FOR MICHAEL SMITH ONLY

HRD Individual Essay

Human resource development (HRD) professionals are tasked with the challenge to create a competitive advantage for organisations through investment in human capital. It is therefore imperative for HRD professionals to employ initiatives that improve the motivation, knowledge and skills of employees which are difficult for competitors to replicate (Hagen, 2012; Kim, 2014). Coaching in the workplace is becoming a widely used intervention to help organisations achieve these goals (Cox, Bachkirova & Clutterbuck, 2014; Ellinger, Ellinger, Bachrach, Wang & Elmadag Bas, 2011; Ellinger, Ellinger & Keller, 2003; Goldman, Wesner & Karnchanomai, 2013; Hagen & Peterson, 2014; Hui, Sue-Chan & Wood, 2013; Kim, 2014; Ladyshewsky, 2010). However, there is disagreement as to whether coaching sits in the realm of HRD or as a separate business function (Egan & Hamlin, 2014). This is due to coaching being a relatively new intervention which lacks a defined framework, definitive boundaries and the level of research found in an established industry (Egan & Hamlin, 2014). While it is a generally accepted view in academic research that implementation of such a program will result in improvements in performance on both an individual and organisational level, who is responsible for this program and how it should be implemented is widely debated (Hamlin, Ellinger & Beattie, 2008; Hamlin & Stewart, 2011). This review will focus on how managerial coaching fits into the realm of HRD through analysing the effect on not only performance levels but other important HRD concepts and goals such as the learning and meaning of work paradigms as defined by Bates and Chen (2004, 2005).

Prior to understanding the link between HRD and managerial coaching, it is imperative to grasp relevant concepts. Human resource development is training and development and organisation development initiatives with the intended outcome being enhancement of performance for both the individual and the organisation (Hamlin & Stewart, 2011; McGraw & Peretz, 2011; Young Sung & Choi, 2014). Although there are multiple definitions in the literature, consistently coaching is defined as intentionally guiding the individual, group or organisation to achieve performance improvements as well as growth and development on a personal level (Baker, 2010; Beattie, Kim, Hagen, Egan, Ellinger & Hamlin, 2014; Goldman et al. 2013; Hamlin & Stewart, 2011; Rock & Donde, 2008; Rowold, 2008). On the surface, the definitions of coaching and HRD both focus on the same outcome so obviously must be linked. The analysis of the two concepts is however not so straight forward. Managerial coaching is facilitated by a manager or supervisor within the organisation (Ellinger et al. 2011; Hagen, 2012; Hagen & Aguilar, 2012; Kim, 2014; Kim, Egan & Moon, 2014). Performance is usually aligned with productivity and relates to how effectively an employee carries out their specific role in the organisation (Ellinger et al., 2011; Kim, 2014). Bates and Chen (2004, 2005) also discussed how HRD is responsible for individual, team and organisational learning and that life-long learning should be part of the culture of the organisation. They expressed this responsibility as the learning paradigm (Bates & Chen, 2004, 2005). Finally the third dimension outlined by Bates and Chen (2004, 2005) is the meaning of work paradigm. They explained this as the requirement to develop the whole person as well as how a person experiences work, as well as how HRD is linked to the wellbeing of organisations, community, society and the entire world (Bates & Chen, 2004, 2005). There are contrasting arguments as to which paradigms are most important in the practice of HRD. Hurt, Lynham and McLean (2014) found a total of 18 paradigms within the literature. This makes it difficult for academics and practitioners to agree on the purpose of HRD (Hurt et al., 2014; Ghosh, Kim, Kim & Callahan, 2014).

The literature argues that managerial coaching will have a positive effect on individual performance (Agarwal et al., 2009; Baker, 2010; Ellinger et al., 2011; Ellinger et al., 2003; Hagen & Aguilar, 2012; Kim et al., 2014; Swart & Harcup, 2012). As HRD practitioners are responsible for employee training plans, they must decide if coaching will be a better alternative to traditional group training methods. Research conducted by Kim et al. (2014) found that coaching interventions resulted in a rise in employee productivity of 167%, substantially greater than improvements made as a result of in-class training initiatives. However Baker (2010) demonstrated that coaching is a tool to develop performance rather than a method of training. Hagen (2012) along with Hagen and Aguilar (2012) suggested that performance improvements can be attributed to the coach challenging, discussing and providing direction to employees. This in turn creates a more knowledgeable and empowered employee, motivated to contribute discretionary behaviour to the organisation. Coaching interventions also provide greater clarity of position requirements for an employee (Kim, 2014). This leads to improvement in their performance objectives. Coaching links to successful employee results through an entire performance management program (Hagen, 2012). The study by Kim (2014) also found that managerial coaching used in combination with performance management techniques and 360 degree feedback system, yielded that greatest result in productivity. As coaching is a developmental tool, consistently used each week, it ensures employee’s have a clear understanding of their progress in comparison to yearly performance appraisals (McCarthy & Milner, 2013). There is however, confusion in the literature as to the difference between performance appraisals and performance management. Hui et al. 2013 linked coaching with performance appraisal where Ladyshewsky (2010) demonstrated that coaching lies within a performance management system and a performance appraisal is a review based on a quantifiable set of criteria.

