole executive team, the coach will help them to work more effectively as a team. The coach will be looking at challenges they have got, growing a business, managing in a changing environment. How well the executive team work individually and their attitude to take joint responsibility. Team coaching improves the ability of senior executives to work on collective objectives and to embrace accountability.

In the rapidly changing business environment, skills and capability of senior executives has to be complemented with joint accountability. The logistics of team coaching contributes to team integration, as the coachees are spending more time together than before. This proximity aids the elimination of communication barriers.

As part of the team coaching process, the team members reflect on their practice as members of multiple teams. The thinking space supports reflection and joint accountability, and cohesiveness can be improved by utilizing team coaching after the mergers. To summarize, team coaching is instrumental in bringing dispersed teams together. Team coaching in due course results in the joint exploration of innovative ideas, and enhances team integration. However, in some cases, too much closeness can be counterproductive, this is discussed next.

Too much closeness can be a hindrance to teamwork in organizations where staff members are oversensitive to each other’s emotional state and do not want to say anything to hurt someone’s feelings at the postmerger stage. Being responsive to the feelings and emotions of colleagues in a supportive way is important to enhance collegiality and improve working relationships, but in some situations this closeness gets in the way of creativity. The executives get on as a team quite well but they do not challenge each other and lack the creative side of confrontation.

Team coaching has a positive impact on the management team of the recently merged organizations. Senior managers do not want to hurt the feelings of their colleagues by challenging each other shortly after the merger. Coaching gives the managers self-belief and confidence to conduct themselves in a productive manner, confront each other to have healthy discussion, not just nice and cozy, but to build that relationship, that trust, by actually talking about the difficult things, by being prepared to be vulnerable with their colleagues.

Understanding and sharing vulnerabilities is more important and productive for team members than shielding and suppressing emotions. Team coaching provides that safe space and confidence to discuss and positively use emotions. The confidence augments self-belief, which is an important gateway for innovative ideas and new breakthroughs. With this confidence comes more of an ability to try new things, to challenge themselves, and to challenge each other. They think it’s okay to have new ideas now, to try things.

Team coaching helps the members of multiple teams in understanding and appreciating that in some cases different teams in an organization has conflicting priorities at the operational level. So coaching is used to highlight the mismatch between operational and strategic objectives.

Team coaching also brings senior managers from different departments together, in the sense of looking at strategic issues from each other’s perspective.

Some of the data in this chapter come from the views of coaches on the outcomes of their own coaching, so there might be an issue of bias, such as self-promotion and an opportunity to brag about their coaching skills. The coaches explained how they observed changes in the behaviors and working practices of participants from different teams.

In some organizations, only the behavioral imperfections of the senior management team are observed by their juniors, and reported in the form of 360-degree feedback. These behavioral deficiencies are rectified through external intervention, in the form of coaching. A lack of innovation, leading to stagnation within an organization can be an issue. This shows that organizations might benefit from coaching interventions. Senior managers from different teams within an organization meet during the course of coaching, which leads them to work more cohesively. The self-belief from coaching results in healthy confrontation between team members and the confidence to challenge each other and to discuss innovative ideas and new breakthroughs.

To achieve optimal levels of performance, teams ought to have the necessary skills and capability (Morgeson et al. 2010; Jones et al. 2019). Team coaching can create meaningful and lasting change for individual team members, the team as a whole, and the organization that the team serves, according to Anderson et al. (2008). A combination of one-to-one and team coaching was argued for by Haug (2011), as it helps in building trust between the coach and the coachee. Team coaching can be tailored to meet the specific requirements of an organization including improved performance, lasting change, and creating a friendly and trusting environment for the team members.

Team coaching workshops provide an opportunity for managers to reflect on their own practice. Jones et al. (2019) noted growth in the popularity and practice of team coaching. Mulgan and Albury (2003) found that an overwhelming proportion of senior managers’ time is spent on dealing with day-to-day issues, and they have very little space to think about alternative ways of delivering the service. Therefore, team coaching provides thinking space. The team as a whole has to learn and develop in the context of its functions in order to enhance team effectiveness (Jones et al. 2019). Matsuo (2018) found that managerial coaching directly influences team learning and individual learning. According to Smolska (2019), a strong coaching culture contributes to improving a team’s performance, employee relations, the well-being of employees and customer satisfaction, increasing engagement, productivity and emotional intelligence, developing leadership, lower turnover rates, faster employee adaptation in the context of entering new team roles, faster adaptation in the team as well as the increase in the number of internal promotions and in gross sales.

Seo and Hill (2005) state that joint accountability enhances team integration and can reduce postmerger anxiety. Team coaching helps senior executives to recognize the importance of joint accountability. Senior executives review strategic challenges from each other’s perspective. In some cases, they prepare and deliver joint presentations and team briefs.

The theory of dynamic team leadership by Kozlowski et al. (2009) stated that repeated interactions allow team members to support one another, build trust, and generate a shared mental model of team processes. However, they did not take the emotional revolution into consideration. As noted before, dealing with emotions is an important part of team coaching in any organization after the merger. Team coaching addresses and enriches a number of emotions, such as “preparing to be vulnerable” and “talking about emotions and feelings.” This illustrates Kiefer’s (2002) identification of a range of emotions resulting from mergers, such as frailty and vulnerability.

Role of Coaching After Mergers

There are several areas where coaching can potentially be beneficial for an organization after a merger.

The potential contribution described above is in anticipation of the successful implementation of new staff development policies of which coaching would be an integral part. The scope for using coaching in organizations after a merger is fairly broad, and can include areas of staff development, managing change, postmerger restructuring, and exit coaching.

