|
Specify the Importance of Effective Communication
OLB 7007, Assignment 3 DuBose, Justin Z. Dr. Jaime Klein 24 February 2019 Introduction The modern workplace is constantly evolving, increasing in diversity, and growing in the various skills required by employers to remain competitive (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014). These challenges are a major reason why businesses hire coaches and consultants (Wise & Hammock, 2011). While these coaches and consultants are hired for a variety of reasons, they are often hired to work with organizations and organizational leaders to develop strategy and communicate that strategy throughout the organization (Egan & Hamlin, 2014). Clampitt, DeKoch, and Cashman (2000) noted that, given the accompanying uncertainty associated with constant organizational change, strategic communication is a subject about which organizations cannot afford to ignore. Allio (2013) further noted that effective communication shapes the entire culture of an organization, and that listening and responding must be treated as essential workplace characteristics. Habermacher, Ghadiri, and Peters (2014) noted that organizational coaches and consultants play an important role in shaping the culture of an organization by aligning an effective communication strategy to meet the emotional needs of employees and, ultimately, improve performance and effectiveness. Communication Organizational communication, then, is clearly an essential issue for modern organizations and an area in which coaches and consultants play an important role. Researchers have noted common characteristics present within organizations executing successful communication strategies. Buono and Kerber (2010) suggested that communication during times of organizational change should be honest and transparent. This allows all voices and viewpoints to be expressed, increases organizational learning, and creates opportunities to express a shared purpose and common change language. In addition to these benefits, effective communication initiates the process of “meaning-making” for employees effected by change (Huevel et al., 2013). The process of meaning-making facilitates “integrating challenging/ambiguous events into a framework of personal meaning using value-based reflection” (Park, 2010, p. 265). Once meaning is ascribed to the changes made, this increases an individual’s willingness to adapt to change (Huevel et al., 2013). Huevel et al. (2013) concluded that the process of meaning-making also translates to successful adaptation for employees when it allows them to reflect on organizational changes and link or align their own personal values to the changes. There is an abundance of research on the importance of communication and the roles played by organizational coaches and consultants in developing communication strategy. Still, examples abound in which modern organizations of all sizes fail to utilize effective communication in their strategies and initiatives. This paper will examine one recent real-world example from General Electric. Analysis of their communication failures will be provided followed by recommendations from current research on executing a more effective communication strategy. General Electric Adam Lashinsky of Fortune Magazine recently detailed the decline of General Electric following their failed organizational change initiative with implementing new technology (Lashinsky, 2018). Former CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, began addressing sweeping changes to General Electric and their utilization and implementation of new technology (Lashinsky, 2018). Lashinsky (2018) noted that the change effort was a massive failure as a result of three exceptionally poor decisions: poor investments in new technology, poor allocation of capital, and, as a result, a sharp decline in organizational culture. Ultimately, for Immelt, the failed organizational change initiative resulted in his abrupt resignation from his role as CEO of General Electric. What steps could have been taken by the organizational leadership of General Electric to better communicate with their stakeholders regarding these changes? What lessons can we learn from this failure? Communication Techniques Vamsi Chimitiganti, writing for ITProPortal, a technology commentary and analysis organization, noted that the primary failure of General Electric was not related to technology, but to organizational communication (Chemitiganti, 2018). Chimitiganti (2018) noted that General Electric communication to stakeholders was poor every step of the way: poor communication of the rollout plan, poor communication to technology developers, and poor communication to employees impacted by the new technology. While the technological advancements leaders were seeking to initiate failed, the true failure on the part of those leaders was communication with stakeholders. Chimitiganti (2018) noted that General Electric’s communication of their rollout plan failed to communicate in quantifiable terms what the company was seeking to accomplish and how. Their communication during this phase failed to address how the new technology would reduce costs and generate revenue as well as failing to address how this would affect their existing business model and structure (Chimitiganti, 2018). Their communication with technology developers was equally ineffective. Chimitiganti (2018) noted that General Electric’s communication with developers failed to include listening to or soliciting their input regarding the technology they were