Training in Turbulence: How to Train Coaches in a Crisis

This is the fourth post in "Training in Turbulence," a series on workplace training during the COVID-19 crisis.

Before COVID-19, talent developers established formalized training programs aimed at teaching coaching behaviors. These included certificates and certifications, which combined considerable classroom time with contextual learning.

Such programs will always be available but may be less accessible during a downturn due to cost and time constraints. Yet even before the pandemic, such programs were deployed mostly to support the development of formal coaching engagements conducted by coaching practitioners. Talent developers should maintain such programs when appropriate. But this time of disruption demands a new direction. With fewer opportunities for formal programming, the learning and development profession must turn to micro-learning to establish a widespread coaching culture.

My backyard shed required coaching from my father-in-law and countless 5-minute YouTube tutorials

Micro-learning myth busting

There are a few widespread misconceptions about micro-learning that we first ought to address. Due to explosive growth in micro-learning platforms, many L&D professionals mistakenly think that micro-learning requires complex technology. Perhaps this sentiment comes from digital advertising. When one does a Google search for micro-learning, they will find many results for technology providers. They will not find many results regarding deploying a micro-learning strategy in a low-tech context. From TalentCards to mLevel, Axonify to DuoLingo, these technologies exist at all price points, levels of customization, and intended applications. And while these technologies are indeed useful in supporting micro-learning, particularly for their ability to gamify learner experience and provide valuable analytics, they remain more of a “nice-to-have” than a concrete prerequisite.

Here, it’s useful to refer back to the Association for Talent Development’s definition of micro-learning as that which is effective, efficient, and short. Micro-learning requires a commitment to efficiency, effectiveness, and above all, brevity. Technology can facilitate these commitments - but all are feasible without technological sophistication or even a technical solution. Email and Slack can be just as useful in pushing micro-learning as a high-end micro-learning platform. So can a well-placed bulletin board post or flyer in an elevator. My team at Zendesk has used Slack to publish nearly all of the micro-learning pieces we have shipped to our stakeholders. I once worked with a team at Google that published micro-learning articles on time management next to bathroom mirrors - to promote handwashing and to facilitate learning during the 20+ seconds we (hopefully) all spend scrubbing.

Many also believe that micro-learning requires complicated designs and time-intensive graphics, that it’s more the domain of game developers than trainers. While it is true that some micro-learning lends itself to gamification or rich-media simulations, effective micro-learning can be as simple as plain text on a printed piece of paper (if presented to the right audience in the proper context). Anyone with access to a basic suite of business tools like Google Docs or Microsoft Office can design great micro-learning. The development and delivery of the material matter far more than the flashiness of the design.

Others maintain that micro-learning is ineffective at achieving complex learning objectives. Perhaps we derive this sentiment from our broad familiarity with "macro-learning," including courses, workshops, boot camps, and conferences. But new theories of neuroscience suggest that "macro-learning" is most effective at the onset of a career, or while onboarding into a new role. The more experience we acquire, we need more opportunities to "repeat and use" the knowledge we have stored, and more opportunities putting that knowledge into practice. Micro-learning fundamentally works towards the goals of repetition, utilization, and application. It comes as no surprise that the research continues to prove the effectiveness of this tactic. In a study of its efficacy, TrainingIndustry.com concluded that "Microlearning not only mitigates cognitive overload but also supports long-term retention."

Learning to be a coach with micro-learning

Putting aside these sentiments, let’s turn to how we can use micro-learning to support the development of coaching habits at all levels of the organization. We’ll assume that any organization has two related yet still distinctive audiences for coaching content.

On one side, we have staff members and individual contributors who must learn the skills of peer-to-peer coaching. On the other, we have managers and executives. While we expect that both groups need to be fluent in coaching, there are differences in how each will approach coaching. For example, peer-to-peer coaching is unlikely to engage in sensitive human resource issues. On the other hand, peer-to-peer coaching conversations are likely to involve levels of detail and nuance that we would not expect in executive coaching. As we construct our blueprint for micro-learning, we’ll need a workable plan for both audiences.

For micro-learning to have its maximum effect, it must move beyond vague platitudes about the importance of coaching. Talent developers can build coaching habits with a micro-learning approach, but only if that approach deals with specific coach-like behaviors. This approach necessitates a focus on coaching tactics, case studies, and personalized simulations, the three themes of coaching micro-learning.

