A coaching style of leadership takes both leadership and organisational performance to the next level, suggests research. Po Lindvall reports
Coaching leadership has the potential to take leadership to the next level – for leaders themselves, their co-workers and their organization – changing leaders’ behaviour and improving organisational outcomes, including performance.
This was one of the main conclusions from an integrated review of research comparing ‘transformational leadership’ and ‘coaching leadership’ that I recently presented in a paper co-authored with professors Stephen Palmer and Annette Fillery-Travis. The paper, published in The International Journal of Coaching Psychology (Lindvall, Palmer & Fillery-Travis, 2022), presents compelling evidence for the advantage that coaching leadership offers in a shift towards a ‘new’ paradigm for the future of leadership.
The article is part of a research project at the University of Wales Trinity Saint David where leadership, leader and leadership development training are under scrutiny. In forthcoming peer-reviewed articles we will look at what is needed in the design of a leadership training programme to create a real difference, and what a ten-module training programme in coaching leadership can result in for different organisations.
In addition to participants’ perspective, we evaluate the programme through other data sources, as a questionnaire answered by co-workers and indicators on the organisational level. For now, let us explore the advantages of coaching leadership over transformational leadership.
Coaching leadership vs transformational leadership
I define ‘coaching leadership’ as: “a coaching approach to leadership…to support, challenge, stimulate, encourage and facilitate self-insight in people, being accountable for their own development and performances and through dialogue, understanding and participation reach agreements, formulate action plans, as well as coordinating and implementing these” (Lindvall, 2005, p243).
On the other hand, ‘transformational leadership’ has been described as “an effective method for manipulating followers into doing what the leaders want them to do” (Barker, 1997).
My earlier research (Lindvall, 2005, 2014) had already highlighted interesting outcomes, with tangible increases in productivity, at the same time as sick leave halved – indications of a healthy and efficient work climate. Now we’ve investigated further, the potential impact of the promising ideas of a ‘participative-coaching-approach-to-leadership’ and why, according to Self-Determination Theory, it works not only for leaders and coworkers, but also on the organisational level. As my great colleague, Max Rapp-Ricciardi (2015) at the University of Gothenburg, puts it: “Can corporate enterprises afford not to adopt coaching leadership approaches?”
Practitioners and researchers have advocated for transformational leadership theory for quite some time. However, the question now is whether it’s time to lay this quite old theory to rest. Especially as the original theory from Burns (1978) was based on research on political leadership in the 1970s in the US, almost without references to research on leadership in work contexts. Burns himself stated in an interview in 2001 that political and business leadership differ, both in content and practices.
When Bass (1985) presented transformational leadership theory as a theory for leadership in any organisation, he had to present a refined version of it. But was that refinement enough? Especially if we compare the ‘heroic visionary’ ideas of transformational leadership with a coaching approach to leadership.
Even though researchers claim that people do better than expected when led by a transformational leader, merited researchers, such as professor David Collinson (2011) say that no definitive evidence of effectiveness produced by transformational leadership have been presented. He states that findings have been inconclusive.
There are several reasons why conclusive findings have been difficult to find. One is that the transformational leader represents an ideal of the few directing the many, implying dependence and difference, as opposite to participation and empowerment. The focus in transformational leadership research is on the singular leader, implying more of a top-down process, even if an evolution toward increased participation has also been detected. The main issue with transformational leadership theory seems to be the inspirational, charismatic and visionary factors.
Bass himself even wrote that pseudotransformational leadership practices had been identified. Many leaders have got the impression that they should be charismatic visionaries, something that was encouraged by transformational leadership training providers (and still is in many cases). Kouzes and Posner (2007) say that instead: “What people really want to hear is not simply the leader’s vision… The very best leaders understand that their key task is inspiring a shared vision, not selling their own idiosyncratic view of the world.”
Another issue is what coaching is called in relation to transformational leadership, as it’s often confused with advising. In Goleman’s study (2000), he confused the leadership view of coaching with the common sports coaching practices of giving plentiful feedback and instructions. Quite far from the mature form of coaching leadership, advocated by Clutterbuck, Megginson and Bajer (2016) where leaders lead by asking questions, using team members’ ideas in shared problem solving and decision making.
What is argued in our article (Lindvall, Palmer & Fillery-Travis, 2022) is that more recent theories, such as the theories of shared, distributed and coaching leadership, represent an evolution far beyond the ideas of transformational leadership. Where participation and co-creation, with multiple agents of leadership, are practised and explored in research. The findings of effectiveness of a coaching approach to leadership are definitely more conclusive. Here are a few examples.
In 2001, research showed that a mechanical industry business in Sweden had increased productivity by assembling 43 vehicles per day, compared with 37 one year earlier (with a workforce of 800). At the same time, sick leave decreased from 9% to 4.5% and employee turnover increased from around 30% to 6%. Ten years later the numbers were even better. Some 80 vehicles were assembled per day (now with a workforce of 1,100). Sick leave decreased even further to 3.3%, and employee turnover was down to 4%.
The numbers are especially interesting as they tell a tale of effectiveness in parallel with wellbeing and health. The main reason for the improvements was that the company evolved from a culture of ‘traditional leadership’ to a coaching culture (Lindvall, 2005, 2014).
Another organisation in Sweden increased its productivity by 50% over nine years. Co-workers were given increased mandates to contribute to improvements and developments of the business, as the CEO practised post-conventional coaching leadership, which builds on the maturity of the leader. A leadership characterised by the leader challenging power structures, valuing differences, trying to understand others ideas and initiatives, shares responsibility and gives mandates to others (Brandt, 2019).
