“On top of sales forecasts, costumer meetings, internal meetings, KPI reviews and year end evaluations… now I have to do coaching? What does that add to my business and how do I find the time?”
This is how some sales managers feel when asked if they coach their teams. Some others give different answers like “I see the value but I don’t do it because I don’t have time”, or “I do it continuously, but not in a structured way, just spontaneously”. This variety of interpretations of the same situation suggests one thing: we are not clear about what we are talking about when we talk about coaching.
The word has been extremely overused and misunderstood in the media. This does not help in the search for that clarity and causes a certain devaluation of the concept. Some, in public opinion, identify coaching with empty and superficial motivational statements. Others, in the company, use it as a new name for the usual management reviews. So before discussing a proposal on how to coach the sales forces, let us agree on a definition that we can use as a basis for discussion.
What is Coaching?
A coach is the person who trains or instructs a performer or a team, and coaching is the activity they do. The word comes mainly from the sports environment. By using the word coaching we emphasise that this particular form of training involves accompanying, monitoring progress, facilitating the exploration of options, and helping the person trained to find their own path for improvement.
The concept was exported from the world of sports to the business environment at the hands of leaders such as Timothy Gallwey, tennis player and author of “The Inner Game”, and John Whitmore, racing driver and author of “Coaching, the method to improve the performance of people”.
In the context of professional development, we call coaching a training process that is based on accompanying the progress of the client or collaborator with the focus on their objectives and vision, facilitating their own discoveries and the implementation their own action plans. This makes a difference with other development methods that are based more on the teaching of theoretical models (training), or on the sharing of one’s own experiences (mentoring).
Why?
In a competitive environment, a company needs a continued improvement of skills and processes. Selling is not an exception – it is not a magic, intutive art: today we know selling is a process which must be learned. But it is a complex process because it includes many uncontrolled variables (economic, social, emotional…). The best way to learn to master complexity is by acquiring your own experience. That is why a suitable training method should be based on accelerating the development of one’s own personal experience rather than on studying specific theoretical models.
Helping team members to improve their skills and with them their job satisfaction is not just an investment for the company. It is also probably the most rewarding of a leader’s tasks. Being useful to others is a privilege.
How?
There are different approaches to structure a coaching session, coming from different schools. The GROW model for example, is based on setting a goal, understanding the initial reality and the difference between the actual situation and the desired one, exploring options and agreeing on an action plan. Other models try to build on strengths, identifying the achievements and the behaviours that have made them possible, as a basis for addressing the next challenges. It is not the purpose of this short article to give training in coaching techniques. There are excellent specialized courses for that, and professional associations to certify their quality. But we can be sure that three lines of action will be part of any method:
1 . -The objective
Agreeing on a goal for each session (or for the sequence of upcoming sessions) is a difficult but essential step. There are no shortcuts over this. We are not looking for dreams, we are looking for objectives that are specific, measurable, achievable but relevant, and time specific. These objectives must be aligned with those of the management so that the efforts are synergistic, but ultimately belong to the coachee.
2 . -The listening
Listening here means putting the focus on the person unconditionally. The coach stimulates their thought process, does not instruct, but identifies and shows biases and self-limiting beliefs, and does not give answers but generates questions. The question is the best tool to stimulate the intellectual process, this is known since Socrates. We ask questions to help explore options, discover needs, prioritize, identify bias, and spark discovery.
3 . -The action plan
The session must end with an action plan, and this belongs also to the coachee. Helping to give structure and discipline to that plan, and reviewing its execution, are fundamental parts of the coach’s job.
When?
This service must be delivered to the collaborators in previously scheduled dedicated sessions of sufficient duration, in which he or she knows what we are going to do and agrees to it.
If the coach is the immediate manager, we are often tempted to include a few minutes of coaching in the regular management meetings already scheduled. This attempt usually fails. The discussion about the day-to-day business and its activities tends to expand and occupy all the time available for conversation. With few exceptions where teams manage to make this format work, generally management and coaching are two different activities and require their dedicated moments.