A coaching tactic is a conversational technique that converts conversation into goal-directed action. Tactics include questions (e.g., what’s holding you back?”), cautions (e.g., here’s why you want to avoid giving advice), or productivity hacks (e.g., here’s how to visualize progress towards a goal). In a micro-learning context, tactics are typically reminders of what we know to work in coaching - whether consciously or unconsciously.

A coaching case study is a story, ideally a real experience from the organization, of how someone became “unstuck” or achieved measurable success by participating in coaching. In micro-learning, case studies need to be brief yet applicable. They are not published to celebrate achievements, but to scale what is already working in pockets of the learning culture.

Lastly, personalized simulations are interactive widgets that create a rapid and ideally gamified environment in which to apply tactics and case studies. The simulation can be academic or airy in tone. They can involve high-tech exercises such as virtual reality coaching, or low-tech scenarios like a dialogue scripting exercise. In 3-5 minutes, learners use a simulation to imagine new applications for their emerging coaching skills.

Micro-learning ideas for coaching skills:

When done with variety, creativity, and a sense of optimism, talent developers will find that micro-learning ignites an organization’s ability to be more “coach-like.” With well-designed spacing and a commitment to brevity, those who work in L&D can keep their organizations focused on a more positive future, even amidst a perplexing present. But micro-learning has its limits. It’s an excellent vector for disseminating skills-based content, but it requires a supportive environment in which such skills can become a habit. If we want to see coaching at the core of our culture, we need reinforcement and affirmation in the form of behavioral nudges. And that's where we will turn in our fourth blog post on Training in Turbulence.

----

@ryanpanzer is a learning and leadership development professional with a passion for coaching and technology.

Building Coaching Culture in a Crisis

This post is the third post in the "Training in Turbulence" series, focused on talent development during COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic is disrupting workplace coaching, forcing those of us who work in talent development to reconsider what we mean when we talk about "coaching culture." Suddenly, the old goals no longer seem as important. The old coaching scripts no longer seem as relevant. So where do we go from here?

The past: The few coached by the fewer

To understand how coaching must change in this time of crisis, we must first look at how we practiced coaching in stable conditions. In the decade before COVID-19, coaching was primarily provided to business leaders. Some companies had started to experiment with peer-to-peer, in-the-moment coaching models, in an attempt to infuse the practice of coaching throughout all levels of the organization.

Still, the most commonly practiced form of coaching was in service to senior leaders. Structural rigor defined the practice, rendering coaching as something that sat on the periphery of most organizational cultures. Some estimates suggest that executive coaching created over one billion dollars in annual economic activity before the pandemic. Prior to 2020, 53,000 coaches provided formal, 1:1 guidance to managers and executives. Two-thirds of all coaching practitioners focused their business on executive-level coaching. By contrast, only one-third of coaching practitioners worked with non-manager employees. Why the disproportionate focus on executives, a level of professional attainment to which only 7% of workers aspire? Perhaps because executive coaching is a relatively lucrative practice, with practitioners billing an average of $400/hour.

Executive coaching practitioners were and still are highly-credentialed. The International Coaching Federation (ICF) is among one of several credentialing authorities to the coaching profession. To attain their certifications, one must complete over 60 hours of formal training and over 100 hours of formal coaching experience. Holders of ICF’s highest credential, the Master Certified Coach, complete 200+ training hours and 2500+ hours of coaching experience. Such credentialing expectations have spurred the development of a cottage industry dedicated to professional coaching. Myriad universities and business schools now offer professional coaching certificates, provided for a substantial tuition fee. While these training and credentialing standards provide necessary standards to a relatively new profession, they establish an implicit expectation that being a coach requires expenditures of energy, focus, and finances. The popularity of the executive coaching model conditions us to imagine coaching as a professionalized activity deployed to support a small percentage of our workforce.

The future: The many coached by the many more

In the wake of coronavirus, the bottom may fall out of the executive coaching market as companies look to reduce fixed expenses. But even if the executive coaching market doesn’t contract, a recession-ready workforce requires a different approach, one that began to emerge before the pandemic.

To develop talent amidst disruption and volatility, today’s L&D professionals must seek to integrate coaching practices, indeed even habits, at all levels of the organization. The talent developer in turbulence must move away from an overreliance on formal, executive models and enabling everyone to be a coach.

In this era of anxiety and uncertainty, our workplaces need coaches capable of converting negative sentiment into creative, goal-directed action. Our workplaces need such individuals not just in the C-suite, but in every operation within a company’s portfolio. To quote best-selling author Michael Bungay Stanier, the training professional must now work to ensure that everyone in the organization becomes more “coach-like.”

