I kick off this subject by promulgating the definitions of LEADERSHIP and COACHING. You first need to perceive the overall domain of leadership. Secondly, you need to be conscious that proper coaching is part and parcel of a leader's accountability and responsibility. The two aspects (of leading and coaching) should aptly be amalgamated - this is the correct paradigm.
Definition of Leadership (from Investopedia): "Leadership involves showing workers how to effectively perform their responsibilities and regularly supervising the completion of their tasks."
Definition of Coaching (from Wikipedia):"Coaching is a form of development in which an experienced person, called the coach, supports a learner in achieving a specific professional goal by providing training and guidance."
I could paraphrase the two definitions into a concise statement - "Astute leadership entails showing subordinates how to perform their functions well via a supervision, support, training, and guidance approach instituted into a manpower development programme."
An astute leader reflects the quality of a profound mentor who can lead and coach team members to be efficient (meaning, executing tasks the right way) and effective (meaning, executing the right tasks), i.e. being efficacious to hit long-term objectives of the team. He ensures his team do the right things in the right way continuously - this definitely entails coaching.
Whilst we may acknowledge the pertinence of coaching to coinhere with leading endeavours, yet in the actual corporate scenarios not many high rung officers manifest themselves in coaching thrusts but instead exhibit a "directing" leadership style. They focus to run meetings, give directives, render critiques (on unsatisfactory results), express compliments (on achievements), reprimand (on deviations), manage manpower of the team etc. Simple reason for this personal preference - coaching commitments require perseverance, patience, interaction tact, listening skills; more relevant is possessing the core ingredient of overall knowledge and hands-on experience in the subjects undertaken by the subordinate members. These elements requisite time intensity that most corporate protagonists may not commit.
I cite the example of prominent football team managers in the international arena. They normally double up as head coaches, and are deeply involved in the day-to-day training plus tactical preparation of their respective team. Apart from their administrative control, they are also accountable for their team's on-pitch game performance, strategy plans, and player development. Managers like Pep Guardiola, Jose Mourinho, Carlo Ancelotti are known for their hands-on approach. All three were seasoned football players previously, so they understand how to guide and motivate their current playing team. They do not merely manage and lead; they also pre-coach their team's tactics against the opponent team before each game.
According to leadershipfreak.blog , some traits of efficacious coaching are:
* Ask More Than Tell
Curiosity drives coaching. Quote: "A leader who doesn't ask questions is a know-it-all with a closed mind."
* Provide Space For Response
Do not interrupt a person who is thinking.
* Learn To Grow
Continue on self-development. Learn from other coaches.
* Feel Optimistic
Believe in growth potential of a team member. A leader cannot coach someone whom he does not believe in.
* Teach Accountability
Impress team members to be accountable for the goals they set for themselves (e.g. sales goals).
* Build Confidence
Know what motivates them. Then exhort them to pursue forward.
Obviously, true coaching commitments engage onerous series of requisites involving time intensity. This explains why many corporate leaders shun coaching but prefer surficial commanding fronts, assigning subordinates the accountability to handle job scopes per expectations and stipulated goals without articulated guidance from the top. Such leaders can only render critiques without offering viable solutions. No wonder some corporations fail to strike significant milestones over many years.
Efficacious leadership cum coaching deploys the amiable approach, not "punchy" commands or lectures. Amiable efforts incorporate close observation, attentive listening, tactful inquiries, and then apt suggestions as viable solutions. The intent is to cast influence more than displaying command. Definitely, donning resilience to wade through the onerous process of observing, listening, inquiring, and advising is the vital acumen.
According to www.entrepreneur.com , some core principles behind "quiet" coaching are:
* Pause before talking. This deliberate choice gives subordinates space to process and express themselves. In team meetings, quiet coaches usually speak last. They absorb, think, and provide responses related to the remarks of team members.
* Ask more questions instead of instructing. Instructional leadership may be effective in high-pressure and time-constraint environments, but in situations when the leader wants to encourage ownership in order to propel growth, questions are more penetrative than instructions. A quiet coach asks questions to comprehend intentions, values, and blind spots (of any team member). For example, an amiable question like "Why did you choose that method?" encourages dialogue between leader and subordinate.
* Consistent behaviour. Quiet coaches' influence is felt through one-to-one interactions, regular check-ins, and "open door" communication. They refrain from frequently relying on e-mails or town hall meetings. Their existence is not theatrical.
* Discerning observation. They notice small changes in body language, tone, and team morale (for planning the next steps in communication approach).
* Support commitment. They tolerate mistakes as long as a team member learns from it. They support members' growth.
How to develop the quiet coach leadership role?:
* Watch more, talk less. Try observing your team without offering solutions. Let them bring issues to you. When they do, ask questions before giving advice. Pose your questions, then pause to give some space for the other party to elaborate.
* Replace instructions with prompts. For example, when someone asks "What shall I do", respond politely with "What options do you have?" Help them to think through the possibilities instead of giving answers immediately.
* Meet at least weekly. The weekly discourse sessions' objective aims to understand the progress thus far, whether there are any hindrances, more so what your team members need from you.
* Avoid interrupting. Speak after team members have done their share. Listen attentively. Observe and discern their inputs. Emotional comments should be paraphrased by way of tactful questions for eliciting their candid feelings.
SUM UP
Mentorship (leadership incorporating with coaching prowess) is underscored by the traits of perseverance, forbearance, listening skills, and tactful interactive communication. Astute mentoring is an art.
I end by cascading a few power phrases:
* A mentor is someone who sees more talent and ability within you, than you see in yourself, and helps bring it out of you (Bob Proctor).
* The role of the manager is becoming that of a coach (Harvard Business Review).
* Bad coaching comes from the ego. Good coaching comes from the heart (John Wooden).
* Seek first to understand, then be understood (Steven Covey).
* If you make listening and observation your occupation, you will gain much more than you can talk (Robert Baden-Powell).
