The contribution of coaching to change in organizations
Introduction
Organisational change can be seen as stimulated by major detrimental external forces such as funding cuts or decreased market competitiveness but there is a growing literature expounding change as a critical driver of organisational success[i]and an important variable in creating organisational advantage[ii]. However, recent studies reveal that change is difficult to achieve and research suggests conservative estimates of between one and two-thirds of major change efforts fail[iii]. Higher rates of failure of 80% - 90% have also been put forward[iv]. These statistics take on even greater resonance when studied in conjunction with the effects of organisational change management history in shaping employee attitudes and behaviour. Bordia et al[v]found that the history of change management and individual change-related activities within an organisation can have significant lasting effects on employee attitudes of trust, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, change cynicism, openness to change and actual turnover.
Change in organizations
Change can be incremental and continuous over a period of time, or transformational requiring a break with the past and a radical and fundamental shift from the current paradigm[vi]. We present this as a dimension, as shown in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1 Incremental and transformational change
Incremental change occurs over a period of time but on a regular and continuous basis. However, such changes may hardly be noticed except that people are ‘doing things better’ through a process of ‘tinkering, adaptation and modification’[vii]. There is a link between change and continuous improvement and this is sometimes formalized in continuous improvement teams (CITs) and the Total Quality Management (TQM) principle of kaizan. By contrast, transformational change is considered to be a disturbance to the present and the creation of new dynamics that requires a break with the past. Rather than doing things better, the key question is: what can be done differently?
Crucial to understanding change is the impact and response of people who must undergo transition[viii]. Most organizations underestimate the significance of the transition stage for those going through change activity[ix]. Employees need support to realise that transition means letting go of something in order for them to move on to the next phase. Individuals accept change in different ways and at varying rates and that acceptance of change occurs in stages[x].
Malone[xi] argues that organisations do not change but that people do. ‘Individual behaviour is a prerequisite for major improvements in organisational performance’[xii]. Leaders and managers are central to the successful implementation of any significant change process. Leaders inspire the transition and provide energy and sustenance for changes in behaviour and managers help to make things happen and provide order and systems for change to become embedded[xiii].
Models of change management
If change can vary between incremental and transformational, models of change can also vary and one way of considering appropriate models is to explore how managers and leaders might approach change. Here we can make use of a well-known dimension drawn from the industrial relations literature between unitarist and pluralist perspectives. The former assume a single and unified view of an organization, so models of change can be top down. Pluralist perspectives assume that organizations composed of different views, different understandings with a variety of interests and goals.
We can combine the dimensions to suggest different models of change in Figure 2:
Given the variation in types of change, it has become quite normal in the past 20 years to veer towards the transformational view, which provides a link to ideas about leaders who, through their vision, can inspire and motivate others for change (Stewart and McGoldrick, 1996). Transformational leaders connect strategy to culture and commitment. It is not surprising that one of the most well-known change models in organizations is concerned with ‘leading change’, based on the work of Kotter[xiv]. The organizations he studied failed to achieve transformational change because of mistakes, which provided eight steps that leaders could follow to ensure success. While focusing on leaders, the model is very much in tune with other models of change based on the view that stages or steps can be used to guide change. There is a range of other change models that provide stages or steps and this tends to reinforce the view that change can be planned or programmed and managed from the top[xv].
Interestingly, the recently developed NHS change model also has eight parts or components[xvi]. Based on evidence gathered within the NHS, the model seeks to guide large scale change. While it is still early days for this model, a recent review of change programmes in the NHS[xvii] suggest some support although there was a tendency for partial use or implicit use and this is often the case in change programmes.
Models of change tend towards neat and tidy versions of the world but if a pluralist view is taken, change can be seen as ‘messy and untidy’, with projects rarely following predictable stages[xviii]. History, culture and contextual factors all have a role to play, so it becomes difficult to provide ‘universal rules’ for change management and leadership[xix]. In a pluralist world, change has to be seen as continuous and/or rather unpredictable. In an attempt to bring about deliberate change, if there is a first step, it should be investigate and make visible what is happening, with rebalance concerned with reinterpreting and reordering activities but emergence must be understood and appreciated[xx]. Models of change that assume plurality are less likely to be used and given the poor record of transformational models of change, the use of action modalities of research informal methodologies such as action research, action learning and appreciative enquiry might hold more promise[xxi].
The role of coaching
A recent study found that 80% of the 250 UK companies surveyed are using or have used coaching as a development tool, and another 9% plan to do so. 96% felt coaching had benefitted the individual and 95% felt it had also helped the organisation[xxii]. Coaching can be generally defined as a ‘process of equipping people with the tools, knowledge and opportunities they need to develop themselves and become more effective’[xxiii] in turn ‘helping people fulfil their potential by allowing them to recognise the things that hold them back and by helping them discover ways around them’[xxiv].