Some consultants claim that in the less hierarchical and increasingly collaborative leadership style of the 21st century coaching completely replaces any managerial conversation. According to them managers should be completely transformed into coaches, and the company into an ecosystem of self-managed individuals who collaborate according to their skills. In my opinion this is, to say the least, extremely optimistic. Management interactions, be it individual or in teams, are still necessary to keep a business running.
On the other hand, there is the concept of spontaneous coaching that many leaders like so much. “I do it all the time, I just do it informally.” From sales manager to sales manager: don’t we know that this is just a way of fooling ourselves? In order to add value, a coaching session requires full attention and mutual agreement on objectives, which cannot be achieved by integrating it into an informal conversation by the coffee machine. We need dedicated sessions.
These sessions could take place immediately after a joint client visit. During the visit, the coach would simply observe and take notes, without interfering, allowing the salesperson to be himself, and make her own mistakes if necessary. Later, sitting comfortably over a cup of coffee or walking in a park, the two of them analyze the session together and that is where the coaching begins. When this combination of observation and coaching is not possible, it is also effective to do sessions without direct observation. The seller will be her own observer and we will ask questions and trust her observations. This allows more frequency and less dedication of time. A good idea is to combine both formats.
Who must do it?
The first option often thought of is the direct supervisor. Many companies are offering basic training to their middle managers in coaching techniques and carrying “coaching managers” programs. Excellent initiative, if we simply want is to introduce some basic coaching skills in the leader’s toolbox. This ability will undoubtedly make them more constructive leaders and better listeners. That’s good. But if we want to offer a solid support program to improve the team’s competence, it is not enough.
As a sales manager, are you ready to watch the salesperson make a mistake, patiently wait your turn to speak, and then discuss potential learning with the person? Even if the mistake can result in losing a business opportunity with impact on your own bottom line in the short term? And as a salesperson, are you willing to discuss your weaknesses, doubts and areas of dissatisfaction with your direct boss?
A more effective option would be to hire an external professional coach. This person won’t have detailed knowledge of your organization, your customers, or your process, but he or she knows exactly how to help. Back to the sports reference, the coach does not know how to play tennis better than the coachee: the coach knows how to coach. However, this option has a direct economic cost, and in companies with large sales forces, doing so for all employees for a sustained time might be above the available budget.
In such cases, an interesting third option is to combine a limited time of external support with an internal culture of coaching. We can create a network in which people receive coaching from a colleague who is not their direct superior, and this colleague is trained and supported by an external professional coach in “coach the coach” sessions. A person who does not risk their quarter on an employee’s error is more open to supporting without judging and listening without intervening. On the other hand, the coachee is often more open to showing areas of growth with someone other than their direct supervisor.
This internal coaching network can be created with members of the middle management team – avoiding pairing them with their direct reports – or with a selection of individual contributors on a voluntary basis. In fact, it is a very attractive opportunity for them to develop analytical and interpersonal, and can be motivating for those with a desire to grow and be useful. Obviously, the participants will need not only professional support but also time to do their part. As in any project that we want to undertake seriously, it is essential to free up some of their time.
Yes, we are asking a lot. Goals focused on the professional development of the person; dedicated sessions; dedicated tandems, with time reserved for this activity; an external professional coach… and a lot of trust in people’s potential.
Yes, implementing a systematic coaching program for our team has a cost, in time or in money. But the return is well worth it, both as immediate business results and as job satisfaction for employees (with the consequent reduction in unwanted turnover for the company). If investing in improving a team’s competence seems expensive, the consequences of not improving can be dramatically more expensive.
Some consultants talk of performance coaching as opposed to development coaching. According to this, the first would focus on reviewing performance indicators and action plans to improve them, leaving the growth of the person out of scope. In my opinion, if the process is not aimed at facilitating the development of the person while improving their performance, it is not coaching, it is just management. We seek to focus on the person, bet on their potential, and facilitate their own progress in their development and job satisfaction. In short, to be useful. That privilege. And fortunately, this growth process will also translate into improved performance so our organization will benefit.