Coaching or Training? Perhaps That’s the Wrong Question.
In organisations, when something is not working as expected, the response can sometimes be surprisingly quick.
“Our managers need to be better at giving feedback.”
“Our leaders need to become more strategic.”
“Our people need to take greater ownership.”
“Our teams need to collaborate better.”
These statements may well be true. But often, almost immediately after identifying the challenge, we move to the next question:
Do we need training or coaching?
It is a reasonable question. Yet perhaps it is not the question we should begin with.
Because somewhere between observing a challenge and deciding on an intervention, we may have assumed that we understand the problem. We may have taken what we can see on the surface and treated it as an explanation for what is happening underneath.
And that is where things can become interesting.
What are we actually seeing?
Consider a manager who is consistently avoiding difficult performance conversations. Feedback is delayed, conversations are softened, and poor performance continues without being addressed.
The immediate conclusion could be that the manager lacks feedback skills. So, the organisation invests in a feedback programme. But does the manager actually lack the skill?
Perhaps they know exactly how to have the conversation, but lack the confidence to do it. Perhaps they are worried about damaging the relationship. Perhaps their own manager does not model candid conversations. Perhaps the organisation has created a culture where challenging someone is perceived as being difficult rather than being responsible. Perhaps there is little consistency in how poor performance is dealt with.
The behaviour we see is the same. The reasons behind it may be completely different. And if the reason is different, should the intervention be the same?
This is where I believe we need to pause.
What we observe is not necessarily what is causing it.
A symptom tells us something is happening. It does not necessarily tell us why.
When We Mistake the Symptom for the Diagnosis
This is where organisational conversations can sometimes go off track. We observe something happening and, almost instinctively, give it a name.
We see employees escalating decisions and conclude that there is a lack of ownership. We see leaders spending too much time in day-to-day operations and conclude that they lack strategic thinking. We see friction between functions and conclude that there is a collaboration problem.
These descriptions may be accurate. But a description of what is happening is not necessarily an understanding of why it is happening.
Take ownership, for example.
If people are reluctant to make decisions independently, perhaps they genuinely need greater confidence or decision-making capability. But perhaps they don't have the authority to make those decisions. Perhaps senior leaders regularly step in and take decisions back. Perhaps accountability is unclear. Perhaps mistakes are penalised much more heavily than initiative is encouraged.
In that situation, asking people to “take more ownership” may be asking them to behave differently in a system that continues to reward the opposite behaviour.
As W. Edwards Deming put it:
“A bad system will beat a good person every time.”
That is a useful reminder in any discussion about organisational performance. Sometimes, what appears to be an individual capability, or behaviour problem may have much more to do with the environment in which that individual is expected to perform.
So, what should we be asking?
Perhaps the starting question should not be, “Do we need coaching or training?”
Perhaps it should be, “What are we trying to achieve, and what is getting in the way?”
And then, importantly: Why is this happening?
That question takes us beyond the obvious answer. It allows us to explore what we are actually observing, what we believe it means, what we know, and what we are assuming.
It may reveal a capability gap. It may reveal a behavioural challenge. It may point towards confidence, awareness, mindset or perspective. It may highlight a leadership issue. It may uncover problems in processes, structures, incentives or ways of working.
Sometimes there may not even be a single reason. Organisational challenges can have several contributing factors operating together.
And this is precisely why the choice between coaching and training should not necessarily come first.
It may be coaching. It may be training. It may be both. Or… It may be not.
Once we have a clearer understanding of the challenge and what is driving it, the conversation about intervention becomes much more meaningful.
Training may be appropriate when people need knowledge, understanding or capability. Coaching may be appropriate when individuals need to examine their thinking, choices, confidence, behaviours or the way they are applying what they already know.
Sometimes there may be value in combining the two. Training can create capability, while coaching can help individuals reflect, apply, adapt and sustain that capability in their own context.
And sometimes the answer may lie outside either.
A change in process. Greater clarity of roles and decision rights. Different leadership behaviours. Changes to measures or incentives. Better alignment between expectations and the way people are actually enabled to work.
The point is not that coaching is better than training, or training is better than coaching.
The point is that the intervention should follow the need. The need should not be defined by the intervention.
Perhaps, the real question is different
There is, of course, value in acting quickly when an organisation faces a challenge. No one wants analysis to become an excuse for inaction.
But there is an equally important risk in acting before we understand enough. If we begin with a solution, we tend to look for evidence that confirms the solution. If we begin with curiosity, we create the possibility of discovering something different. Perhaps the questions can therefore be quite simple:
What are we trying to achieve?
What are we experiencing today?
Why might this be happening?
What actually needs to change?
Only then does it become useful to ask: What approach is most likely to help?
That approach might be coaching. It might be training. It might be a blend of both. Or it might lead us somewhere entirely different. And perhaps that is why “Coaching or Training?” is sometimes the wrong question.
Not because the choice is unimportant, but because the quality of the choice depends on how well we have understood the challenge that sits behind it.
Before deciding what to do, it may be worth taking a moment to understand why we need to do it in the first place.
Written by: Suresh Ranganathan, Founder & Partner, Ālokana.
About Ālokana
Ālokana is an executive coaching, training and advisory firm.
We build leadership capability at three levels: future proofing the organisation, with CXOs and top teams (Atlas); choosing the bets worth making, with business heads (Apex); and execution through high performance teams, with senior managers (Ascent).