Google presents another interesting case through its now more than a decennium-long research initiative, Project Oxygen (Mautz, 2019). The business has concluded that being a good coach is number one on its list for leadership development, and a good manager needs to be a good coach. Caring is essential for coaching leaders and the first focus is on helping co-workers grow. The second focus is understanding that you are not a fixer but a facilitator: you ask questions rather than give answers.
Great coaching leadership practices at Google build on participation and inclusion, to create empowerment as opposed to micro-management. Outcomes include wellbeing and success. (Mautz, 2019).The idea of the manager needing to know more than co-workers is common, and all too often a really bad idea (Lindvall, 2018). At Google, bosses’ expertise in work done has been shown to be of little importance. Having coaching leadership skills, being there and making connections is what really matters, according to Garvin and Wagonfeld (2013).
How and why it works
Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory (1985) is important in explaining why, even how coaching leadership works. Stone, Deci and Ryan (2008) describes how leaders need to behave to create a Self-Determination Theory climate, or what also could be called a coaching culture:
l
- Ask open-ended questions and invite co-workers to solve important problems.
- Listen actively, including taking co-workers’ perspectives seriously.
- Offer choices inside the organisational structure, even concerning clarification of roles.
- Give honest, positive feedback, strengthening initiatives and give fact-based non-judgmental feedback related to problems.
- Minimise control, bonuses and competitions or comparisons among team members.
- Develop talent by sharing knowledge, enhancing competence and autonomy.
Using these leadership behaviours helps create feelings of autonomy, competence and relatedness – essential for wellbeing, according to Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory (1985).
What gets in the way?
Even though many managers know what creates or strengthens intrinsic motivation, they still behave in line with old, possibly obsolete motivational approaches. It seems hard to unlearn ‘old school’ motivational strategies and traditional leadership. Why is this – especially when the aforementioned cases describe how effective and successful a coaching approach to leadership can be? Managers don’t need to choose between productivity and wellbeing. They can increase both at the same time. That should be convincing enough. Still, in many organisations the ‘visionary-charismatic-heroic-leader’ remains the standard mindset of what leadership is.
Leadership doesn’t only lay in the hands of the formal leader but is also distributed or shared among team members. This, it could be argued, is a major shift in leadership thinking, putting the leader and follower idea on the ‘bench’. Replacing the term ‘followers’ with ‘co-creators’, as Professor Mats Alvesson suggests (2019), is a step forward. Rethinking what great leadership is seems to be difficult. However, the evidence we have presented might help motivate a paradigm shift.
About the author
- Po Lindvall is a doctorate researcher at University of Wales Trinity Saint David, EMCC Global’s first VP Research (2012-15), a leadership coach, a leadership training facilitator and designer of the leader and leadership training programme, COACH2LEAD.
- Po Lindvall, Prof. Stephen Palmer and Annette Fillery-Travis are with the Wales Academy for Professional Practice and Applied Research, University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Carmarthen, Wales.
References
- M Alvesson, ‘Forskningen har svårt att hitta riktigt lyckade chefer’ (Research has a hard time finding really successful managers), in Dagens Nyheter, 10 August, 2019
- R A Barker, ‘How can we train leaders if we do not know what leadership is?’, in Human Relations, 50(4),343-362, 1997
- B M Bass, Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: The Free Press, 1985
- N E Brandt, ‘Transformativ förändring och postkonventionellt ledarskap – en retrospektiv fallstudie med fokus på förändringsprocessen och ledarskapet´(Transformative change and post conventional leadership, a retrospective case study with a focus on the change process and leadership), Dissertation Series 102. Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, 2019.
- J M Burns, Leadership. Harper & Row, 1978
- D Clutterbuck, D Megginson and A Bajer, Building and Sustaining a Coaching Culture. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2016
- D Collinson, ‘Critical Leadership Studies’, in A Bryman, D Collinson, K Grint, B Jackson and M Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Leadership (pp. 181-194). SAGE: Kindle Edition, 2011
E L Deci and R M Ryan, ‘Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination’, in Human Behavior. Plenum Press, 1985. - D A Garvin, A B Wagonfeld and L Kind, Google’s Project Oxygen: Do Managers Matter? Harvard Business School Case 313-110, April 2013: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=44657
- D Goleman, ‘Leadership That Gets Results’, in Harvard Business Review, 78, 2000
- J M Kouzes and B Z Posner, The Leadership Challenge (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007
- P Lindvall, ‘Coachologi: Laganda, lust och lönsamhet’ (Coachology: Team cohesion, passion and profitability), in Performanage, 2005
- P Lindvall, ‘Creating a coaching culture’, in International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching, 12(1), 29-45, 2014
- P Lindvall, ‘Tyrann eller coachande ledare, del 2’ (Tyrant or coaching leader, part 2), in Ledarbloggen, 2018: https://www.coach2lead.se/post/2018/03/13/chef-vs-coach-tyrann-eller-coachande-ledare-del-2
- P Lindvall, S Palmer and A Fillery-Travis, ‘Boss v/s Coach: From conventional to post-conventional leadership’, in International Journal of Coaching Psychology, 3(4), 1-18, 2022: https://ijcp.nationalwellbeingservice.com/volumes/volume-3-2022/volume-3-article-4/
- S Mautz, ‘Google tried to prove managers don’t matter. Instead, it discovered 10 traits of the very best ones’, in Inc., 5, June, 2019: https://bit.ly/4035xaY
- M Rapp-Ricciardi, D Garcia and T Archer, ‘Coaching leadership training in high-tech settings: An analysis of a coaching leadership program in the Swedish telecom industry’, in International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching, 13(3),
1-20, 2015 - D N Stone, E L Deci and R M Ryan, Beyond Talk: Creating Autonomous Motivation through Self-Determination Theory. University of Kentucky, Von Allmen School of Accountancy, 2008: https://doi.org/10.1177/030630700903400305