There are many individual behavioural factors that contribute to the coaching experience. Therefore not all studies have produced improvement in performance. Rowold (2008) found that coaching did increase job satisfaction but not performance. Ellinger et al. (2011) found that coaching was most successful in situations of low coaching rather than high coaching. They suggested that rather than use coaching as a developmental tool for all employees, selection should focus on employees who show poor levels of performance or those that are most likely to be promoted. However, when implementing such a strategy HRD must find other avenues to support employees who don’t fit into either of these categories. If employees feel unsupported by management they could experience decreased job satisfaction, low motivation levels and higher turnover intentions leading to a negative effect on productivity and performance. It is also imperative to look at how coaching affects performance of the manager in the coaching relationship. A manager can spend a great deal of time coaching their employees, especially if they have many direct reports (Rock & Donde, 2008). This may result in their own performance levels being negatively affected due to being able to satisfactorily complete the remainder of their workload. This was demonstrated by Kim (2014) who stated that managers did not have the required resources to complete all areas of their responsibilities as well as coaching interventions.

Kim et al. (2014) demonstrated that managerial coaching improves the financial performance of an organisation through productivity increases. Many believed that improvements made to individual performance will flow through to increase organisational performance (Hagen, 2012; Hagen & Aguilar, 2012). Therefore it is suggested that new managers should be appointed based on coaching behaviours as well as traditional promotion attributes such as technical knowledge, organisation and communication skills (Ellinger et al, 2011; Hagen & Aguilar, 2012; Kim, 2014). This is vital as managers are becoming increasingly responsible for implementing coaching initiatives (Ellinger et al, 2011). Kim (2014) also found that employees who have been coached feel more supported and display greater commitment behaviours to the organisation. The increased level of commitment will result in improvement to the organisation’s overall results. Rock and Donde (2008) agree; although they argued that higher organisation commitment reduces an employee’s turnover intentions. Rather than attributing improved financial performance to higher productivity, they believe that lower overhead costs following reduced turnover is the source of improved organisational performance. For managerial coaching initiatives to be successful; they must be linked to business strategy (Agarwal, Angst & Magni, 2009; Gibb & Wallace, 2014). Agarwal, Angst and Magni (2009) found that if the strategic goals of the organisation do not value coaching; managers will view coaching as a barrier rather than an important intervention in fostering employee growth. This is where HRD practitioners need to champion the coaching intervention and provide a clear link with the strategic goals of the organisation. The champion should have experience in a coaching relationship and have a coaching qualification (McCarthy & Milner, 2013). Ladyshewsky (2010) suggested that contemporary organisations have been focussing on short term bottom line results. Although coaching is an intervention that has a specific goal and timeframe, an organisation focussed on short term results is at odds with managerial coaching. Ladyshewsky (2010) and Hagen (2012) both argued that organisations must shift focus back to developing relationships, they will then benefit from long term improvements to organisational performance.

Learning is a primary goal in coaching interventions. Performance will only improve once effective learning has taken place (Ellinger et al. 2011; Hagen, 2012). Wang (2013) found that tacit knowledge is effectively passed on through the coaching process. Kim (2014) agreed; however reported that both tacit and explicit knowledge is passed down the organisation hierarchy through the use of coaching. A benefit of this type of work relationship is that institutional history will not be lost as those employees at retiring age will have passed their knowledge onto the next generation. As the learning paradigm describes, a HRD professional’s role is to improve learning on both the individual and organisational level. Therefore an effective coaching program can achieve this goal. It is widely established that coaching will not have the desired effect unless the culture of the organisation accepts it as an effective intervention in the learning process (Gray, Ekinci & Goregaokar, 2011). Coaching can support life-long learning in an organisation (Ellinger et al. 2003). When coaching is integrated into the culture of the organisation and that organisation supports life-long learning, everyone is either acting as a coach, being coached or for middle management, performing both roles (Agarwal et al. 2009; McCarthy & Milner, 2013). In contrast to this view, Baker (2010) believed that such a culture of coaching could over extend the employee’s learning function resulting in negative performance and suggested use of the 360 degree feedback system is most beneficial to the employee. Beattie et al (2014) suggested that more studies are needed that focus of how the role of coach can improve a manager’s own learning. Cox et al. (2014) demonstrated how theory related to learning for HRD practitioners can relate to coaching. In contrast, Swart and Harcup (2012) suggested that the current body of research does not provide evidence as to how coaching affects organisational learning.

