Continued from The Three Whats of Coaching, Part 1

What Two

After the employee has explained the situation, the coach moves to the second what question. The purpose of the second what is to clarify in the employee’s mind what impact his or her behavior had. Impact can be individual, on another employee, on a customer, group of employees, or the entire organization. Both the coach and the employee must be clear on how wide the impact is. Until the employee clearly understands impact, behavior change will be difficult.

Example of the second what question include, “So after that happened, what reaction did you see from other employees?” Or, “What did the customer’s face tell you about what you did?’ Or, “If several of our employees did the same thing, what impact would it have on our customers?” Or, “How long could we stay in business if many employees acted that way?” Or, So what do you think happens to you standing in the company when you do things like this? Or, “When I hear thinks like this, what do you think goes through my mind?”

Answers to the second what questions can be slow to emerge from an employee. That is because if the employee had a clear understanding of impact or consequences before he or she did the behavior, the outcome would likely have been different. People can act without consideration of the outcomes, consequences, or impact. As a result it’s important for the coach to proceed slowly through both the first and second what questions. Ineffective coaches practice “speed coaching,” while effective coaches practice “slow coaching.”

What Three

The third what question is a natural progression for the first two questions. After the situation and its impact have been clearly defined, as volunteered by the employee, the logical next step for the coach is to ask, “So what do you need to do next?” Or, “Now that you have described what happened and the impact of your behavior, what would you like to do next?” Or, “I appreciate your honesty in describing the situation; with equal honesty tell me what would make this situation better?”

If the plan to resolve the situation is created and explained by the coach, then the coach owns the plan. The best employees (the top 20 percent) can hear their coach’s plan and adopt it as their own, thus creating psychological ownership, but the other 80 percent will not. A plan owned only by the coach is unlikely to have much of a change of working. If, however, the employee volunteers the plan them the employee will create psychological ownership and be far more likely to implement it and resolve the problem.

Of particular importance to managers is the fact that when an employee has psychological ownership of both the problem and its solution, he or she is very likely to not only work hard to fix the problem, but far more important, the employee is not likely to cause a similar problem in the future. In other words, resolving problems correctly with the Three Whats of Coaching not only solves today’s problems, but it also helps prevent tomorrow’s problems from happening.

Thus far mostly corrective coaching has been discussed. But coaching is not merely a corrective technique; it is also a supportive or reinforcing technique as well. Indeed, world-class coaches use coaching for positive purposes to reinforce behaviors they want repeated far more frequently than they use coaching to correct problems. The ratio for world-class coaches is at lease 5:1: meaning they are supporting positive behaviors five times more frequently than they correct them.

The good news is that the Three Whats of Coaching works equally well when reinforcing a behavior as it does when correcting a behavior. It’s the same sequence, with many of the same questions. Rather than saying to an employee, “Way to go.” “Good job.” An effective coach takes a cople of extra minutes and asks the three what questions. And by doing so the coach gains far greater advantage because of the power of the discussion.

Being a new manager can be exciting, confusing, and sometimes even a frightening experience, especially if the person hasn’t been adequately trained in managements and leadership principles. One of the most common mistakes a new manager can make is the practice of being too much of a “teller,” “commander,” or “controller,” and not enough of being a “listener,” “learner,” and “asker.”

From the outside it may sound reasonable that a manager should demonstrate control by telling people what so do. And if the people don’t comply well enough, or fast enough, it’s equally reasonable that the manager should show who is in charge by exercising some form of sanction or discipline. In days long past this philosophy was quite common and it actually worked, to a limited extent.

Today, however, workers simply won’t tolerate what they believe are unfair management practices. They especially won’t tolerate a manager, who is overly bossy, unreasonably unfair, or inappropriately controlling. Workers today have grown up in a different world that expects managers to be efficient and leaders to be effective.

When a manager would like a worker to repeat a behavior, or when a manager would like a worker to change a behavior, the best method is to accomplish both is coaching. Effective coaching will reinforce a behavior, or correct a behavior, without the manager being perceived as bossy, unfair, or controlling.

There is so much research on coaching that it is amazing more managers haven’t learned how to coach, and don’t practice the time-tested techniques. Although there are many coaching models that have been developed, most of them focus on a couple of basic principles.

Coaching models range from simple to complex. The simple models work in most situations with most people, and complex models work in almost all situations with almost everyone. The most basic model involves a simple process called “The Three Whats.” This simple process is so easy to learn that virtually any manager can memorize what each what means and how to apply it in a coaching situation.

What One

The first of what of coaching is to ask the question, “What happened?” or, “What is going on?” Or, “Describe for me what happened.” Or “Tell me what you see.” The purpose of the first “what is to define the situation, to clarify the details, or to bring out the facts of what happened: only from the employee’s point of view, not the manager’s! A controlling manager might begin coaching with, “this is what you did and I’m upset! By contrast, effective coaches would begin with a neutral demeanor and an open-end what question. The difference between the two approached is striking because beginning a coaching session with an accusatory statement including a challenging demeanor will typically case the employee to become defensive. Once the employee is defensive it is difficult at best to move the coaching session forward. This explains why so many new (and sometimes experienced, too) managers have problems changing employee behavior.

Learn about the other two Whats in The Three Whats of Coaching, Part 2