How does a narcissistic leader affect an organization? In Decoding the Workplace I differentiated healthy narcissistic leaders from unhealthy ones, stating “healthy narcissistic leaders understand their strengths and know when to seek the advice of others” (pp. 105-106). In a 2014 blog I shared findings from a literature review of narcissists.
 
In a 2018 The Leadership Quarterly article, Charles O’Reilly III (Stanford), Bernadette Doerr (UC,Berkeley), and Jennifer Chatman (UC,Berkeley) concluded “although some researchers have suggested that narcissistic CEOs may have a positive influence on organizational performance . . . a growing body of evidence suggests that organizations led by narcissistic CEOs experience considerable downsides.” Their research focused on “grandiose narcissism” in which the narcissist is highly assertive, extroverted, with high self-esteem. Characteristics include:

•  Inflated sense of entitlement
•  Unrealistic sense of personal superiority
•  Viewing others as inferior
•  Overconfidence
• “Willingness to manipulate others”
• “Hostility and aggression when challenged”

In reviewing studies of narcissistic leaders, they found narcissistic leaders:

• “More likely to emerge as leaders”
• “Charming,” good first impressions
•  More persistent at focusing on task at hand
• “More willing to take chances”
• “Overly confident about own judgment”
• “Discount negative feedback”
• “See others as less competent”
•  Pursue activities and strategies that are self-enhancing.
• “Believe themselves less vulnerable to being penalized for their overconfidence”
• “Lower in integrity”
• “More likely to engage in unethical behavior”
•  More likely “to engage in sexual harassment”
•  More likely to bully others
•  Inhibit the exchange of information among group members

Studies indicate narcissistic CEOs more likely to:

• “Manipulate corporate earnings”
• “Aggressively avoid paying taxes”
•  Produce financial reports “with lower accounting quality”
• “Misreport financial status”
•  To “be at risk of committing fraud”

O’Reilly and his colleagues reported two experimental studies and a field study of 32 technology companies. Their field study found companies with more narcissistic CEOs had “more lawsuits filed against them and the lawsuits” endured “for longer periods of time.” Companies “with more narcissistic CEOs are more likely to be sued and this litigation will take longer to be resolved.”
 
My take-aways:
 
1.  Hiring: It may be difficult to identify unhealthy narcissists when hiring. References may or may not be forthcoming with accurate assessments. In interviewing notice how much credit the potential hire gives to others when discussing accomplishments. There is advice online about how to tell when hiring if someone is a narcissist but I would need to see the research before recommending.
 
2. Promoting: Interestingly highly narcissistic leaders get promoted. They charm, take credit for accomplishments, and so forth. Where input can be obtained from subordinates, such as in a 360-degree assessment, the organization should obtain more information and perhaps a more accurate picture. 
 
3. Managing: Those who supervise a highly narcissistic individual who is damaging the morale or financial health of the organization should do their jobs. Be accountable and hold that individual accountable. Corporate boards should do likewise. 
 
O'Reilly III, C. A., Doerr, B., & Chatman, J. A. (2018). "See you in court": How CEO narcissism increases firms' vulnerability to lawsuits. The Leadership Quarterly, 29, 365-378.
 
Image, "Narcissism", by Jills. Image altered from the original image at https://pixabay.com/en/narcissism-narcissist-shadow-bad-3752409/  Used in accordance with: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en
​
© John Ballard, PhD, 2018. All rights reserved.
 _________________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless . . . Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, June, 2018. Now also available as an audiobook. 

Think about your workplace. Are people happy? Engaged? How is their well-being? In the past decade much has been written about happiness, engagement, and well-being in the workplace. While there is probably some overlap, these are different terms with different meanings – and the definitions of each may vary with different sources.
 
To celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Association for Psychological Science (APS), the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science asked authors of the 30 most-cited articles across all APS journals to contribute an essay about their research. 23 did. One who did was Carol Ryff (University of Wisconsin-Madison) whose work on well-being has been impetus to over 750 studies worldwide. Three of her studies (two with colleagues) have been cited by other researchers over 20,000 times. 
 
Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia is the philosophical inspiration for Ryff’s model. I discussed eudaimonia in one of my first blogs six years ago: “While the definitions vary somewhat, most come down to a distinction between hedonic or pleasure-based well-being and eudaemonic or meaningful, purposive well-being.” Happiness is pleasure-based. Eudaimonia is about knowing yourself and becoming what you can be.
 