developing. Organizational leaders of General Electric imposed unnecessarily long, cumbersome organizational processes for procuring resources and solving technology-related problems in the development phase (Chimitiganti, 2018). Furthermore, the developers were dictated to what technology they were developing and what the timeline for development was rather than being consulted with regarding such decisions (Chimitiganti, 2018). Similarly, Chimitiganti (2018) noted that poor communication to employees impacted by the new technology included no invitation to employees to experiment with the new technology and provide feedback regarding their experience. As with their relationship with developers, communication from organizational leaders of General Electric to their employees was given in the form of directives which increased resistance and decreased the likelihood of successful change. Strategies for Improved Communication What can we learn from the failures of General Electric’s leadership in this change initiative? What strategies can other organizations adopt which would increase their likelihood of changing successfully? Firstly, organizational leaders must acknowledge the importance of careful and thoughtful communication to all stakeholders within the organization. Saruhan (2014) developed a list of vital organizational change factors. The researcher noted that communication and perception of organizational justice are both vital factors, and that good communication positively impacts employees’ perception of organizational justice. The research of Raina (2010) also concluded that communication is the most vital factor and predictor of organizational change success or failure. Additionally, Amis (2013) discovered that communication is also the primary instrument used effectively by organizational leaders to prepare employees for change. The research of McClellan (2014) agrees with this conclusion. The researcher noted that communicating and announcing change should be seen as opportunities for open dialogue with shareholders to invite them to serve as active change participants. Communication is arguably the most important factor for organizational leaders in considering and implementing organizational change of any type. This is true not only in the technical sense of utilizing appropriate communication tools, but more importantly in what it communicates to stakeholders about the values of the organization. Research has demonstrated the importance of trust between organizational leaders and stakeholders, but it has also highlighted the importance of a sense and perception of proper organizational justice by leaders implementing change (Huevel et al., 2013). This sense of justice deals with the treatment of employees throughout the process of change (Saruhan, 2014). In addressing this issue, Saruhan (2014) noted that while there are many reasons organizational change initiatives fail, human related issues are the primary reason. Many of these human-related issues surface in the form of resistance to change which may be alleviated with purposeful and intentional communication from organizational leaders (Huevel et al., 2013). Oreg (2003) constructed a “resistance-to-change scale” comprised of four factors: routine seeking, emotional reaction to imposed change, short-term focus, and cognitive rigidity. The researcher concluded that the greater the dependence of individuals on these factors, the greater will be their resistance to change. Inversely, it can be concluded that the greater and more personal the communication by organizational leaders to address these issues during change processes, the greater the likelihood of changing successfully. Recommendations While the objectives of the organizational leadership of General Electric may have been in the best interest of the company, the communication during this season of change was so poor that this message was never received by shareholders. Consequently, the change initiatives proved disastrous. Company revenue provides the most glaring example of this disaster and its consequences. Alwyn Scott, writing for Reuters, noted that General Electric’s revenue for 2017 equaled $124 billion. Current projections for the year 2020 expect General Electric’s revenue to equal just $12 billion (Scott, 2017). This indicates that this failed change initiative cost General Electric more than ninety percent of their annual revenue. What practical steps need to be taken going forward? Organizational leaders of General Electric must re-evaluate the importance they place on communication. Trust and a proper sense of organizational justice must be re-established throughout all levels of the organization prior to any new change initiatives. Therefore, a listening phase is recommended to encourage participation and engagements at different organizational levels. Initially, a forum should be initiated by organizational leaders to include as much of the company as possible. This would address all employees and other members of the organization and encourage their feedback and input on the proposed changes. Secondly, a subsequent listening phase should be held with each department. Departments should have their own forum, as this will allow organizational leaders to learn and absorb how proposed changes will impact departments differently and how resistant various groups are to organizational change. Furthermore, specific attention should be given during this listening phase to the “resistance-to-change scale” constructed by Oreg (2003). This scale is comprised of four factors: routine seeking, emotional reaction to imposed change, short-term focus, and cognitive rigidity. Each of these factors should be at the core of communication efforts to employees to minimize employee resistance to change initiatives. Secondly, experimentation should be encouraged once change initiatives are launched. This further encourages employees and shareholders to interact with the new changes with the understanding that their interaction and feedback are valued more than the technical usage of the technology. This further communicates to those impacted by the changes that their contribution to the organization, and their role within the organization, are more important than the technology they utilize. Throughout each of these phases, it should be communicated how this new technology will improve the life of the shareholder as well as the organization. This provides a purpose for the changes that will help shareholders grasp how these changes are beneficial. These recommendations help build a framework for the employees in which they are valued, encouraged, and empowered and the organization continues to be effective and prosper as well. Conclusion Effective communication is essential for organizations to survive and grow in the modern environment. While leaders can develop communication techniques and strategies, coaches and consultants can be employed to assist in this process. Several common factors recommended by researchers and mentioned in this paper can be utilized by organizational leaders to communicate more effectively with organizational members, specifically during times of change and uncertainty. References Al-Asfour, A. & Lettau, L. (2014). Strategies for leadership styles for multi-generational workforce. Journal of Leadership, Accountability, and Ethics, 11(2), 58-69. Retrieved from https://www.nabpress.com/leadership-accountability-and-ethics Allio, R.J. (2013). Leaders and leadership – many theories, but what advice is reliable? Strategy & Leadership, 41(1), 4-14. doi:10.1108/10878571311290016 Amis, J.M., & Aissaouri, R. (2013). Readiness for change: An institutional perspective. Journal of Change Management, 13, 69-95. doi: 10.1080/14697017.2013.768435 Chimitiganti, V. (2018, October 3). What we can learn from GE and why digital transformations fail. ITProPortal. Retrieved from https://www.itproportal.com/features/what-we-can-learn-from-ge-and-why-digital-transformations-fail/ Clampitt, P.G., DeKoch, R.J., & Cashman, T. (2000). A strategy for communicating about uncertainty. Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 41-57. Retrieved from http://www.aom.pace.edu/amj/ Egan, T. & Hamlin, R. G. (2014). Coaching, HRD, and relational richness: Putting the pieces together. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(2), 243-257. doi:10.1177/1523422313520475 Habermacher, A., Ghadiri, A., & Peters, T. (2014). The case for basic human needs in coaching: A neuroscientific perspective – The SCOAP Coach Theory. The Coaching Psychologist, 10(1), 7-16. Retrieved from https://shop.bps.org.uk/publications/publication-by-series/the-coaching-psychologist.html Heuvel, M. V., Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). Adapting to change: The value of change information and meaning-making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(1), 11-21. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.02.004 Lashinsky, A. (2018, May 24). The failure of GE’s digital transformation. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2018/05/24/ge-failure-immelt/ McClellan, John G. (2014). Announcing change: Discourse, Uncertainty, and organizational control. Journal of Change Management, 14(2), 192-209. doi:10.1080/14697017.2013.844195 Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual difference measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680-693. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680 Raina, R. (2010). Timely, Continuous & Credible Communication & Perceived Organizational Effectiveness. Indian Journal Of Industrial Relations: Economics & Social Dev., 46(2), 345-359. Retrieved from http://www.i-scholar.in/index.php/ijir/article/view/41270 Saruhan, N. (2014). The role of corporate communication and perception of justice during organizational change process. Business and Economics Research Journal, 5(4), 143-166. doi:10.1108/13563280510596943 Scott, A. (2017, August 28). GE shifts strategy, financial targets for digital business after missteps. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ge-digital-outlook-insight-idUSKCN1B80CB Wise, D. & Hammack, M. (2011). Leadership coaching: Coaching competencies and best practices. Journal of School Leadership, 21, 449-477. Retrieved from https://rowman.com/page/JSL
0 Comments
Appraise Coaching Models for Practical Application
