Coachable or uncoachable?

Coachable or uncoachable? Are some people coachable and others uncoachable? Does the same apply to organisations?

Since I published “Coaching and Mentoring,” Gower, in 1995, almost every manager has heard of coaching. Many have been trained, to various levels, in the techniques of coaching.

If you have any experience of coaching, you will have noticed the wide variety of “coachability.” Here are just two categories of coachability.

Some people are so keen to learn that they get in their own way. Yes, it is possible to be too enthusiastic to learn. Such people, typically, already know much about performance improvement, and want to learn as much as possible. Learning is their problem – too much of it. To be specific: too much learning and too little implementation. Fortunately, that is a coachable challenge.

Other people are optimally keen to learn, and want to improve, and are very receptive to exploring techniques to make improvements, and seek ways to apply the techniques – even if just to test how well they works. They implement and monitor the results of the improvement techniques, and if they work, they spread them as appropriate (to other people or departments…). Even when a technique is not quite right for their environment, they take the core of the technique and apply it in a modified way. They take the attitude that anyone and everyone can have some ideas that can help them.

What of those who are “uncoachable”?

Some persons have mastered their art, and its expression doesn’t get any better than they can do it. They have explored every technique known, and discarded those that don’t work. No non-expert can improve their performance. If coaching is imposed on them, by their bosses, they will undermine and sabotage it, or overtly state that they don’t need coaching.  If you have been coaching for any time, you will have seen this.

For another group of people, being uncoachable relates to their comfort zone. They are competent in their roles. Their comfortable competence was hard won. They know that there is no comfort in the growth zone; they know that improvement will take them out of their comfort zone and expose them to the risk of failure with any new or modified technique. For them being “uncoachable” is entirely reasonable; it will be uncomfortable to try to improve.

Others are uncoachable for more sinister reasons. Imagine someone has a coach thrust upon them by their boss, and that person is “swinging the lead,” or is engaged in wrong-doing. How welcome would the coach be? A coach who is experienced in improving performance will ask all sorts of questions. Questions that are hugely useful to someone who wants to improve their performance, but massively threatening to a person engaged in covering up something. Would the person having a coach imposed on them fear that the coach might quickly spot what was amiss? Would the coach be obliged to report the wrong-doing? Of course, the uncoachable person cannot voice such concerns, unless they’ve been infected with the vanishingly rare “sudden integrity syndrome.” What, then, are they to do? Find a way to get rid of the coach ASAP: “We don’t gel.” “S/he has less knowledge in the field than I do.” “I have been doing this for X years and I don’t need anyone telling me how to improve.” “The coach is unpleasant.” The coach is a this, the coach is a that. The list of possible “get-rid-ofs,” is huge. Such persons are off the scale uncoachable, and the appropriate approach to them is disciplinary, legal or regulatory depending on the context.

One can ask in theory: coachable or uncoachable? One day the harsh practical reality that eventually hits all coaches: some people are simply uncoachable in their current personal culture, mindset or emotional state. That may change, or be changeable.

Early on in my career I found it difficult to accept that anyone could be uncoachable. Then I made the transition to thinking that some people are not cost-effectively coachable, now. That gave me an easy get out: “If only the client would allow more time with this person, I could find the way to get through to them, to coach them.” Eventually, I found myself facing an uncomfortable reality: some people are uncoachable, period.

Can organisations be coachable or uncoachable in the same way as individuals?

Let’s explore, by way of a thought experiment.

To do so, we will take the above paragraphs, and simply change the reference to a person into a reference to an organisation. You will know whether it works by assessing whether you have seen what emerges in real life.

Some organisations are so keen to learn that they get in their own way. Yes, it is possible to be too enthusiastic to learn. Such groups, typically, already know much about performance improvement, and want to learn as much as possible. Learning is their problem – too much of it. To be specific: too much learning and too little implementation. Fortunately, that is a coachable challenge.

Other organisations are optimally keen to learn, and want to improve, and are very receptive to exploring techniques to make improvements, and seek ways to apply the techniques – even if just to test how well they works. They implement and monitor the results of the improvement techniques, and if they work, they spread them as appropriate (to other parts of the organisation). Even when a technique is not quite right for their organisation, they take the core of the technique and apply it in a modified way. They take the attitude that anyone and everyone can have some ideas that can help them.

What of those who are “uncoachable”?

Some organisations have mastered their art, and its expression doesn’t get any better than they can do it. They have explored every technique known, and discarded those that don’t work. No non-expert can improve the organisation’s performance. If coaching is imposed on them, by their stakeholders or regulators, they will undermine and sabotage it, or overtly state that they don’t need coaching.  If you have been coaching for any time, you will have seen this.

For another group or organisations, being uncoachable relates to their comfort zone. They are competent in their shared roles. Their comfortable competence was hard won. They know that there is no comfort in the growth zone; they know that improvement will take them out of their comfort zone and expose them to the risk of failure with any new or modified technique. For them being “uncoachable” is entirely reasonable; it will be uncomfortable to try to improve.

Others organisations are uncoachable for more sinister reasons. Imagine an organisation has a coach thrust upon them by their shareholders or stakeholders, and that organsiation is “swinging the lead,” or is engaged in wrong-doing. How welcome would the coach be? A coach who is experienced in improving performance will ask all sorts of questions. Questions that are hugely useful to an organisation who wants to improve their performance, but massively threatening to an organisation engaged in covering up something. Would the organsiation having a coach imposed on them fear that the coach might quickly spot what was amiss? Would the coach be obliged to report the wrong-doing to the shareholders or regulators? Of course, the uncoachable organisation cannot voice such concerns, unless they’ve been infected with the vanishingly rare “sudden integrity syndrome.” What, then, are they to do? Find a way to get rid of the coach ASAP: “We don’t gel.” “S/he has less knowledge in the field than we do.” “We have been doing this for X years and I don’t need anyone telling us how to improve.” “The coach is unpleasant.” The coach is a this, the coach is a that. The list of possible “get-rid-ofs,” is huge. Such organisations are off-the-scale uncoachable, and the appropriate approach to them is disciplinary, legal or regulatory, depending on the context.

Thought experiment results

Can organisations be coachable or uncoachable in the same way as individuals? I am sure you have decided.

Coaching reality check

One harsh reality that eventually hits all coaches, is that some organsiations are simply uncoachable with their current culture. That may change, or be changeable.

Early on in my career I found it difficult to accept that any organisation could be uncoachable. Then I made the transition to thinking that some organsiations are not cost-effectively coachable. That gave me an easy get out: “If only the shareholder or stakeholder would allow more time with this organisation, I could find the way to get through to them, to coach them.”

Eventually, I found myself facing reality: some organsiations are uncoachable, period.

Here is the reality: most people and organisations can benefit from, and want to benefit from, skilled coaching. Some people and some organisations are uncoachable.  

When faced with an uncoachable client, as long as the coach hasn’t uncovered anything illegal, they can quietly walk away and help people who are coachable.

If you are coachable and want to work with a coach who only wants to be paid once you have achieved the benefit you wanted, contact me.

Copyright 2021 Dr Nigel MacLennan