Contemporary employees are increasingly seeking meaning from their role in the workplace. Goldman et al. (2013) found that performing the role of coach improved an individual’s belief in their own abilities and developed the coach concurrently with the coachee. They state that coaching “clearly provides emotional, functional and developmental value to those so engaged” (Goldman et al. 2013: 85). This is due to the fact that as the subject matter can be confronting, it requires someone to have a high level of emotional understanding as well as being aware of their own strengths and weaknesses (Day, 2010). According to Kim (2014) managerial coaching can meet the meaning of work paradigm by providing employees with the opportunity to look at their job on a deeper level which results in higher levels of self-improvement and awareness. On a larger scale, managers have been able to transfer the skills learnt during coaching interventions to their outside home life. This includes assisting with managing issues associated with raising children, broader community activities and even in retirement (Rock & Donde, 2014). However, due to overextended workloads, some find it difficult to schedule coaching activities (Egan & Hamlin, 2014; Goldman et al. 2013; Kim, 2014; Ladyshewsky, 2010). In this instance coaching would not provide meaning. McLean, Yang, Kuo, Tolbert and Larkin (2005) agreed that managerial coaching results in increased levels of stress for managers rather than providing meaning to their work. Also, if coaching is provided selectively to poor performers or high performers, those in the middle band may view their work as being less meaningful. Ellinger et al. (2011) found specific coaching activities unnecessary all together, instead they suggested that businesses strive to foster an organisational culture which values many coaching behaviours such as teamwork, trust and an environment where knowledge is shared among employees.

Not all literature supports the contention that managerial coaching improves performance. As highlighted previously, many argue that coaching needs to move to a genuine profession through the development of values and boundaries, and further empirically tested studies to provide valuable information for HRD practitioners (Egan & Hamlin, 2014; Hamlin, Ellinger & Beattie, 2008; Hamlin & Stewart, 2011). This movement is further stressed as many coaching professionals do not associate themselves with HRD (Hamlin et al. 2008; Hamlin & Stewart, 2011). Hui, Sue-Chan and Wood (2013) argue that the existing body of research doesn’t effectively link theory to demonstrate how and why coaching is successful. Kim (2014) agreed, reporting that the lack of theories or models proves that there is no certain outcome from the use of coaching. The success of coaching is dependent on how capable the manager is in providing value to the employee (Baker, 2010). Managers are often not interested in developing employees through coaching initiatives. This is due to a number of factors. These include the manager lacking skills, fear of extra competition for management positions, not being rewarded extrinsically for coaching activities or too many direct reports (Kim, 2014; Ladyshewsky, 2010; McLean et al. 2005).

In conclusion, it has been established that the responsibility of managerial coaching initiatives clearly sits within the realm of the HRD practitioner. As movement towards a genuine coaching profession gains momentum, HRD professionals should look to empirically tested literature as well as providing a clear link between managerial coaching initiatives and the organisation’s strategic goals (Agarwal, Angst & Magni, 2009; Gibb & Wallace, 2014). It is the responsibility of HRD conduct a thorough analysis to ensure it is the most effective development tool as well as champion coaching initiatives. HRD practitioners should open communication channels and both listen and act on feedback received in relation to the program. This will assist both those being coach and the coaches develop, learn, find meaning to their work and improve both individual and organisation performance levels. Managerial coaching should be used in conjunction with performance management initiatives to ensure role clarity and employees feel supported by management (Kim, 2014). Coaching is a successful HRD intervention when implemented in the right situations. It can improve performance, meaning of work and assist an organisation moving towards lifelong learning as well as provide alternatives to managing situations an employee or manager may face externally to the organisation (Cox et al. 2014; Rock & Donde, 2008). However the industry would benefit from more research of the effects of coaching on the other paradigms found in HRD literature. It is for these reasons that HRD practitioners should look towards developing a greater understanding of managerial coaching and an overall drive for a genuine coaching profession (Egan & Hamlin, 2014).

