 |
|
MRSC has joined with Janice Corbin and Janet May, Partners, Sound Employment Solutions, Rhonda Hilyer, President, Agreement Dynamics,and Bruce Schroeder, Employment/Litigation Attorney, Summit Law Group, to bring you the "HR Advisor" article series on employment and labor law issues affecting Washington local governments. The "HR Advisor" will feature a new article each month with timely HR management information and advice you can use.*
Highly Effective Coaching Techniques
May 2006
Rhonda Hilyer
Agreement
Dynamics, Inc.
Coaching is simply a form of teaching—teaching others specific ways to function in order to be more effective. The acronym “L.E.A.R.N.” refers to a 5-step coaching model that has been used successfully with employees and managers from every department of municipal governments.
L.E.A.R.N. stands for:
Step 1 - Listen
Step 2 - Empathize
Step 3 - Ask
Step 4 - Refocus
Step 5 - Nitpick
Let’s look at how these steps were used to coach a public works supervisor.
George1 was hired by the public works department of a growing city nearly 24 years ago. He quickly became known as hard working, honest and technically proficient. Eight years later he was promoted to a supervisory position. Even though he was quiet and not much on social skills, he seemed to have a good working relationship with his crew.
Over the last year things have really soured. Half the crew retired and George found himself supervising 20-somethings along with a few remaining “old-timers.” When friction developed between the generations George mostly let them deal with it amongst themselves. When he did intervene it was usually to tell the young guys to learn from the seasoned veterans who’d “been around the block a few times.” When the newer employees complained that the older workers were using outdated methods, George just shrugged it off. To him these “young kids” always questioned everything and didn’t seem to have the same respect for authority as his generation.
Then Cheryl was transferred to George’s crew. Things really went downhill fast. George had never supervised a woman and he wasn’t sure how to act. So he kept his distance. Even though he minimized his own interactions with Cheryl, he made sure she wasn’t mistreated by the guys. He told them to “be nice” to her. One day Cheryl and Ed (a 27-year-employee) got into a yelling match. Both called each other names and used profanity. George gave Ed a written reprimand for “cussing at Cheryl.” Ed filed a grievance claiming disparate treatment and “reverse discrimination,” since Cheryl got no discipline for the same behavior. Cheryl filed a complaint with HR alleging a hostile work environment and that George isolated her and allowed her to be ostracized from the rest of the crew.
An investigation was conducted and other allegations surfaced. For example, the younger workers claimed George allowed “his buddies” (the older workers) to do whatever they wanted, including taking long lunch hours, not wearing safety gear, not attending trainings and not using modern techniques to enhance safety and effectiveness.
The entire crew was sent to conflict resolution training and George got additional supervisory training. Unfortunately, neither effort worked. Nothing changed except more grievances and charges were filed. Animosities escalated.
While both George and his crew ultimately received some group and individual coaching, this article will focus on how the L.E.A.R.N. process was used with George.
Step 1 – Listen
George needed a safe way to express his frustrations and fears. The simple act of just being listened to (without judgment, suggestions or any interjections) gave George a level of comfort that helped him open up and get some things off his chest. He also began voicing fears of losing control and not feeling confident about how to supervise women or younger workers who aren’t satisfied with just “no” for an answer.
When he finished talking, George let out a sigh of relief and thanked his coach for just “being there” to hear him out. This step of just listening not only was cathartic for George, but it built a bridge of rapport and gave the coach some useful insights into George and his approach to supervision.
Step 2 – Empathize
After listening carefully and respectfully, the coach demonstrated understanding of George’s concerns by asking clarifying questions and restating some of his views in a caring way. For example, the coach said, “Gee, after all these years of building such a cohesive crew it must feel like you’re navigating in uncharted waters with this younger generation.” George responded with, “You sure hit that nail on the head. I’m glad someone else understands how tough this is.”
Empathy is not necessarily the same as agreeing. It is basically demonstrating an understanding of the other’s message and expressing genuine concern for what that person is experiencing. Steps 1 and 2 built openness, understanding and trust between George and his coach. They paved the way for George to fully engage in the coaching process.
Step 3 – Ask
In this step, the coach asked George two fundamental questions (the order of which does matter):
Question #1: “What can you realistically ask your crew members to do differently that would make things better?”