There are several models of coaching, the most well-known is the GROW model.[xxv]It provides a relatively simple framework for structuring a coaching session, and has been adopted by many of the world’s major organisations. However, all coaching practice is initially based on one of four theoretical models: the clinical model; the behaviour model; the systems model and the social constructionist model[xxvi]. These theoretical models give rise to a range of approaches to coaching which serve different purposes, shown in Table 1
Approaches to coaching / Purpose of coachingHumanist / growth and change
Behaviourist / change behaviour
Adult development / develop and grow in maturity
Cognitive coaching / developing adaptive thoughts
Goal-focused / goal-oriented and solution-focused
Positive psychology approach / from causes of pain to moving forward
Adventure coaching / stretch through challenging situations and learning
Adult learning / reflecting on and growing from
experiences
Systemic coaching / finding patterns
Narrative coaching / working with stories as they emerge
Table 1 Approaches to Coaching[xxvii]
A crucial choice seems to be required between:
- The type of change desired
- Appropriate approaches to coaching
In addition to skills of the coach, Anderson and Anderson have emphasised the need to ensure that an appropriate and robust evaluation methodology is build into any coaching programme[xxviii]. This can have a dramatic effect on organisational success and individual performance.
Evidence from the health sector
While much of our focus has been concerned with change in organizations and the role of coaching, one of most frequently cited areas of coaching has been concerned with disease management, patient compliance with medication and improving health outcomes for patients[xxix]. Health coaching is completed face-to-face, via telephone or more recently, mobile, email or weblink. For example, a study of the management of diabetes showed how three registered dieticians trained as health coaches to use motivational interviewing. These skills were used to set goals with 27 patients for medication adherence over six months. Results show high adherence and a reduction in barriers such as forgetfulness[xxx]. Similar results were found for patients with type 2 diabetes, where Integrative Coaching was used to focus on patients identifying their own values and visions of health[xxxi]. Another example of health coaching includes the control of blood pressure in a low-income, minority population using non clinical coaches who were trained on lifestyle behaviour change including medication adherence counselling[xxxii]. Coaching was also shown to influence cancer patients to change their analgesic treatment regimen in consultations with their doctors. The approach, referred to as tailored education and coaching (TEC), gave more emphasis to how patients could interact with doctors with more confidence[xxxiii].
Evidence from the use of coaching for change within a healthcare setting with staff, managers and leaders is more limited but is beginning to increase as a result of implementation of evaluation frameworks within change programmes. As we suggested earlier, a key issue is how the approach to coaching aligns with the type of change[xxxiv].
In the review of 15 change programmes that took place across NHS South of England[xxxv] it was foundthat a coaching style of leadership is becoming increasingly prevalent and that NHS organisations should capitalise on the leadership capability that already exists within their organisations. It argues that if leadership is inhibited by a lack of confidence, greater access to coaching can help to increase this and may be all that is needed to harness the leadership potential of motivated staff. However, there seemed to be little evidence of coaching within the cases apart from a project to reduce hospital acquired pressure ulcers and falls in 44 wards in Southampton, referred to as the Turnaround project. The project focused on spreading the use of evidence-based High Impact Actions through a week-by-week guidebook and other supporting tools which included coaching. The result was a 75 per cent reduction in grade 3 and 4 pressure ulcers, 62 per cent reduction in grade 2 ulcers and an estimated 50 per cent reduction in high harm falls. Generally there seemed to a lack of knowledge of what coaching is available and its value in change projects.
The lack of knowledge about coaching is supported by another study which sought to evaluate coaching in the NHS[xxxvi]. Internal coaching and externalcoaching registerwere explored.The internal coaching linked to dealing with organisation change and helping clients cope. Evaluation showed that where coaches had a chance to practice skills, there were positive responses from coaches who valued the safe environment to reflect on work and find answers working with the expertise of the coach. This also applied to external coaches, who provided support to senior managers and others. There remained difficultly in utilising coaches, who often had to find their own clients. They also had varying support in providing coaching from their own organizations.
To this point, the evidence seems to suggest that, apart from health coaching at the point of contact with patients, there is little demonstration of how change is being managed to consider the pluralist nature of NHS life nor is there consideration of how coaching can align with the change. One study considered 68 change initiatives in the NHS with 8 case studies through a longitudinal survey over 12 months[xxxvii]. Crucially, the focus of the study concerned change agents working between and within networks in organizations, to influence the adoption of change. Further, a distinction was made between high divergent and low divergent change, concerned with the degree to which change diverges from the organization’s status quo. It was recognised that networks could be informal and this implicitly acknowledge the pluralist view we considered in Figure 2. Networks could be differentiated between those that were tightly organised and therefore more cohesive but relatively closed to outside influence and those that were more loosely organised and relatively more open. It was suggested that with low network close and high change divergence, a change agent would have more chance to initiate change by being allowed to work more flexibly between networks, building arguments, alliances and connections for change. The coach as change agent therefore needs to find positions between more open networks where change is highly divergent from the status quo.
