The Coaching Manager: Part 9 – Traditional Manager V. Coaching Manager

In our role as manager, is our primary goal to drive our teams, or empower them? This is a fundamental question we need to consider, and the answer will be different if we are a traditional manager, or a coaching manager.  The traditional manager I envision as “pushing” their direct reports to do the best job for their company, and for the manager, as they can.  The key qualities for a traditional manager can be summarized as aggressive, forceful, and even intimidating.  I imagine an old school manager complete with three-piece pinstripe suit, receding hairline, cigar affixed on one side of his mouth scolding his direct report “you’ve been here 9 and a half hours today – what have you gotten done?”  (I actually know a manager that used to say this.)  Founder and CEO of a very large corporation used to regularly ask people at random “How have you made me money today?”  Can you say “aggressive”?  “Intimidating?”  The astounding thing when considering this old-school manager caricature is the realization that this ilk of managers still exists!  If we unflinchingly reflect back on our career past most of us in all honesty would probably say that we have worked for, or at least known of one of these old school managers.  The models for what a manager should look like, and how they should behave were formed decades ago, and they die hard.  This is beyond scope of this current discussion, but is it possible that the traditional models of management, and mangers have roots in a time where managers were almost entirely men?  I think so.  Aggressiveness, and intimidation are quality that are generally described as “male” characteristics.  Be that as it may, it is late in the hour, and time has come to realize “old school is out”.  Younger professionals, as well as those who value their worth, and are confident in their abilities will not buy in to the traditional manager.  It is time to consider new management paradigms that empower, not drive subordinates.  The coaching manager model has much to offer in this area.
Below is a comparison of how the coaching manager approach compares with the traditional manager model:

• Focus: The focus of traditional management is the direct report’s projects, workload, and deadlines.  The focus of the coaching manager approach is the client – that is to say, the direct report.
• Motivation: Traditional management uses power, aggression, intimidation, and threat of punishment as motivators.  The coaching manager model uses personal goal setting, empathy, and confidence building to empower the direct report.
• Failure: A traditional manager confronts their direct report if they have failed on a delivery.  They may even threaten disciplinary measures (performance improvement plan) if the direct report is perceived as failing.  A coaching manager will ask the direct report open ended questions to work through blocks, and set-backs in their work.  The coaching manager and the client (direct report) will explore best options to remove, or minimize blocks, and come to agreement on next best steps.
• One on One Meetings: In traditional 1:1 meeting the manager reviews progress one direct report projects, and deadlines.  They may ask about any potential problems.   Coaching manager 1:1’s are sessions.  The burden is on the client (the direct report) to set the agenda.  The focus is on goal setting, exploring best options, and agreeing on specific action the client will commit to.
• Relationship: The traditional manager and direct report relationship is best described as power-based.  Managers have more power, and can direct, or command the direct report.  The coaching manager and client (direct report) relationship is based on empowerment.  The coaching manager facilitates the client; they do not command them.  The coaching manager encourages the client to arrive at their own solutions.  The coaching manager provides value by opening up options.
• Accountability: In traditional management the manager is held responsible for their direct reports.  In the coaching manager approach, the client commits to specific goals, and action, and accepts accountability to deliver.
• Goal: The primary goal in traditional management is driving direct reports to highest possible productivity.  This is attempted through leveraging power, force of will, issuing directives, and even intimidation.  The goal of the coaching manager model is empowering the direct report to be the best professional, and best person they can be.  This is achieved through assessing the client, working with the client on a personal vision, mapping that vision into a workable plan, and then breaking that plan down into specific deliverables.

Management models based on power, aggression, and intimidation are disintegrating like a spent stogie.  Young professionals, such as those called millennials, have grown up too smart to buy in to a system that diminishes their self-worth.  A system that empowers our subordinates is indeed more respectful, and nurturing, but it is also a more efficient use of resources.  Rather directing, or commanding subordinates, coaching mangers empower their subordinates to assess, and solve their own problems.  As we shake free of the shackles of old school, power based management, the paradigm of the coaching manager provides an appealing, and fresh alternative.