Unfortunately, few have yet to see the value in being “coach-like” in the workplace. We’re not even at the point where every manager is comfortable in coaching their teams. Coaching remains the practice of credentialed, full-time practitioners. There are five full-time coaching practitioners for every one manager or leader who uses coaching skills in their day-to-day work. This lack of involvement with coaching comes despite a 2014 finding from CEB (now Gartner) suggesting that an integrated approach to coaching, in which individuals provide in-the-moment coaching to one another, can increase performance by 12.2%.

Michael Bungay Stanier on coaching in a crisis

Quarantined in my house in Madison, WI in March 2020, I sat down for a Zoom call with coaching expert and best-selling author Michael Bungay Stanier. I asked Bungay Stanier, the author of The Coaching Habit and The Advice Trap, how the practice of coaching might evolve, and how talent developers could support coaching in uncertain times. As we talked, Michael maintained that coaching in a time of coronavirus would require the development of coaching habits and practices for everyone in the organization.

Michael shared that coaching in a time of uncertainty is about helping one’s peers to differentiate data from judgment. “Those who are coach-like, regardless of whether they consider themselves actual coaches, help others to separate fact from feeling,” said Bungay Stanier. “It’s only when coaches help separate fact from feeling that they can help to determine an effective set of actions. The most powerful coaching questions that we all should be asking in a time of anxiety and ambiguity are ‘What do you know to be true?’ - And as a follow-up, what are you going to say yes to, and what are you going to say no to?”

In a workplace characterized by apprehension, everyone is going to have moments in which we will act on that which is objectively false. Coaches are those who can ensure our actions rest upon a solid foundation.

“Someone who is coach-like prevents their peers from being swept up in a wave of active uncertainty and anxiety,” suggests Bungay Stanier. “They facilitate action based on the data. They recognize that every action requires saying no to something, for example, anxiety, and saying yes to something else, for example, self-care, breathing, and grounding oneself in the truth.”

Michael recognizes that in moments of uncertainty, even those who aspire to be coaches struggle to maintain a posture of curiosity and inquiry. There are two harmful tendencies in these situations. The first tendency is to stop asking questions. Without coaches who ask great questions, all of us struggle to find the best possible course of action. The other tendency is to launch into advice-giving, what Bungay Stanier refers to as the “Advice Monster.”

“Part of what drives advice-giving and receiving is a hunger for certainty,” says Bungay Stanier. “So, COVID-19 and other crises will surely awaken our Advice Monsters. In these moments, there’s a wiring we have where we’re all hungry for a sense of certainty, even when that certainty is misguided.”

While professional coaches are often reknowned for their ability to give great advice, coaching and advising are intrinsically different practices. Whereas coaches empower individuals to find their own, unique path to goal attainment, advisors provide recommendations based on someone else’s experience. Author Henry Kimsey-House summarizes the two practices as follows: “Advisors stand in front of you and face you. You ask them their opinions and they give them to you, based on their experience and background. Coaches, however, stand next to you, facing the same direction, and look to the horizon saying, ‘Where do you want to go?’”

Advice isn’t problematic in and of itself, though its applications are limited, particularly in an economic climate when nearly everyone is facing never-before-seen challenges. For Michael Bungay Stanier, the problem with advice is that it implies that the one receiving advice is inadequate to meet the challenges of the times and that they are somehow not “enough.”

In a recent TedX Talk, Michael describes how giving advice implies that the other is not “smart, wise, fast, moral, or experienced enough.” For Bungay Stanier, the best-case scenario is that the recipient ignores the advice. The worst-case scenario is that it leads to a certain level of learned helplessness. With the need for individuals and organizations to take bold, innovative, and pragmatic actions amidst a time of recession, we need to pull coaching back from the entrapments of advice.

Bungay Stanier clarified that there remain cases in which some advice could be useful during an appearance on Hallely Azulay’s TalentGrow Podcast. He suggested that coaching has its greatest impact when we stop rushing to provide advice.

“I’m not saying stop giving advice or never give anybody any advice at all,” said Bungay Stanier on the podcast. “I’m merely saying, can you slow down the rush to give advice? What you’ll find is the longer you can wait, the more likely it is that they’ll figure it out by themselves. And if they don’t, then the more likely it is that your advice will be more focused, more useful and more likely to be acted upon.”

