Coaching seems to be an ever-green topic that is unlikely to generate any controversy. At this point, we’d be hard-pressed to find organizations that underappreciate the value of coaching. After all, the Council’s five years worth of data prove that:
- Coaching is a trademark that differentiates a star manager from an average one.
- Coaching can improve sales performance by as much as 19%.
- Coaching drives salespeople to work harder and increases their intent to stay.
Yet, coaching continues to be one of the areas where managers consistently underperform.
- According to our most recent data, 66% of sales reps indicate that their manager does worse at coaching than other manager behaviors (e.g., planning, assessing risks, championing new initiatives, etc.).
- Additionally, an alarming 47% of reps report receiving under the magic 3-5 hours of coaching per month and 6% of reps report receiving no coaching at all.
While the first stat can be blamed on manager quality, the second data point is not entirely the manager’s fault. Let’s do some simple math: with the average span of control of 1:8, the expectation is that managers will spend up to 40 hours per month coaching. Desirable? Yes… Realistic? Not so sure…
If we want our managers to spend more time coaching, we desperately need to offload some responsibilities from their plates. Easier said than done. Our traditional answer has been to relieve managers of some admin duties.
An alternative answer could be to “outsource” some coaching responsibilities to a dedicated group of specialist coaches who are more passionate and, sometimes, better equipped to deliver high-quality feedback. After all, why do we assume that direct managers are always best positioned to coach?
An argument can be made that managers are good at coaching to known skills gaps but are less attuned to spot and correct the unknown skill gaps. Or, that managers’ position of authority and focus on delivering the number can trump their dedication to continuous teaching and their unselfish passion for facilitating high performance for others.
Outsourcing coaching or, at least, part of it, is not that uncommon. We found that organizations typically use one of the following approaches:
1) Train-the-Trainer Approach – Specialist coaches provide behind-the-scenes coaching to managers, while direct managers are responsible for delivering coaching to reps and overseeing rep development and performance.
Risk Level – Low: This is the least intrusive approach that does not encroach on managers’ authority and is used to support managers as they build their coaching muscles.
2) Division of Labor Approach – This is a joint process where specialist coaches often focus on rep development/career coaching while managers are responsible for sales skill coaching.
Risk Level – Medium: This approach can generate some risks by creating opportunities to deflect the blame for underperformance. To mitigate these risks, managers should still be held accountable for the coaching “environment” (e.g., measures/volumes/quality of coaching) to ensure consistency and collaboration between the two coaching parties.
3) Intervention-Based Approach – This approach fosters co-ownership for skill coaching between the manager and a specialist coach and is often used to reinforce a particular skill or bolster managers’ coaching capabilities.
Risk Level – High: While often used for short-term interventions, this approach can undermine manager credibility in reps’ eyes and, as such, can be somewhat demoralizing for managers. It is essential to define clear expectations for the roles upfront to ensure that managers and specialists are clear on the intent and how to best work together.
SEC members, join the ongoing discussion on the Specialist Coaching Roles or start a new one by commenting below.
Related posts:
on September 11, 2010
Respond
Coaching that truly impacts a seller’s performance is not a separate event, it is an approach that should be integrated into everyday interaction with a seller. A football coach would not pull a player aside and say “now it’s time for me to coach you.” Neither should a sales manager.
Managers don’t need 40 extra hours a month to coach. They need to have coaching conversations with their sellers in the normal course of events, asking the seller how he/she would approach a stalled opportunity, a difficult client, or a challenging competitive situation. Coaching is about letting sellers think through the solution to an issue, guiding them in their thinking, and allowing them to execute. Giving the seller the lead develops skill and expertise that they can use again without the manager’s involvement. Integrated coaching that develops a seller’s expertise leads to 19% performance increases and harder working sellers who intend to stay with a company. And, in the long run, coaching will save managers time. Sellers who develop expertise will be able to handle challenging sales situations more independently.
Outsourcing limits the positive impact of coaching because it separates coaching from selling and managing. In related posts above, “A Matter of Two People Spending Time Together” and “When High Performers Stop Performing”, the importance of the relationship between a sales manager and a seller is outlined. “Division of Labor” and “Intervention-Based” approches dilute and degrade that relationship. Using the “Traing the Trainer’s Approach” is not just low risk, it’s the best way to achieve the decoumented benefits of coaching.
on September 13, 2010
Respond
Very nicely written Leanne. Our experience has been just as you have described. Interestingly, I have observed that managers usually dont get coach the coach development outside of the classroom. Most organisations appreciate that need to train mgrs to coach however fail to recognise that jumping through the hoops in classroom role plays does nothing more than give an opportunitiy to try process.
We have seen great results with our coach the coach program that requires mgrs to be accompanied – over a number of sesssions, with a Sales Excellece (SE) Coach when coaching their direct reports. There are clearly defined behaviours that the manager and the SE Coach would work on and this is always done pre and post the accompanyment. at no time is the Manager having a conversation with the Coach in the presence of the Salesperson.
Our managers enjoy the skills development as the sessions are always motivational and aligned to their needs.
on June 2, 2011
Respond
I have to say that when I read statistics like “Coaching can improve Sales performance by as much as 19%” I become immediately suspicious. I don’t know what the number is but I know that 19% is attempting to be precise.
Coaching is about improving performance. If I was to make a sweeping generalization I would say that we fail to invest in building coaching capabilities in our first line managers. In fact, we often promote our best sales people to become managers. Unprepared, they can often be tempted to sell FOR their teams as an expedient way to affect results.
So, where there is a coaching culture I would not outsource. When there is a coaching culture managers will make time and space to coach because this is where they develop their teams and advance their sales opportunities.
Where there is not a coaching culture then there is a case for for getting in help. How much help depends on the quality of the raw materials (managers and professionals and the process/methodologies used). Train the trainer is a great way to build (coach the coach).
Lastly, we must be careful to distinguish between general (life) coaching and sales coaching.
Thanks
on June 2, 2011
Respond
As a Sandler Trainer, I work with CEOs, business owners and sales managers to develop the skills necessary to effectively coach and manage their sales teams along the lines of the train-the-trainer approach. These are skills that take time to develop. It starts with developing a systematic approach to selling that is practiced and understood by the team, assessing the team’s capabilities and personal styles, tracking the specific behaviors that lead to an effective sales result so you know where the problem is occurring, and learning how to communicate effectively. It’s a tall order! I agree with Peter above, that it’s important to distinguish between sales coaching and life coaching. A general business coach will not have the depth of expertise in selling to quickly get to the root of an issue and add value.
on June 7, 2011
Respond
Peter, thank you for your comment. You are absolutely right to point out that the best sellers don’t always make the best sales coaches and the strength of current coaching culture can often determine how much “outside” help is needed.
I did want to address your concern regarding the data point that I am referencing to illustrate just how much good coaching matters. We have conducted a quantitative study of 2,600 sales reps and compared their assessment of coaching effectiveness against their performance data (i.e., gap to goal). What that data revealed to us is that 1) the real payoff from good coaching lies among your core performers (your middle 60%); and 2) the performance difference between reps who report into “poor” coaches (rated the lowest effectiveness by reps) and reps reporting into the best coaches (rated the highest effectiveness by reps) is indeed 19%. In other words – the average performer under a great coach is performing 19% better than the average guy under a lousy coach. It might be easier to see a graphical summary of these findings.
In fact, even moderate improvement in coaching quality — simply moving from below to above average coaching — can mean a 6-8% increase in performance across your core performers.
So, while each individual will benefit differently the findings still stand – better coaches develop better sellers and even small improvements in coaching quality can make a difference between hitting or missing goals, especially with your core performers.