OLB 7007, Assignment 2 DuBose, Justin Z. Dr. Jaime Klein 17 February 2019 Introduction Professional coaching is a multi-billion-dollar global industry and continues to grow in nearly 250 countries across the globe (Baaij, 2014). While organizations employ coaches for a variety of reasons, the effectiveness of coaches with adult learners has been studied and documented (Wise & Hammack, 2011). Egan & Hamlin (2014) concluded that the greatest strength of coaches was the flexibility and greater focus available in the “one-on-one” model of coaches and employees. Since coaching can be individually tailored, the growing enthusiasm for coaching is likely found in the richness of the dialogue and developmental exchanges (Egan & Hamlin, 2014). Sammut (2014), who discovered that coaching is most effective with adult learners in a one-on-one context, also reached a similar conclusion. Specifically, adult learners display measurable growth in areas of critical reflection of self and circumstances and placing current issues within a larger context (Sammut, 2014). Thus, the greatest strength of coaching – and the area from which organizations benefit most – is the ability of coaches to spend focused one-on-one time with employees for the purpose of leadership development. Carey, Philippon, and Cummings (2011) noted that the value for coaching in organizations is found in the constantly evolving workplace which continually grows in complexity. Leadership development is an ever-present need for organizations operating in the modern environment, and coaching continues to be sought to develop these needed leaders. This paper, then, will examine the various models of coaching, including both internal and external coaches, and identify the best practices for coaches to maximize their impact in developing organizational leaders to navigate the challenges of the modern workplace. Coaching Models Researchers have identified various coaching models utilized throughout organizations. Barner and Higgins (2007) provide four models for coaching: the clinical model, the behavioral model, the systems model, and the social constructionist model. The difference in the four coaching models is found in the relational and outcome differences between coach and coaching candidate. For example, the clinical coach endeavors to clinically diagnose the coaching candidate while the behavioral coach seeks to help the coaching candidate recognize behavior triggers and patterns to effect positive behavioral change. The systems coach works to identify negative thinking patterns and systems, and the social constructionist coach aims to aid the coaching candidate in understanding various social constructs at play in the organizational environment (Barner and Higgins, 2007). Evaluation coaching is an additional model identified by researchers. Ensminger, Kallemeyn, Rempert, Wade, and Polanin (2015) particularly noted the unique role and benefit for evaluation coaching within organizations. When organizations have limited funds for coaching, external evaluators are beneficial to come alongside the organization and provide assessment and coaching of individuals. Ensminger et al. (2015) identified knowledge coaching, skills coaching, and personal coaching as the three types of evaluation coaching. They also noted that each coaching is focused on one of two outcome types: results coaching or development coaching. Ensminger et al. (2015) discovered that most evaluation coaches are hired as knowledge and skills coaches rather than personal coaches. Thus, evaluation coaches are external evaluators hired by organizations to work alongside employees and other coaching candidates to increase their professional knowledge and skills. The effectiveness of external evaluation coaches are often measured by the results generated from their relationships with employees (Ensminger et al., 2015). Commonalities across models Regardless of which coaching model is utilized, researchers have noted several common factors which exist across all coaching models. These commonalities are inherent in all coaching relationships and settings. Carey, Philippon, and Cummings (2011) noted five elements common throughout each coaching model: relationship building, problem-solving processes, problem-defining and goal setting, the mechanisms by which results are produced, and action and transformation. Additionally, they identified five factors which will impact coaching outcomes: organizational involvement and support, the coach’s attributes and role, specific obstacles to the coaching process, the selection of candidates for coaching, and the drawbacks and benefits of internal versus external coaching (Carey et al., 2011). In addition to the five common elements, Utry, Palmer, McLeod, and Cooper (2015) noted that every coaching model shares certain commonalities regarding the goals of coaches. These commonalities include a shift in psychology for individuals receiving coaching and the addressing and meeting needs of constantly changing workforce which is increasingly connected and globalized. Reaching the same conclusion, Passmore (2014) noted that one of the primary expectations of coaches is the proper selection and management of interventions throughout the coaching process. Wise and Hammack (2011) also noted that the establishment and building of relationship between coaches and coaching candidates is the initial and most important priority of coaches and the coaching process. Best practices Wise and Hammack (2011) noted that the establishment and building of relationship between coaches and coaching candidates is the initial and most important priority of coaches and the coaching process. Therefore, every recognized best practice in the field of coaching is contingent upon the successful establishment and building of relationships between the coach and coaching candidate. Best practices for coaches identified by Wise and Hammack (2011) include an emphasis on continual improvement, professional development, adaptation of coaching to different individuals, accountability to accomplish objectives, appropriate intervention, and regular interaction. While researchers conclude that most coaches are hired to develop the professional knowledge and skills of employees (Ensminger et al., 2015), the question remains as to whether one coaching model is