 |
Surgeons at Work,
a photo by salimfadhley on Flickr |
Is there anyone who is exempt from performance improvement? How about professionals like surgeons, whose residency has been in the rear-view mirror for years, and whose repetition of procedures has led to an intuitively effective analysis of the patient's situation and execution of intricate technique?
A
recent article by Atul Gawande in The New Yorker asserts that yes, even highly trained professionals in their peak performance years can benefit from coaching. This goes for surgeons, it applies to experienced educators, and it translates to the business environment as well.
Gawande's decision to hire a coach stemmed from a feeling that he had plateaued in his performance. For years he had beat the standards for his procedures. Then he wasn't beating them any more.
His perspective on the practice of surgery is that it is a late-peaking career. A surgeon has to develop the experience and the technique, but also has to have the stamina to be effective even in lengthy and complicated procedures. But despite the assurance that came from knowing that his practice benefits from time and experience, Gawande didn't want his effectiveness to start to wane.
In this instance, surgical expertise was important in a coach, although Gawande admits that an effective coach's biggest value is not in his or her technical expertise - it is the ability to observe and listen in a detailed fashion and then to provide feedback. An effective coach doesn't think on behalf of the coachee - the coach's job is to help the coachee to think.
Why There is Resistance to Coaching
Some of the resistance to coaching comes from a prospective coachee's impression that coaching applies only in the case of fair or poor performance. This mistaken belief is based upon the idea that the coach is going to watch, identify "wrong" behavior and then correct the coachee with the "right" way to do it. So to hire a coach is, in some minds, an admission of fault. In some professions like surgery, confidence is a critical component in peak performance. So the tendency can be to ignore opportunities for improvement so as not to shake one's mojo.
Client-driven Process
What coaching resistors don't realize is that they drive the coaching process, not the coach. The relationship begins with a scope of work conversation where the professional, not the coach, identifies the areas around which the coaching process is going to revolve. The coaching relationship is initiated by a detailed self-assessment of strengths and areas for improvement.
Once the coach is provided the context for the coaching relationship, he or she can then pay particular attention to the performance dimensions identified by the coachee. And the relationship progresses with the coach asking the coachee questions, either about performance they observed directly or situations surfaced by the coachee during a coaching session. The coach's goal is not to correct the coachee, but rather to help the coachee think about the details of what is working and not working as well as desired within specific performance situations. The coach may or may not possess technical expertise with which to suggest specific solutions. But regardless of the coach's training in the coachee's technical field, the optimal situation is where the coachee develops his or her own answers.
Generalized vs. Specific Observations
An effective coach breaks performance down into components instead of making generalized observations. For example, Gawande's coach (a trusted technical expert) identified his draping method as a potential area for attention. He didn't say, "Gawande, you're not a team player," or "Gawande, you don't drape your patient effectively." He told the surgeon that his method of draping, although effective for his own accessibility during a procedure, hampered visibility and some access for other members of the surgical team. He told Gawande which of the team couldn't see or reach well with the drape positioned in Gawande's preferred way. Gawande changed the position of the drape and was able to improve the team's performance. He and his coach didn't overhaul Gawande's performance - they fine-tuned it.
When individuals talk about themselves and others in generalized terms, especially when being critical of performance, the result can be a generalized feeling of inadequacy and failure. This doesn't serve anyone, and certainly not an already above-average performer. Performance improvement relies upon an open attitude toward performance improvement, and even professionals with some sensitivity to criticism can respond well when coaches provide feedback specific rather than generalized terms.
Maximizing Performance
Good and even outstanding performers are often overlooked when companies select individuals to receive company-sponsored coaching. When that is the case, is it any wonder that professionals might be reluctant to be recommended for a coaching relationship? They may look around and perceive that they have been targeted for remedial assistance, even if that is not even close to the case. In a company-sponsored coaching process, it's very important that all parties understand its purpose, to prevent resistance at the outset from impeding near-term progress.
Self-sponsored or self-chosen coaching passes by the potentially negative perceptions. The self-sponsored coachee approaches the relationship from a perspective of self-improvement, even self-interest. It is a personal choice, and therefore the coachee's openness tends to be greater from the outset than is sometimes the case for a company-sponsored situation.
Professional athletes use coaches to optimize performance and extend their peak earning years as long as possible. Opera stars continue their vocal coaching throughout their careers. Why should professionals in medicine, education, or business be any different?