References

Agarwal, R., Angst, C.M. & Magni, M. 2009. The performance effects of coaching: A multilevel analysis using hierarchical linear modelling. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20: 2110-2134

Baker, N. 2010. Employee feedback technologies in the human performance system. Human Resource Development International, 13: 477-485

Bates, R. & Chen, H-C. 2005. Value priorities of human resource development professionals. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16: 345-368

Beattie, R.S., Kim, S., Hagen, M.S., Egan, T.M., Ellinger, A.D. & Hamlin, R.G. 2014. Managerial coaching: A review of the empirical literature and development of a model to guide future practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16: 184-201

Cox, E., Bachkirova, T. & Clutterbuck, D. 2014. Theoretical traditions and coaching genres: Mapping the territory. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16: 139-160

Day, A. 2010. Coaching at relational depth: A case study. Journal of Management Development, 29: 864-876

Egan, T. & Hamlin, R.G. 2014. Coaching, HRD, and relational richness: Putting the pieces together. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16: 242-257

Ellinger, A.D., Ellinger, A.E., Bachrach, D.G., Wang, Y-L. & Elmadag Bas, A.B. 2011. Organisational investments in social capital, managerial coaching, and employee work-related performance. Management Learning, 42: 67-85

Ellinger, A.D., Ellinger, A.E. & Keller, S.B. 2003. Supervisory coaching behaviour, employee satisfaction, and warehouse employee performance: A dyadic perspective in the distribution industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14: 435-458

Ghosh, R., Kim, M., Kim, S. & Callahan, J.L. 2014. Examining the dominant, emerging and waning themes featured in select HRD publications. Is it time to redefine HRD? European Journal of Training and Development, 38: 302-3

Gibb, S. & Wallace, M. 2014. Soul mates or odd couples? Alignment theory and HRD. European Journal of Training and Development, 38: 286 – 301

Goldman, E., Wesner, M. & Karnchanomai, O. 2013. Reciprocal peer coaching: a critical contributor to implementing individual leadership plans. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24: 63-87

Gray, D.E., Ekinci, Y. & Goregaokar, H. 2011. Coaching SME managers: Business development or personal therapy? A mixed methods study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22: 863-882

Hagen, M. S. 2012. Managerial coaching: A review of the literature. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 24(4): 17-39

Hagen, M.S. & Peterson, S.L. 2014. Coaching scales: A review of the literature and comparative analysis. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16: 222-241

Hagen, M. & Aguilar, M.G. 2012. The impact of managerial coaching on learning outcomes within the team context: An analysis. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23: 222-241

Hamlin, R.G., Ellinger, A.D. & Beattie, R.S. 2008. The emergent ‘coaching industry’: A wake up call for HRD professionals. Human Resource Development International, 11: 287-305

Hamlin, B. & Stewart, J. 2011. What is HRD? A definitional review and synthesis of the HRD domain. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35: 199-220

Holton III, E.F. 2002. Theoretical assumptions underlying the performance paradigm of human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 5: 199-215

Hui, R.T., Sue-Chan, C. & Wood R.E. 2013. The contrasting effects of coaching style on task performance: The mediating roles of subjective task complexity and self-set goal. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24: 429-458

Hurt, A.C., Lynham, S.A. & McLean, G.N. 2014. Investigating the HRD cube and explicating extant paradigms of HRD. European Journal of Training and Development, 38: 323-346

Kim, S. 2014. Assessing the influence of managerial coaching on employee outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25: 59-85

Kim, S., Egan, T.M. & Moon, M.J. 2014. Managerial coaching efficacy, work related attitudes and performance in public organisations: A comparative international study. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 34: 237-262

Ladyshewsky, R.K. 2010. The manager as coach as a driver of organisational development. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, 31: 292-306

McCarthy, G. & Milner, J. 2013. Managerial coaching: challenges, opportunities and training. Journal of Management Development, 32: 768-779

McLean, G.N., Yang, B., Kuo, M-H.C., Tolbert, A.S. & Larkin, C. 2005. Development and initial validation of an instrument measuring managerial coaching skill. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16: 157-178

McGraw, P. & Peretz, M. 2011. HRD practices in local private sector companies and MNC subsidiaries in Australia, 1996-2009. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22: 2539-2557

Rock, D. & Donde, R. 2008. Driving organisational change with internal coaching programs: part one. Industrial and Commercial Training, 40: 10-18

Rowold, J. 2008. Multiple effects of human resource development interventions. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32: 32-44

Swart, J. & Harcup, J. 2012. ‘If I learn do we learn? The link between executive coaching and organisational learning. Management Learning, 44: 337-354

Wang, Y-L. 2013. R&D employees’ innovative behaviours in Taiwan: HRM and managerial coaching as moderators. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 51: 491-515

Young Sung, S. & Choi, J.N. 2014. Multiple dimensions of human resource development and organisational performance. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 35: 851-870

14