Crises provide us an opportunity to develop a coaching culture. If we want to make coaching a widespread habit in a time of turbulence, we need talent developers who can train us all to ask coaching questions. We need trainers who can slow our inclination to provide advice. And we must all resolve to follow Bungay Stanier’s advice in saying less, and asking more, at all levels of the organization.

Training in Turbulence, Part Two: Instructional Design During a Recession

If training departments are going to affect positive change or build any meaningful capacity during a recession, they must do so with a commitment to lightweight implementation, or a focus on learning culture over training courses.

Potential 20% reductions in training resources, paired with drop-offs in available learning hours, create an uncertain future for large learning programs. Programs and courses will continue to help employees to develop new, role-required skills. I expect many companies will continue to prioritize their new hire onboarding programs, for example. Still, formal learning, with its hefty administrative burdens like scheduling, content maintenance, and ongoing SME engagement, cannot build a recession-ready workplace.

What we need instead are techniques that enable skill development by rapidly converting theory into practice, and practice into habits. We need a strategy that makes social learning work! Fortunately, these techniques are not unfamiliar to talent development professionals, though they may be peripheral to much of our past work.

By focusing on micro-learning, nudges, and communities of practice, trainers can form a recession-ready learning culture defined by efficiency and efficacy. These three instructional design techniques form a robust "triad" of organizational development in that they can develop skills with little administrative overhead.

The root of this triad is micro-learning, which provides a mechanism for the distribution of essential procedural and declarative knowledge. ATD defines micro-learning as that which “enhances learning and performance in the most efficient and effective manner possible through short pieces of content. Assets can usually be accessed on-demand when the learner needs them.”

Micro-learning is not new to a time of recession. Just before the pandemic, Donald Taylor’s Global Sentiment Survey identified micro-learning as the sixth-hottest trend in L&D, indicating widespread interest in this emerging training tool. But what is new about micro-learning is that it will transition from a tangential measure deployed to support formal learning into a core strategy for the development of essential skills.

Nudges establish the middle note, or the third, of this triad. Whereas micro-learning involves actions to create and ship content, nudges involve actions that shape and optimize behaviors, thus turning theory into practice.

We can define a nudge as a "relatively subtle" action that encourages behaviors that are either individually beneficial or socially altruistic. Google's small cafeteria plates are a commonly cited example of a behavioral nudge. Google famously found that smaller plates lead employees to make more nutritious choices. As a former Google employee, I once shed over fifteen pounds by switching to Google's smaller plates and ensuring my lunches consisted primarily of vegetables served from the front of Google's buffet lines. While talent developers can use micro-learning to demonstrate essential skills for a time of uncertainty, nudges are needed to put skills into action and to ensure that social learning perpetuates skill development.

Communities of practice form the top note, or the fifth, of our triad. Harvard Business Review defines communities of practice as “groups of people informally bound together by shared expertise and passion for a joint enterprise.” Communities of practice can exist online or offline, within an organization or with like-minded individuals across organizations. They can be broad in scope and complex in operations, such as an international trade organization or a multinational CEO peer group. Or they can be narrow in scope and easily maintained, such as a Slack channel for instructional designers or a group of podiatrists on WhatsApp.

Whether these groups gather virtually or physically, synchronously, or via social media, a community of practice facilitates two needed elements of adult skill development: peer-to-peer learning, and opportunities for reflection. Communities of practice are a powerful form of “social” learning - the third “hottest” global trend in Learning and Development in 2020.

Social learning provides 70% of workplace learning and is especially popular with Millennials and Generation Z. All communities of practice are social learning, though not all social learning rises to the level of a community of practice. The difference is that a community of practice involves a commitment to constancy. Many social learning opportunities are “one and done” - but one can always turn to their communities of practice to take full advantage of social learning. Moreover, in a time of disruption, companies may verbalize a commitment to social learning - when, in fact, their hidden commitment is to avoid investing in L&D! In upcoming blog posts, we’ll reimagine communities of practice as more targeted towards specific skills, more supported by talent developers, and more appealing to workers in uncertain times.

Until the pandemic ends and the recession dissipates, bulky training programs will achieve limited traction. Fortunately, the triad of micro-learning, nudges, and communities of practice provide an objectively better alternative! With these strategies in mind, let us turn in the next blog post to the skills that we must build if our organizations are to withstand these turbulent times.

-----

@ryanpanzer is an instructional designer for Zendesk and a member of the board of directors for the Association for Talent Development Madison Area Chapter.