Summary
It would appear from the evidence that change in organizations, especially large scale, radical, transformational or highly divergent change, is still poorly understood. Further various models of change management that suggest following stages or steps do not have a strong record of success or implementation. Our view is that part of the reason for such difficulty is a failure to take a pluralist view covering groups and networks, both formal and informal.
Apart from some good examples of health coaching with patients, where the models employed included goal-setting and behavioural change, coaching in the NHS is still developing. In reviews of change programmes against the NHS Change Model, coaching was suggested as important to enhance leadership capability but the model itself was often only partially implemented and there were few examples of how coaching was used or what approach was employed. Other evidence showed the potential value of coaching in helping with transition but coaches were often left without coachees.
It was suggested that large scale change needed to be more systemic and ‘bottom-up’[xxxviii] and this provides significant opportunities for working with action modalities in change programmes which have to take account of cultural and historical variations and engagement through conversational models of change[xxxix]. Coaching approaches would need be more systemic in response and consider how stories provide the background to ongoing conversations that make daily realities.
1
[i] See Drucker, P. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. New York: HarperCollins; Ford, C., &Gioia, D. (2000). Factors influencing creativity in the domain of managerial decision making.Journal of Management, 26(4), 705–732; Friedman, T. L. (2005).The world is flat. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux; Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[ii]Gilley, A., Gilley, J.W., & McMillan, H.S. (2009). Organizational change: Motivation, communication and leadership effectiveness. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(4), 75-94.
[iii]Beer, M., &Nohria, N. (2000).Breaking the code of change. Boston: Harvard; Lewin, McKinsey & Company, 2006. Organising for Successful Change Management.The McKinsey Quarterly; Shaffer, R.H., and Thomson, H.A., 1998. Successful Change Begins with Results. In the Harvard Business Review on Change.Harvard Business School Press. Boston, MA, USA.
[iv] Cope, M. (2003). The seven C’s of consulting (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times/Prentice-Hall.
[v]Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., Jimmieson, N. L., &Irmer, B. E. (2011). Haunted by the past: Effects of poor change management history on employee attitudes and turnover. Group & Organization Management, 36, 191–222. Business School Press.
[vi] Hayes, J. (2010). The Theory and Practice of Change Management, 3rd Ed
[vii] Ibid, p.24
[viii]Bridges, W. (2003).Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, USA.
[ix]Bridges, Op. Cit.; Quinn, R. E. (2004).Building the bridge as you walk on it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[x] Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
[xi] Malone, J. W. (2001). Shining a new light on organizational change: Improving self-efficacy through coaching. Organization Development Journal, 19 (2), 27–36.
[xii] Ibid. p. 27
[xiii] University of Adelaide Leading Change, Transition & Transformation - A Guide for University Staff, [publication online] Available from [Accessed 21st July 2012]
[xiv]Kotter, J. (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review 73 (2): 59 – 67. The steps are These steps are:
•Establish a sense of urgency
•Form a powerful guiding coalition
•Create a vision
•Communicate the vision
•Empower others to act
•Create short-term wins
•Consolidate and build
•Institutionalize the new approaches.
[xv] Ulrich, D. (1998). Champions of change: How CEOs and their companies are mastering the skills of radical change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[xvi] Available from
[xvii] See Gifford, J. ,Boury, D., Finney, L., Garrow, V., Hatcher, C., Meredith, M. and Rann, R. (2012). What makes change successful in the NHS?NHS South of England/Roffey Park.
[xviii] Buchanan, D. and Storey, J. (1997) Role taking and role switching in organizational change: the four pluralities, in I. McLoughlin and M. Harris (eds) Innovation, Organizational Change and Technology, London, International Thomson, p. 127
[xix] Pettigrew, A. and Whipp, R. (1993) Managing Change for Competitive Success, London, Wiley, p. 105.
[xx]Weick, K.E. (2000) Emergent change as universal in organizations. In M. Beer and N. Nohria (eds) Breaking the Code of Change, Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press.
[xxi] See Richer M.-C. , Ritchie J .&Marchionni C. (2009). `If we can't do more, let's do it differently!': using appreciative inquiry to promote innovative ideas for better health care work environments.Journal of Nursing Management, 17,947–955; Kellie, J., Milsom, B. and Henderson, E. (2012). Leadership through action learning: a bottom-up approach to ‘best practice’ in ‘infection prevention and control’ in a UK NHS trust. Public Money and Management, July: 289-296.