The most effective coaching happens between a coachable employee or client and a trustworthy coach. One of the biggest threats to the effectiveness of that relationship is employee resistance.
Unfortunately, this resistance can happen before the coaching process has even begun. If an employee is asked, referred or even mandated to work with a coach, they may come to the coaching relationship already resistant. And while a strong coach might eventually be able to help a client overcome that resistance, it’s far more beneficial for everyone if the client comes to the coaching relationship without resistance to the process. So before you suggest — or require — coaching for an employee, consider these three steps to help avoid resistance.
1. Frame coaching as a reward, not a punishment.
When coaching is suggested to an employee, there is a possibility that the employee will assume they are in trouble or in need of fixing. This assumption is often a result of how coaching is framed by the supervisor.
Coaching is a professional development opportunity that can expand leadership capabilities, increase empathy, improve communication skills, reduce anxiety and instill confidence, among many other benefits. Framing this to your employee as an investment in them — rather than as a chance to “correct” problematic behaviors or attitudes — will help the employee also view this as an opportunity for growth.
2. Release control of the outcome.
The desired outcome of coaching may be specific in your mind. Maybe you want to encourage certain actions, discourage others, or bring attention to a communication gap an employee may not recognize in themself. A strong coach will know on the front end what the desired outcome for the coaching contract is. However, a good coaching relationship will allow for exploration that may go beyond — or sometimes in a different direction than — the intended pursuit. To that end, the less strict you are in expecting certain outcomes for your employee, the greater the work the coach can do.
When the focus is on the process, not the outcome, it alleviates the pressure on the person being coached, allowing for a more open and less resistant experience.
3. Let the employee select the coach.
Many companies have internal coaches, while others may rely on one contracted coach to work with a variety of employees. But for coaching to truly work, the employee must trust in, and gel with, their coach. Therefore, choosing which coach they work with is paramount for an employee.
Ownership over this selection does a few things to help break down resistance to the process. For one, the employee feels in control of their own development. Additionally, being part of the selection helps build buy-in to the coaching process. And finally, choosing their coach helps the client feel a higher sense of confidentiality, trust and uniqueness.
These three considerations each can lower an employee’s sense of resistance to coaching, allowing for a much more productive and meaningful relationship.