more effective based upon its compatibility with the recognized best practices outlined by Wise and Hammack (2011). This question will be addressed in the context of a not-for-profit organization which provides both internal and external coaches to those employees selected for leadership development by organizational leaders. Christian & Missionary Alliance The Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA) is a global not-for-profit organization which operates in 81 countries (Christian and Missionary Alliance, 2018). While the organization is overseen by an elected board known as the Board of Directors, this board is chaired by an elected President (Christian and Missionary Alliance, 2018). The current President of the C&MA is Dr. John Stumbo, and as President his responsibilities include not only leadership of the National Office but also of staff and offices around the globe (Christian and Missionary Alliance, 2018). Within the United States, these offices and staff are broken down into geographical districts. One responsibility of each C&MA district is the training and licensing of official. In accomplishing this objective, the C&MA employs both internal and external coaches for their licensed official workers. The internal coaches appointed by the district to coach those pursuing licensing are each tasked to ensure that the best practices identified by Wise and Hammack (2011) are faithfully and expertly executed. The emphasis on continual improvement is built upon the development of a relationship between the coach and coaching candidate. Professional development is carried out with regular meetings in which dialogue is based around a series of assigned readings and reflective exercises. These coaches are trusted to adapt their coaching to different individuals, sometimes in a one-on-one setting and, at other times, in small groups. Accountability is built into the relationship with a system of “checking in” between the coach and coaching candidate during the coaching process. Furthermore, regular interaction is mandated by monthly face-to-face meetings between coaches and coaching candidates. These coaches are exclusively evaluation coaches in that their goal is to regularly evaluate the professional and personal growth of the candidate and assess their level of growth. While this relationship between coach and coaching candidate is ongoing, districts also employ external coaches to work with the internal coaches to ensure their conformity to national standards. The external coaches are representatives of the National Office, and their process of evaluation and analysis is a reflection of the coaching system utilized throughout the denomination. External coaches also serve as clinical coaches who work with the districts’ internal coaches to provide a diagnosis of the level of care and professionalism present in the relationship between coach and candidate. Conclusion This system of providing external coaching for internal coaches seems to ensure that the recognized best practices are carried out throughout the organization. Furthermore, by providing evaluation coaching to coaching candidates, accountability to objective and agreed upon standards of progress is maintained. While these internal coaches are granted latitude to exercise judgment in their tailoring the program to individuals and unique needs and circumstances, the objective and standards remain the same for all candidates. References Baaij, Marc G. (2014). An Introduction to Management Consultancy. London: SAGE Publications. Barner, R. & Higgins, J. (2007). Understanding implicit models that guide the coaching process. Journal of Management Development, 26(2), 148-158. doi:10.1108\02621710710726053 Carey, W., Philippon, D.J., & Cummings, G.G. (2011). Coaching models for leadership development: An integrative review. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1), 51-69. doi:10.1002/jls.20204 Christian and Missionary Alliance. (2018). About Us. Retrieved from https://www.cmalliance.org/about/ Egan, T. & Hamlin, R. G. (2014). Coaching, HRD, and relational richness: Putting the pieces together. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(2), 243-257. doi:10.1177/1523422313520475 Ensminger, D.C., Kallemeyn, L.M., Rempert, T., Wade, J., & Polanin, M. (2011). Case study of an evaluation coaching model: Exploring the role of the evaluator. Evaluation and Program Planning, 49, 124-136. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.01.0020149-7189 Passmore, J. (2014) Mastery in Coaching. London: Kogan Page Ltd. Sammut, K. (2014). Transformative learning theory and coaching: Application in practice. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 8, 39-53. Accessed on February 17, 2018. Utry, Z.A., Palmer, S., McLeod, J., & Cooper, M. (2015). A pluralistic approach to coaching. The Coaching Psychologist, 11(1), 46-52. Retrieved from https://www.bps.org.uk Wise, D. & Hammack, M. (2011). Leadership coaching: Coaching competencies and best practices. Journal of School Leadership, 21, 449-477. Retrieved from https://rowman.com/page/JSL Differentiate the Roles of Consultants, Coaches, and Trainers
