 
Week 4 - Local School Management
|  | Do Principals Need a Coach? |
| |
Listing of Papers | |
MR GRAHAM HOULT
Victoria, Australia
MORE AND MORE, school principals undertake the role of a Chief Executive Officer of an autonomous unit.
This has many implications for principals, not the least of which is the method of support which best meets their needs. Their peers in business are turning more and more to coaching as the solution. This coaching differs from the concept of mentor/coach within an organisation. For the CEO the coach must, by definition, be external and independent. Arguably a coaching program from within the organisation would take a very long time to succeed due to traditional suspicion and questions of confidentiality.
Coaching has taken off because it delivers bottom-line results. Corporations are prepared to pay big dollars because their executives are more productive. What does this mean in education terms? What is a more productive principal and how do we best achieve that?
A Lonely Ride on a Fast Motorbike
Many principals have needed assistance in their work, particularly through periods of rapid and significant change. Their role remains 'lonely'. John Kotter, professor of leadership at the Harvard Business School, says that what is driving the boom in coaching is this: 'As we move from 30 miles an hour to 70 to 120 to 180 ... as we go from driving straight down the road to making right turns and left turns, to abandoning cars and getting on motorcycles ... the whole game changes, and a lot of people are trying to keep up, learn how, not fall off' (1). This certainly sounds familiar!
CEOs of major corporations can access the best professional development money can buy (Covey, de Bono, et al.) but still seek the services of a coach. In sporting parlance we can differentiate between training (PD) and coaching. Put simply, effective feedback is what differentiates coaching from training. Who can really provide that to principals?
Why Coach Principals?
The purpose of this discussion paper is to explore the most effective and cost efficient ways of supporting principals.
Coaching has two aspects to it: professional growth and personal growth. Conceptually Australians think of coaches in a sport context. For me, the extension of the concept into the work environment is easy; however there needs to be a clarification of the distinction between coaching and consultancy on the one hand, and coaching and therapy on the other. When engaging a coach, it is important to be clear about what a coach does, and does not, do.
Fundamental to my concept of coaching is that it is devoid of any sense of evaluation or judgement. As a former principal, I believe I coached many staff quite effectively. However this process was inevitably constrained by the boss-worker relationship.
Coaching is about self-actualisation: achieving high performance: going beyond the limits. It is about setting goals and developing strategies to achieve them. For a profession that averages 55-60 hours at work and constantly complains about workload, coaching should be a technique to support a principal in reducing her workload, and still to be more effective.
Fortune magazine commented: 'It's a reminder that people won't run on autopilot or by remote email. No matter how much the world has changed, people on the job still need some mentoring, some monitoring, and some meaningful interaction. And if workers can't get that in-house, why, they're likely to outsource it'. (2)
There cannot be mutually exclusive (professional/personal) achievements. The return for the organisation is the realisation of both personal and organisational vision and the ongoing achievement of improved performance even from the very best employee. In this context there may be a conflict of interest between the employer and the employee, for the outcome of coaching may be such an improvement in performance that the employee leaves!
Different Styles of Coaching
There are different styles of coaching. There is the reflective/feed-back model where the coach essentially uses questions to allow the client to make up their mind on matters concerning them. Another is an empowering/problem- solving style, where the coach uses some of her intuition and expertise to advise and assist the client to resolve issues and plan strategies. The former is a counselling style, the latter more like consultancy. Both are, in my opinion, valid techniques depending on the circumstances. However, it is worth noting that there is no assumption that the coach can do better than, or even equal to the client: Greg Norman's coach is not a better golfer than Greg Norman himself.
What About Peer Mentoring?
Many systems in Australia are looking at peer mentoring. I believe this has some shortcomings. First, it assumes that coaching can be taught in a short period of time. Coaching requires significant training, and, equally important, regular practice to develop the skills. Second, it asks your busiest employees to get busier - to not only give time to being coached (a great investment) but also to coach someone else (a highly valued peer support activity, but still a burden). Third, it limits the type of principal who would volunteer to be involved to those who felt confident enough to take on coaching someone else. Finally, it limits the coaching experience to well-meaning colleagues. One of the many joys of being coached is having someone who is professionally committed to your success.
Of course, the most persuasive attribute of such schemes is the low cost. I wonder, however, whether they are false economy. Why do business executives spend up to tens of thousands of dollars per year on an experienced coach? There is a bottom line to the investment-improved performance.
Delivering on Change
Another issue about cost is fascinating. My coaching experience suggests that when people pay for coaching they are actually more committed to carrying through the exercise. People seem to be more motivated to get a lot out of the experience when they are paying for it. Many mentoring programs, from my experience, become 'feel good' activities that don't deliver on change. And, let there be no doubt, change is what coaching is all about. If you don't want to change yourself, don't wast your money on a coach.
There is already considerable, valuable professional support to principals through various departmental activities, principal associations, the Principal and School Development Program, and a range of other local and international leadership conferences.
The purpose of coaching is not to compete with, or undermine, any of these activities. Rather, it is to complement them and enhance their effectiveness. From my experience and observation, even the best of these activities do not build in a monitoring process for the participants' action plans. With a coach in place, clients could review their plans after significant PD activities, new Department initiatives or training exercises. Research in the United States has shown that training without some form of follow-up coaching/mentoring program is rarely effective in delivering changed employee performance. 'By creating a coaching culture the best organisations are taking practical steps to implement the rhetoric of 'people are our most important asset' and to nurture learning, performance and retention' (3). The follow-up is incredibly cost effective.
Not a Sign of Weakness
It is fundamental that any coaching program should be 'mainstreamed' (but not made compulsory), i.e., having a coach should not be seen as a sign of weakness. Coaching doesn't fix people. If a culture of coaching could be introduced into Australian education, I believe that we would have taken a major step in supporting all staff (not just principals) and in further consolidating the achievements of all schools. Its existence would also model for schools how to better implement coaching/mentoring within schools.
Finally, there is the question as to who should coach? The coaching skill is generic - coach trainers clearly state that a coach need not necessarily have experience in the field of the person they are coaching. They even argue it can help if the coach doesn't have the same background as their client. I have had potential clients who have asked me for referrals to other coaches who weren't educators - usually 'business' coaches. Conceptually, I agree with the coaching trainers but I must admit most principals I discuss coaching with feel that a principal background is fairly important for credibility.
_____________________________________________________________
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mr Graham Hoult (B. Ec., Dip. Ed.,) is a member of the Australian Institute of Management, a member of the Australian College of Education, an Associate Fellow of the Australian Principals Centre, a Director of EduCoach Australia and a member of the Australasian Management Committee and Education Industry Working Party of the International Coach Federation (www.coachfederation.org). He is also a Director of the Western Port Business Centre, a small business incubator. Graham was formerly a school principal in Victoria (and the United States on exchange), and an Education Department bureaucrat, with particular experience in devolution change management.
He is experienced in working with primary, special and secondary schools. As well as a coach, Graham is a School Reviewer, Registered Schools Validator and consultant. Prior to training as a teacher, Graham worked in marketing and market research with a large multinational corporation, experience he found invaluable as a CEO within the Victorian 'Schools of the Future' program.
Graham Hoult can be contacted by email on:
hoult@eisa.net.au
_____________________________________________________________
REFERENCES
'So You're a Player. Do You Need a Coach?' in Fortune Magazine, 21/2/000.
'User-Friendly Interactive Interfaces', Suzanne Skiffington and Perry Zeus, in Management Today, Australian Institute of Management, May 1999
|
|
| | |
