I had an interesting experience which led me to investigate some aspects of transition from traditional authoritative roles to a more empathetic, coaching-based approach. It was a discussion with a director, who served his position in a small organisation (about 60 university-educated employees) for almost 30 years. Rules did not allow him to take candidacy for the next term because of his prime age, so his last days in the position were coming. Two candidates have decided to run for the position and the board was going to vote for one of them. A day before the vote, the leaving director emailed every employee, stating that he did what he could to eliminate one candidate and also wrote: “But unfortunately there are democratic rules, which allow multiple candidates in the election.”
I was astonished. Typically, organisations strive to have approximately 3-5 qualified candidates for important roles as this increases the probability of the organisation’s future success. In my conversation with the leaving director, he explained to me that he’s the one who knows what is good for the organisation – nobody knows better, no employee, no board member. He was even willing to break rules based on this belief. Data-based measurements revealed a decade-long decline in the organisation. People in the organisation have been polarised into groups, intrigues and the misuse of power positions has become a common phenomenon in work life. Even the departing director confirmed these facts. The reason, according to him, were external forces and “about three individuals” within the organisation, which were solely dedicated to causing harm and nothing else for long years. He viewed himself as a benevolent ruler, fighting against evil plots.
Later, reflecting on my experience and understanding the situation, I realised perhaps everyone tends to view themselves as the only expert in some situations. I can surely say for myself. I also know that leaders, in particular, face challenging situations, as their position in the hierarchy allows them to create a very solid illusion of their own super-competence. Not for others, but for themselves.
In the realm of leadership and management, hierarchical structures are a fundamental component. We humans create structures of roles, power, and authority. This behaviour supports our ability to work together and function as a group – society. We create differently organised groups like families, clubs, schools, states, churches, gangs, etc. But, unfortunately, almost all of us lose a view of pure functionality to a certain degree, and we subconsciously relate our identity to a social position or position of power. It does not matter what position. We can relate our identity to any position in the group and its power structures. Our behaviour should serve a function in the structure to support a common goal, but if we identify ourselves with the role, it serves to confirm our identity.
As humans, we have a limited capacity to build a self-image, as we can not incorporate everything that we perceive by senses – we subconsciously select just a few things upon which we build an identity of ourselves. And, also naturally, we have a tendency to point out those which confirm our views and attitudes. We produce thoughts and that way we build our own image of ourselves. As leaders we can build our own illusion of competence, bit by bit, for whatever deeper reason. For a leader in a position of power, this building of self-image can be supported by other people’s behaviour because other people play the power game and recognise the leader. A biassed leader may not recognize that others are just behaving regarding their function in the group. In a leader’s reality, this can be a confirmation of their image of super-competence.
To prevent and combat these cognitive distortions, coaching emerges as a tool in the leadership toolkit. Of course, as a coach, I’m biassed towards coaching and I believe there are many other means, yet objectively coaching leadership style brings various benefits. Unlike traditional management approaches that focus on directing and validating, coaching emphasises inquiry, reflection, and the facilitation of solution discovery and building. At its core, coaching doesn’t elevate the coach’s significance. By definition coach and coachee (client) are equal. This type of relationship empowers the coachee (in our case it will be a sub-ordinate, a team, or a department) to advance towards their own solutions. Solutions, which they identify and recognise by using their capacities. This is a direct support of self-management and growth. Coaching (at its core) is non-manipulative. Coach does not have hidden agenda, does not want to manipulate people into certain decision, behaviour or solutions. Leaders developing the coaching mindset tend to reframe their role towards facilitation, providing support to the team or department, rather than imposing solutions on them. This transition from a directive, command-and-control mindset to a coaching mindset not only boosts the decision-making capabilities of teams but also bolsters their adaptability in the ever-changing environments.
The benefits of a coaching approach extend beyond professional leadership. They also significantly contribute to personal development and a sense of fulfilment. Manipulative approaches bring satisfaction when others do, what manipulator imagined. Non-manipulative approaches contrary bring satisfaction when others grow in their own will and actions. Adopting coaching practices can improve the overall quality of life for leaders, both professionally and personally. From my experience, my clients have said that their coaching approach in leadership had helped by dispersing the weight of responsibility. While the leader keeps their share of accountability, they also recognise that each team member has a role to play and encourage them to live the responsibility of the role. This realisation not only eases the burden of the leader’s role but also fosters a sense of shared ownership and collective responsibility within the team or organisation.
The mental state and mindset of a leader have a profound impact on their environment. A balanced, self-aware leader who practises a coaching approach naturally invites others to a similar state. Their attitude and behaviour set a tone that resonates throughout the team, promoting a culture of openness, respect, and collaboration. This approach doesn’t just lead to effective management (supporting self-management), it also cultivates an atmosphere of psychological safety where team members feel valued, heard, and empowered to contribute their best. Team members are more likely to take calculated risks, offer innovative ideas, and communicate openly without fear of negative consequences.
In conclusion, the transition from a traditional leadership role to that of a coaching leader is supporting in circumventing the illusion of competence. Recognising the cognitive biases and power dynamics in leadership, and mindfully applying the coaching style of leadership, can transform a leader’s approach to be more empathetic, self-aware, and empowering others. To make this shift much more practical and effective, leaders should consider formal training or courses in coaching competencies. Engaging with a professional coach for personal development in this domain can also be beneficial. These steps can easily enable leaders in agile environments to incorporate coaching practices in their daily interactions. This approach elevates team performance, contributes to the leader’s personal growth, and leads to a more satisfying leadership experience.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-32408-003
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JWAM-04-2021-0030/full/html
Empiric Coaching 