At the end of the 1960s and from the 1970s onwards, a pleiad of theoretical models and gurus (most of them the product of good marketing) appeared, which flooded organizations and filled managers and managers with interest and concern. the companies that felt that these models could finally answer the multiple concerns that they were facing in their business management. This is how they jump in line one theory after another and with increasingly difficult to pronounce names.
Many managers immediately joined as disciples and followers of these theories, looked for ways to implement it in their organization, and finally, given the evidence that the model did not work in their company, they declared themselves apostates but at the same time became apostles of a new conception or management trend.
In this legion of managerial fashions, the human management area could not be left out (the subject of names for this area is another chapter of which I hope to write on another occasion), methodologies, tools, management trends, etc., arrived. that without a doubt have contributed positively in the processes that allow to increase performance and improve productivity, however in many cases, some of these fashions have only led to confusion and evidence that the resources invested are an expense that could have been avoided.
Much has been written about the reasons that models, successful in other parts of the world and in large corporations, fail miserably when trying to apply in companies that respond to other cultural patterns, for my part I only want to reinforce the explanation that suggests that it is necessary to carry out a process of adaptation to the model, it is not enough to collect the principles and experiences that govern the actions proposed by the creators of the theory, it is necessary to understand the business essence and adopt practices that arise from interpretive processes that allow identifying the key success factors for the internal reality and context that the organization lives.
One of these currents is known as business coaching, a theory that has its origins in sports and that was aimed at eliminating the mental blocks of athletes. Today the word coach has had many developments, but also deviations, in its conceptualization, interpretation and application, has gone an important way in the search for strategies aimed at increasing the performance of people and teams in organizations. Coaching has founded a trend whose expression goes beyond the theoretical conception, which has led us to find that today the term is used in various academic, organizational and even political spaces.
Many organizations subject their managers to coaching sessions and programs in the hope of finding a quick solution to management and performance problems, however we are witnessing the gradual but sustained loss of credibility and trust in this tool as the results do not they are necessarily those expected and the cause is attributed to the different actors in the process, the methodology used, the time dedicated, etc….
As coaching gained strength in organizations and positioned itself as an alternative in the management of human talent, various “experts” emerged that turned the subject into a business that has undoubtedly left them with great economic benefits and At the same time, great disappointments are made to those who show that after a long time and money the results do not meet or conform to initial expectations and that they were led by the temptation to be fashionable without verifying if the remedy they sought was the one required for disease.
Another of the classic errors of those who apply coaching in their organizations is the lack of clarity about the meaning and scope of it, in many cases they end up being psychotherapy sessions, personalized conferences, advice for improvement session, consulting, etc., which means that, if the process fails, it tends to blame the “coach” for more certifications that it proves to have.
At this point, I want to focus on one of the actors in the coaching process, I refer to the trained or, in original terms, the “coachee”, who is subjected to the so-called “fruitful dialogue” in order to improve his performance. The selection made by the organization of executives (although people in a particular way can develop this process) is aimed precisely at finding in them the development of the skills necessary to improve their performance in the management they carry out.
This selection, on many occasions, omits a fundamental component that, due to ignorance or unconsciously, coaching professionals also forget and is the requirement to previously evaluate the underlying competencies of these managers. In such a way that the process can be well designed, the trainer can have the best qualities and capacities and even enough time and space can be assigned, but if the person does not have the potential skills, everything will end up being more than an exercise of good intentional purposes. amendment that soon will be forgotten and will return to the same behavior and results prior to the training exercise.
Potentiality is expressed as the person's underlying ability of certain skills that can become evident as superior performance, in such a way that starting a coaching process involves exploring through some technique that people will be able to develop and obtain the expected results.
It is, as S. Covey proposes, a process that goes from the inside out and allows assuring behaviors that are maintained over time because they are the expression of the capacities that are already installed in people.
Returning then to the expression of P. Senge, it is necessary to provide all the external conditions necessary to allow the performance of people to become contributions that add value to management and allow these conversations to be useful spaces in the development of competences. that the organization has identified as keys to being more competitive in the market. However, the form matters as much as the background, which implies that it is not enough to have a good coach, if the player does not have the skills, there will be nothing to develop and many resources can be lost that lead to consider that indeed coaching is not the solution.
Finally, I want to make a brief comment about the importance for organizations of turning managers (call them managers or directors) into true coaches of their work teams, they are the first instance where collaborators resort and yet there are many occasions in which that bosses do not have the ability to proactively listen to their team members, thus losing the opportunity to gain ascendancy and credibility. The leadership that the manager plays must go beyond the organizational mandate, it is an opportunity to jointly build the results, to recognize in each of her collaborators a source of innovation capable of building a quality culture.
Coaching then is much more than a fad and I think it is here to stay, however, at this moment, it is running the risk of being replaced by new models that promise more effective results and in less time.