OLB 7007, Assignment 1 DuBose, Justin Z. Dr. Jaime Klein 10 February 2019 Introduction The complex nature of the ever-changing modern work environment causes organizations and organizational leaders to constantly evaluate and improve their products, people, and proficiency (Joo, Sushko, & McLean, 2012). One major consequence of this evaluative process is the explosive growth of professional coaches and consultants (Joo, Sushko, & McLean, 2012). Each of these fields are on the rise and show no signs of slowing down. Consulting is a 400+ billion-dollar global industry (Baaij, 2014) while coaching, while significantly smaller, is likewise a multi-billion-dollar global industry and continues to grow in nearly 250 countries across the globe (Segers, Vloeberghs, & Henderickx, 2011). Organizational leaders, then, must understand the nature of professional coaches, consultants, and trainers to decide which of these fields is best aligned to their organizational mission and goals. While organizations and organizational leaders must understand the nature of professional coaches, consultants, and trainers, researchers consistently conclude that these fields are wrought with ambiguity. Baaij (2014) noted that each of these professional fields lack a commonly utilized theoretical and conceptual framework and understanding. Even though coaching and consulting are both rapidly growing multi-billion-dollar global industries (Baaij, 2014; Segers, Vloeberghs, & Henderickx, 2011), Joo, Sushko, & McLean (2012) referenced the lack of empirical research on the various roles. Thus, this paper seeks to further examine and distinguish between the roles of coaches, consultants, and trainers and examine the unique contributions of each to organizations and organizational leaders. Coaches While organizations have traditionally been led by “top-down” leaders, Joo, Sushko, & McLean (2012) noted that the evolving and complex nature of the modern work environment has caused leaders and employees to shift their thinking about organizational dynamics. Joo, Sushko, & McLean (2012) noted that organizations are now shifting to knowledge specialists which are inherently self-governing. This shift in organizational structure and dynamics is one of the factors which highlighted the need for professional coaching. Organizational leaders themselves began to shift from the paradigm of a traditional director to one of a supportive coach (Joo, Sushko, & McLean, 2012). The growing need for coaching became evident in the evolving roles of organizational managers and leaders with their employees. Another factor which contributed to the growing field of coaching was the need for organizations to attract and retain quality talent. Couto & Kauffman (2009) noted that the combination of a lack of available talent and the desire to retain and develop employees with high performance potential is a major contributing factor to the growth of coaching. Thus, one of the most important functions of coaches is their ability to attract and develop highly motivated employees. Egan & Hamlin (2014) likewise concluded that coaching is geared toward the future and is primarily an individual endeavor between coach and employees. Egan & Hamlin (2014) further concluded that the greatest strength of coaches was the flexibility and greater focus available in the “one-on-one” model of coaches and employees. Since coaching can be individually tailored, the growing enthusiasm for coaching is likely found in the richness of the dialogue and developmental exchanges (Egan & Hamlin, 2014). This conclusion was also reached by Sammut (2014) who discovered that coaching is most effective with adult learners in a one-on-one context. Specifically, adult learners display measurable growth in areas of critical reflection of self and circumstances and placing current issues within a larger context. Thus, the greatest strength of coaching – and the area which organizations benefit most from – is the ability of coaches to spend focused one-on-one time with employees. Organizations benefit not only from the development of high-potential performers, but also from increased critical reflection and situational awareness by those employees. Consultants While the field of consulting is a 400+ billion-dollar global industry (Baaij, 2014), it is difficult to distinguish the various roles within the field of consulting. Baaij (2014) noted, for example, that the vast majority of consulting takes place by business consultants rather than management consultants. Business consultants are intended to improve the operation of a business or provide advisement on a product, whereas management consultants aim at improving the quality of individuals leading and managing the business. Therefore, while coaches are hired primarily to work with employees, consultants are primarily hired for for advisement with entire organizations. Consultants, then, are often seen as subject-matter experts on a professional product or process are typically hired by organizations to provide consultation and advisement at a strategic organizational level. Since consultants are sought for their strategic and technical expertise, they are often hired following success careers in government, the private sector, and universities (Couto & Kauffman, 2009). The explosion of demand for consultants has transformed businesses and organizational leaders in a variety of ways. Baaij (2014) noted IBM – once seen almost exclusively as an innovator of technology and hardware – and their transition into the world of consulting. “Many firms, which were not originally classified as consulting firms, such as IBM, now offer consulting related services that have surpassed their original hardware product” (p. 145). The primary role of consultants, then, is to consult with and advise organizations and organizational leaders on strategic innovations or as subject matter experts. While management consultants do exist – both as sole practitioners and in larger, even