www.miguelpla.com Tel 8378 4710
In many countries, one hears about numerous programs on what is proudly called performance-oriented executive coaching. This seems to be especially rolled out within sales departments and divisions. This is definitely a growing fad in pharmaceutical companies and in the larger consumer goods distribution sector. In these organizations, corporate in-house training programs originating in the US or UK summarily prepare internal sales trainers to “coach” sales people with a very clear short-term objective: increase corporate sales. And with great surprise, we can witness that under the fancy name of coaching, the same corporations are re-inventing coercive management processes.

Consequently, with this new coaching strategy driven by executives and HRs, a number of managing and follow-up procedures are enforced by sales trainers to accompany salespeople to define challenging goals, to follow up on their clients, to measure progress, and to achieve better results in the field. 
Now, what is surprising is that normally, sales management is also about implementing procedures to accompany salespeople to define challenging goals, follow up clients clients, measure progress, and achieve ambitious financial results.


Considering this overlap of responsibilities between sales managers and sales coaches, some questions may be raised here, including the following:

When sales trainers are busy following up on salespeople to ensure that these achieve results, what is sales management doing?
Who gets the bonus in case of higher results, the alledged coaches or the managers?
Is this parallel coaching-cum-management process focused on rapidly achieving higher sales results really a coaching approach?
How is this internal process participating in blurring the difference between top-down management cultures and a coaching approach that should principally rest on tapping creative energy that can emerge from the bottom up?
Are these trainers-coaches merely surrogate managers that will eventually replace the existing managers? 
 indeed, if they really learn how to accompany sales teams to achieve higher results, they will in effect become excellent managers. They could then apply for the job and be paid accordingly.

Interestingly, some companies who have not wanted or not been able to develop a performing internal sales organization have externalized or outsourced their entire sales force to specialized external “mercenary” sales teams. These often succeed in achieving excellent results. Note that coaches do not manage these external sales teams. Indeed, in these external sales companies, real sales managers know how to enforce results-oriented procedures, accompany salespeople to define higher goals, follow up their clients, measure progress, and achieve very high results. These organizations must be more motivating, somehow. Or rather than coach sales people, is it the managers and executives that are being coached?

What seems to emerge out of the recent “performance coaching” trend is that some organizations have given up on developing their executive and management skills of the people who hold these positions. When executives and managers don’t manage their personnel to achieve measurable results, the new strategy is to have their personnel directly “coached” by a third person to achieve results. Interestingly, these third persons do not get perks and bonuses linked to sales results, as they do not hold management position. This seems to be quite a roundabout way to protect all the executives and managers who lack management skills. But then, it is no secret that most executive decisions just aim to increase executive comfort.

The real issue may be for companies to accept to face their reality. Too many people holding executive and management positions are still not trained to be real people leaders and managers. Most of them may indeed be good experts or have friends in the system and seniority in the organization, but they do not know how to accompany their personnel and teams to achieve outstanding professional results by delegating, motivating, enforcing procedures, defining ambitions goals, following up, measuring progress, and achieving higher financial results. This, interestingly is the focus of executive coaching.

It is quite clear that these organizations are underachieving. But bypassing executives and management with operational coaches will not solve the issue on the long run. Consequently, people holding executives management positions need to be coached or trained to embody management skills and really accompany their personnel. That is their main function. To achieve this, it is the executives and their managers that need training and probably coaching. Not their personnel.

But considering this situation, what are the real management and people skills of the managers who manage these managers? What is the strategic competency of those that design these roundabout bypassing programs? What are the real training skills of the trainers, who should be training people to develop behavioral skills rather than just entertain with concepts originating from books? It is indeed difficult to apply a coaching solution when all the real organizational needs have not been identified.

Now don’t get me wrong. There is a lot to be done with real executive coaching to help organizational clients, executives, managers and sales people achieve very performing results. But this cannot be achieved by simply compensating for non-existent management skills. Nor is coaching the same as training or managing. Coaching rests on accompanying exceptional employee growth and development to achieve outstanding results, in their own creative way, at their chosen pace. To be sure, that can often lead to achieving much higher results than any old top-down approach within an organization that avoids to train its management.

Typically the organization cultures I have mentioned (but not named) above are very centralized. Their programs are directed from conceptual headquarters to distant countries. Centralized systems want to roll out their solutions all over the world. They are much more concerned with controlling every person on their sales force, every minute of their professional day, than with achieving higher results. What these organizations call internal “performance coaching” is very often just another centralizing controlling process that ends up creating more personal stress and dissatisfaction, less motivation and ownership within sales forces and the feeling of helplessness within internal training teams. This has to be revisited on top levels with real executive coaching. Then, individual, team, and organizations coaching may be one of the appropriate means to accompany professional systems to really achieve short and long-term success.