Instead of coaching, some organizations arrange training events in readiness for the merger. There is an expectation that the quality of staff that are employed by the organization are able to deal with the merger or transformational change.

The executives are expected to show leadership while dealing with an organizational change. Senior executives, as part of their professional development during various stages of their professional journey normally have attended leadership programs and in some cases, coaching does form part of the leadership programs.

However, to understand coaching one have to experience it, because if someone has just heard about coaching but has not worked with a coach, it is difficult to get the feel for it. One can understand the theory of coaching, but just the impact that it can have, isn’t realized until experienced.

Generally, the mergers are not entirely handled by the executives of an organization. There are external consultants who are employed to explore the options and to advise the executives and the board about the possibility of a merger. There are financial due diligence reports about the viability of the potential merger and the risk profile of the potential merger partners. Even to handle the merger process, external consultants, advisors, and negotiators are hired to help the leadership team. However, the human side of the mergers is normally managed by that organizations’ senior executives.

The success and failure of a merger depends on the successful integration of staff. So if the leadership development programs equip the senior executives to deal with the mergers, it is imperative to examine the leadership development programs in contexts other than just the merger.

In the next chapter, organizationwide developmental programs are discussed along with the circumstances in which organizations can use these programs. Table 5.1 shows different forms of coaching and mentoring used during some mergers.

There are potential benefits of embedding coaching within leadership development programs after the merger. These benefits include working relationships in the postmerger context, helping senior officials settle into the new roles, and in some cases exit coaching as well. This is congruent with the existing literature. Boyce and Hernez-Broome (2011) argued that integrating coaching with leadership development would provide leaders with the required developmental experiences to incorporate coaching approaches into their leadership styles. With reference to public health professionals, Risley and Cooper (2011) suggested that adding coaching to professional development would enhance the capabilities of the existing and emerging workforce. Whereas, Anderson et al. (2008) believe that coaching, in essence, is translating insights into meaningful actions. Organizations going through transformational change can benefit by including coaching as part of their staff development policies.

Table 5.1 Coaching and mentoring in mergers

Stage of merger	Coaching and mentoring at different stages of merger
Before merger	One-to-one coaching/executive mentoring for senior executives: to help executives make strategic decisions about potential merger partners
At premerger stage	Training for managers and directors: to prepare them for dealing with staff enquiries and uncertainties, having an open-door policy and listening to the concerns of staff members
During the merger	Communication and ongoing consultation with staff, road shows for staff, group chief executives attending different forums, and answering questions raised by different stakeholders
Postmerger	•  Confidence coaching for senior executives: to introduce new group identity •  Developmental coaching: to launch income generation/ maximization initiatives •  Team coaching for managers: for swift postmerger integration

Indistinctiveness of Coaching and Mentoring

The distinction between coaching and mentoring seem to be blurred. Coaches, mentors, coachees, and mentees have different interpretations of coaching and mentoring.

Unsurprisingly, many coaches and mentors do not describe themselves as a coach or a mentor, but as a coach and mentor. This can give the impression to the potential users of these services that coaching and mentoring are similar, if not the same. In some cases, senior executives responsible for hiring coaches and mentors do not always have a clear distinction between coaching and mentoring either.

The coaches are aware that coaching as a concept is not fully understood by some of the organizations. This is therefore interesting on several levels and gives rise to a number of questions, such as: (1) If the origins of business coaching were traced to the 1980s (Zeus and Skiffington 2005), then why is coaching still a new concept within some organizations? (2) Are the coaching and mentoring labels exploited by the professionals? (3) Would organizations benefit from a clear distinction between coaching and mentoring? (4) How would the advocates of coaching and mentoring fields perceive these findings?

It is evident that the connection between poor performance and coaching portrays coaching in an unfavorable light. Negativity attached to performance coaching along with a lack of clarity between coaching and mentoring might lead to coaching being provided under the banner of mentoring. So in some organizations, coaching might be provided in the name of mentoring. Furthermore, this assertion could explain the popularity of mentoring, which was noted in the previous chapter.

A clear distinction between coaching and mentoring might not have a noticeable impact on organizations going through transformational change, as the required developmental interventions might still be available, albeit in the name of mentoring. But for coaching and mentoring to establish themselves as separate professions, to capitalize on their past success for marketing and branding, and to develop theoretical bases, a clear distinction between coaching and mentoring is of colossal importance.

Summary

In this chapter, I discussed the role of coaching in organizations going through transformational change. Coaching in some cases can have different meanings to the executives who have received it and to those who have not. On the one hand, coaching is seen as an important developmental intervention used to enhance leadership skills, but on the other hand, it is exercised as a management tool to castigate underperforming senior managers. Because of these conflicting perceptions and practices, some executives favor mentoring or training instead of coaching for their professional development. But the situation is generally reversed for team coaching. Team coaching can be used in merged organizations to serve a variety of objectives, such as to generate innovative ideas, to upskill teams, and to view the strategic objective of the organization from each other’s perspective.

Interestingly, sometimes team coaching is used to bring different teams together to achieve organizational objectives, but at other times, the role of team coaching is to overcome the togetherness and closeness, which is seen as restraining innovation in the newly merged organizations. I would argue that the underlying objective of all forms of team coaching is to achieve the strategic objectives of the organization. The objectives can include: to improve performance, to generate additional revenue, and to uphold the “Best Company” image of an organization. Team coaching enhances joint accountability, shared responsibility, and provides a venue to discuss and explore fresh ideas.

In organizations where learning and development teams or human resources departments are considering coaching and mentoring to be part of the staff development strategy, the confusion about the definitions of coaching and mentoring might be eradicated. The use of coaching to embed training in organizations is discussed in the next chapter.