Question #2: “What can you realistically ask yourself to do differently that would make things better?”
After some discussion, George said he could ask Cheryl to come and talk to him about her concerns and give him a chance to work things out before going outside or filing complaints. Similarly, he said he could ask Ed and other crew members to come to him before filing grievances. In both Cheryl and Ed’s cases, George was caught off guard by their actions and began to realize that he needed to be more proactive in order to prevent things from escalating.
With respect to what George could do differently, he offered that he could take the initiative and ask Cheryl periodically how she was doing. Also, he realized he could meet with employees and hear their side of things before issuing formal discipline. He reflected that he had not done that with Ed and in hindsight he could see how Ed felt picked on. George and his coach memorialized his ideas and agreed to meet soon after he’d tried them out.
Step 4 – Refocus
This is where the coach begins shifting the dynamic from helplessness (poor me) to hopefulness (I can affect good results). Even though George was making progress, he still felt victimized by the younger generation and he blamed them for what he saw as disrespect for authority. Here the coach was able to reframe his perception and help him refocus on how he could engender more respectful behaviors. In one conversation the coach asked George to provide an example of how the younger workers showed disrespect for authority. “Oh, that’s easy,” he responded, “They’re always asking me ‘why,’ why do we have to do it this way?”
“How do you answer them?” the coach inquired. “I say, ‘because I told you to,’ or ‘because that’s the way it’s done,’” George replied.
“Is it possible they may have been taught to do it differently or they don’t understand the reason why it can only be done one way?” asked the coach.
“You’re right,” said George. “Some of today’s training is different, but we have old equipment and facilities. It’s more efficient, and in some cases, safer to do it the old fashioned way and use what they see as outdated methods.”
“What if you explained that to them at a crew meeting and used their ‘why’ questions as an opportunity to educate?”
“I suppose it wouldn’t hurt to give it a try,” said George.
After giving George some very specific tips on how to use employees’ “why” questions to help his crew learn and grow professionally, George was pleasantly surprised at how well his explanations were received. This gave the coach an opening to use step 5.
Step 5 – Nitpick
“Since you’re getting some positive reactions when you explain ‘why’ you want things done in certain ways, how about a ‘nitpicky’ suggestion to build on your success?” the coach offered.
“What do you have in mind?” George asked.
“Well, what if you periodically asked your crew (especially the younger workers) if they have suggestions on ways some of the newer training methods they’ve learned can be applied while still ensuring that safety, efficiency and cost-effectiveness is maximized?” George and his coach proceeded to discuss why soliciting and using employee input is so important as well as when and how to do so. This small “nitpick” was a practical, non-threatening way to introduce George to a more collaborative style of management. As he put this “nitpick” suggestion into practice, he was encouraged by what he characterized to his coach as the more respectful, can-do attitudes of all his crew members.
The most successful coaching really is about “nitpicks”—small, incremental changes that over time have a big impact. Too often coaching efforts fall flat because a personal or professional transformation is attempted. George was a good example of a hard working, honest, and basically “old school” supervisor. He didn’t need to learn and use all the so-called modern methods to be successful. By modifying a few of his approaches, he was able to evolve in his supervisory role and came to be viewed by his younger crew members as a trusted mentor.
1This is a true story. Only the names have been changed to protect confidentiality.
| Bruce Schroeder is an employment / litigation attorney with Summit Law Group, Seattle. Bruce's practice is concentrated on representing management in the entire range of employment law matters. More . |  |
|
Janice Corbin is a partner with
Sound Employment Solutions, LLC, Seattle. Janice has over 15 years of
human resources experience with the Seattle Police Department and the
International Harvester Truck Company and has worked in the law enforcement
field for over 22 years.
More.
Janet May is a partner and attorney with Sound Employment Solutions, LLC, Seattle. Janet has over ten years of experience in the labor and employment law field, and has represented both management and labor. More. |
 |
| Rhonda Hilyer, President and Founder of Agreement Dynamics, is an international consultant with a reputation for helping convert traditional, conflict-based environments into productive, collaborative ones. More. |  |
*The Articles appearing in the "HR Advisor" column represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Municipal Research & Services Center.