In Part 1 and Part 2 of “Which Comes First, Coaching or the Need for Coaching?” it was discussed that most coaches wait for the need for coaching, rather than proactively coaching, which in turn reduces the actual need for coaching. From these two posts, new questions may have surfaced. Some of you may be asking, “If there aren’t any problems or issues, then what would I coach about or coach to?”
CMOE has identified four type of coaching opportunities, listed below in no particular order.
As you may have guessed, CMOE categorizes “the need for coaching,” under Improvement (1). Coaching of this type targets elevating performance and overcoming setbacks, shortcomings, issues, concerns, and problems. However, CMOE has identified three other types of coaching opportunities that will serve as a preemptive strike to such issues. Coaching for Development (2) is focused on enhancing potential, teaching skills, and clarifying expectations – your’s, the coachee’s, and the organization’s. Coaching for Reinforcement (3) involves helping the coachee sustain and expand strengths, successes, and achievements. Coaching for Alignment (4) deals with helping the coachee change and build commitment to new strategies, goals, and processes. After you have finished reading about CMOE’s four types of coaching opportunities, you may yourself realize that problems and issues aren’t the only reason leaders need to coach.
Despite the various opportunities, managers typically only coach for Improvement, or “the need for coaching.” I challenge all readers to make an effort to get out of this coaching rut and start coaching to the other three types of opportunities listed above. Managers will likely find that “the need for coaching” will actually diminish because the causes to such problems will be addressed early on, before a problem fully develops. Please keep your thoughts and comments coming and I welcome any follow-up questions.