How can coaching support business strategy? Examining the role human resource management (HRM) plays in organisations will help put coaching in context, says Adrian Myers, senior lecturer at Oxford Brookes University
There are three ways in which human resource management (HRM) can support business strategy according to Torrington et al (2014): the “universalist”, “best fit” and “resource-based” approaches.
In the case of the universalist approach, the assumption is made that a range of HR practices (eg, employee involvement programmes, team-based work and training and development) are always likely to lead to high performance, irrespective of the competitive context or unique characteristics of the business.here are three ways in which human resource management (HRM) can support business strategy according to Torrington et al (2014): the “universalist”, “best fit” and “resource-based” approaches.
By contrast, the best fit approach assumes that HR strategy will align with the specific strategic direction of the business. For example, if a business is following a low-cost strategy (such as a low-cost airline), then the range of HR practices may be quite different to those measures implemented by an airline offering a premium service (a strategy of differentiation).
Similarly, if a business is operating in an expanding market, then priorities might be more focused on recruitment and selection whereas in a declining market, there is likely to be more emphasis on cost reduction measures. This approach is often referred to as “vertical integration”, in the sense that there is alignment between the external and internal business environments.
In the best fit approach, there is also a need to consider how a range of measures need to work together (“horizontal integration”). For example, if a business is attempting to “change culture”, then coaching might be considered integral to internal communications and training and development programmes.
In the case of the resource-based approach, the assumption is made that business success rests on the capacity of the organisation to build unique competencies, which are hard for others to imitate. Organisations gain competitive advantage in their capacity to outperform other organisations due to higher resources (and/or how those resources are used). Human capital underpins this resource-based view.
Those organisations with more human capital (ie, more motivated, intellectually and socially capable employees) are likely to be more effective in gaining competitive advantage. The principles also apply to the non-profit sectors in the sense that those organisations that are successful in achieving their objectives effectively are more likely to secure funding and/or stakeholder satisfaction.
So, where does coaching fit in all of this? The answer is simple. All HRM executives need to understand how their businesses conceptualise the role of HRM. Other than in some small businesses, HRM is considered to play a strategic role in supporting business strategy, but that role could be conceptualised in at least three very different ways, as outlined in this article so far.
What is your approach?
In this context, an HR executive proposing the introduction or development of an existing coaching scheme needs to consider if the organisation is following, intentionally or otherwise, a universalist, best fit or resource-based approach.
In the case of a universalist approach, it is likely that organisations may look favourably at the suggestion of a new, or development of an existing, coaching programme. The task will be to demonstrate that coaching will add to the ‘bundle’ of HR practices likely to work together to achieve high performance. It could be argued, for example, that coaching might support the transfer of learning from training and development programmes. It might be a mechanism for encouraging those employees receiving coaching to feel empowered to take action and to find their own ways of resolving organisational challenges. Team coaching might play a role in encouraging greater accountability and involvement. The provision of coaching to support employees might also encourage high commitment generally.
In the case of the organisations adopting a best fit approach, the grounds for proposing and implementing coaching programmes rests on assumptions which might be made about how well a coaching programme will help the organisation align with the external strategy.
If a business is operating in a growing market and the priority is the recruitment of staff to meet productivity demands, coaching might have a strategic role to play in helping employees achieve performance standards as quickly as possible.
If an organisation is going through a major change programme, then coaching might play a key role in helping organisational members meet new challenges. Perhaps coaching might be considered relevant in this context only for senior executives.
In the case of the resource-based view, organisations might invest in coaching as a means of increasing human capital. With this end in mind, coaching might be considered a valuable mechanism for developing human capital and be made available to a broader spectrum of employees. The organisation might encourage coaching through programmes, which promote the ‘line manager as coach’.
Counting the benefits
The thorny issue remains, of course, as to whether coaching should be considered in some sense a more effective or complementary intervention than alternatives. Is a business likely to achieve more employee engagement through a training programme rather than a coaching programme? How important is coaching in supporting other measures designed to encourage a culture change? Is it more cost-effective to invest in recruitment and selection rather than coaching?
Research in coaching has attempted to quantify the benefits of coaching (see eg, De Meuse, Dai and Lee, 2009) and while results suggest that coaching is effective, it is often very difficult to quantify those benefits. However, the same arguments apply to the range of HRM measures and underpinning HRM philosophies generally.
There are no clear answers as to which of the three general approaches outlined in this article are in some sense ‘better’. However, businesses need to make decisions and these decisions need to be as informed as possible. One way of making these decisions is to begin by evaluating the strategic role played by HRM in a business and to consider coaching in this context. A future area of research will be to explore the role of coaching in supporting varying types of HRM practices.
- Adrian Myers is a senior lecturer at the International Centre for Coaching and Mentoring Studies at Oxford Brookes University
- amyers@brookes.ac.uk
References
- D Torrington, L Hall, S Taylor and C Atkinson, Human Resource Management, Harlow, UK: Pearson, 2013
- KP De Meuse, G Dai and R J Lee, ‘Evaluating the effectiveness of executive coaching: beyond ROI?’, in Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 2(2), pp117-134, 2009