global, firms – most organizations hire consultants as business consultants rather than management consultants (Baaij, 2014). Trainers A third and related role to coaches and consultants is that of trainer. Trainers exist throughout organizations and have distinguishing characteristics from coaches and consultants. Whereas coaches are hired primarily to work with high potential individuals and consultants are hired primarily to work with organizations at the strategic level, trainers are utilized both inside and outside organizations to increase the knowledge and proficiency of a particular skill set. For example, Couto & Kauffman (2009) highlighted P. Anne Scoular, who works as a trainer of coaches. Scoular has made a career as a trainer focusing on increasing the proficiency of the skill of coaching. In her case, she trains coaches on how to coach more effectively. Trainers, then, find their unique niche in the professional world by their expertise on a particular skill set and are hired by organizations to train other individuals within the organization to better utilize that singular skill set. Segers, Vloeberghs, & Henderickx (2011) made the distinction between coaches and trainers by noting that coaches often supplement organizational training. An individual, for example, may require a trainer to become proficient at executing a skill set, but may subsequently require a coach on how to best utilize that skill set in a given environment and working with and for a unique team of individuals. Conclusion The roles of coaches, consultants, and trainers have all expanded in recent years due to the evolving and increasingly complex nature of working environments. While each role is unique, each role also serves a common purpose. The uniqueness of each role is best expressed by examining each role’s unique purpose. Coaches, for example, work closely with selectively targeted employees who have greater-than-average potential. The coaches come alongside these individuals and increase their critical thinking by dialogue which encourages self-reflection and greater critical analysis. This dialogue and analysis translates to a level of thinking which makes them more effective at higher levels. Consultants, rather than seeking to effect individual change, are primarily brought in to effect organizational change. They often have long and exemplary careers in a given field which provides them the expertise to serve as a subject matter expert. Finally, trainers are often considered experts in a particular skill set and are hired only to train individuals on how to utilize that same skill set in their environments. The common purpose shared by each of these roles is their expected positive contribution to the organization and employees. My own experience as a religious professional in both the civilian and military sector have allowed me to have unique interaction with each of these roles. The denomination with which I serve employs coaches who specifically work with church pastors to aid them in their professional lives. Often, these coaches are older individuals who have served for lengthy periods of time in similar capacities to those with whom they are coaching. Virtually no one outside of the pastor himself knows of this relationship. The denomination also employs consultants for various needs. However, rather than working exclusively with pastors, consultants are hired by churches for a specific goal: facilities planning, children’s ministry, fundraising, etc. As for trainers, the United States Army employs professional trainers for every job available in the Army. For example, when chaplains first enter into service they are required to complete the Chaplain Basic Officer Leader Course where they are trained by senior Chaplains. Some of these same chaplains will later be specifically selected to serve as trainers and instructors later in their career. This is an example of a particular skill set being imparted by a professional trainer for service within a unique context. As Baaij (2014) noted, there is still plenty of ambiguity associated with each of these roles in the academic community. However, while each role may be far from having solid boundaries, certain distinguishing factors can be seen in each role. Organizations and organizational leaders should assess their human and material resources and consider their organizational purpose and mission before deciding which role is best suited to their endeavors. References Baaij, Marc G. (2014). An Introduction to Management Consultancy. London: SAGE Publications. Couto, D. & Kauffman, C. (2009). What can coaches do for you? Retrieved from http://www.hbr.org Egan, T. & Hamlin, R. G. (2014). Coaching, HRD, and relational richness: Putting the pieces together. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(2), 243-257. doi:10.1177/1523422313520475 Joo, B. K., Sushko, J. S., & McLean, G. N. (2012). Multiple faces of coaching: Manager-as-coach, executive coaching, and formal mentoring. Organizational Development Journal, 30(1), 19-38. Accessed on February 10, 2018. Sammut, K. (2014). Transformative learning theory and coaching: Application in practice. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 8, 39-53. Accessed on February 10, 2018. Segers, J., Vloeberghs, D., & Henderickx, E. (2011). Structuring and understanding the coaching industry: The coaching cube. Academy of Management & Education, 10(2), 204-221. Accessed on February 10, 2018. |
NG, LR, NCU, USARMy collection of personal papers written over the years Archives
June 2022
Categories |
RSS Feed