So what is Ryff’s model? Well-being has six components:

• Purpose in life: “being meaningfully engaged”
• Personal growth: realizing one’s potential
• Self-acceptance: “experiencing positive self-regard” 
• Positive relations: “being connected to others”
• Autonomy: self-determining, independent
• Environmental mastery: “being capable”, competent

Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being Scale (PWB) has been subject to numerous psychometric studies, translated into other languages worldwide, and used in many research studies. While psychometricians may debate some of the finer points of scale construction (some overlap among components), the scale has high reliability and has lead to meaningful research across disciplines, especially health studies. In the workplace Ryff noted well-being studies related to “whether one was engaged in paid or unpaid work, the degree to which work was stressful, and how work life enhanced or undermined family life.”
 
My take-aways:
 
1.  I was not familiar with Ryff’s model until now. However, I am familiar with the components of the model and I have been writing about them for years directly and indirectly. Here are a few examples:

• Purpose in life - Purpose & Life Themes, On Purpose and Longevity, Christensen, Frankl, & Rychlak
• Personal growth – Maximizing Human Potential, Living a Meaningful Life, Carli Lloyd
• Self-acceptance – Self-compassion, Self-compassion Revisited
• Positive relations – Compassion & the Leader, Value of Chit-Chat
• Autonomy – Authenticity & Autonomy, Autonomy & Burnout
• Environmental mastery – Job Crafting, Letterman & Person-Job Match, Anita Emoff

 
2. Ryff listed several psychologists as “theoretical underpinnings” of the model, including Abraham Maslow. Having read Maslow extensively, I can relate Maslow to much of the model. His hierarchy of relative prepotency (the need hierarchy) is about growth. The higher the well-being, the more higher level needs are satisfied. Ryff’s model fits into the positive psychology/management movement as well as humanistic psychology/management.

3. So where are the practical applications? Well-being is probably related to workplace engagement. According to Gallup, only about one third of employees are actively engaged in the workplace. Over half are “not engaged” with the rest “actively disengaged.” A well-being metric might be useful in assessing psychological health of an organization, or parts thereof. Most importantly, self-assessment and understanding one’s own well-being through reflection could potentially help anyone but especially those who lead, those who set the example. 

Ryff, C. (2018). Well-being with soul: science in pursuit of human potential. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 242-248. 
 
Image, "Aristotle", by Nick Thompson. Image slightly reduced from the original image at https://www.flickr.com/photos/pelegrino/6884873348  Used with permission: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/
​
© John Ballard, PhD, 2018. All rights reserved.
 _________________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless . . . Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, June, 2018. Now also available as an audiobook. 

​Are you less productive because of your manager’s behavior and actions? Do you feel that some of your boss-inspired projects are a waste of time? Are others wasting time because of something your boss said? My guess is that managers wasting their employees’ time is common in most organizations.  
 
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Bob Sutton (professor at Stanford) discussed the ways leaders unintentionally waste the time of their employees. Here are some insights I gleaned from this article, ways managers may cause employees to be less productive. 

• Adopting fads: Jumping on the latest management fad or program, thus disrupting the workplace with “a new round of training, meetings and paperwork.” Employees may react with “fad surfing” and do the minimums to support the initiative while concentrating on getting their jobs done. 
• Not delegating: As organizations grow or change, there is a limit to how much one person can do. Leaders may fail to realize they are overextended and thus fail to delegate responsibilities. They invest their time in tasks others should be doing (“cookie licking”).
• Rewarding wrong people: Boat-rockers (people who always seek to improve operations, challenge old practices) often are not rewarded to the extent that “status quo” employees are. Boat-rockers facilitate organizational learning and renewal. 
• Making “throw away” comments: Some employees (trucklers) will move into action to make something happen based on a boss’s offhand comment, a reaction the boss may never have intended (“Executive magnification”).

Sutton’s advice to leaders: 

• Be skeptical if all news is good news.
• Be careful in making offhand comments or minor complaints. But if you do, add “Please don’t do anything, I am just thinking out loud.”
• Act on employees’ suggestions, feedback, don’t just give “lip service.”
• Reward employees “who end old, obsolete and effective programs and practices” as “star employees.”

 
My take-aways:
 
1. Bob Sutton nails it. If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard this employee complaint about time wasted, well let’s just say I’d have a nice wad of cash. Just last week a friend told me about all the time being wasted in his organization because of a fad training program of little or no value in his workplace. Faddism is a problem in organizations. We need more evidence-based evaluations of programs and initiatives, more evidence-based decisions.
 
2. Leaders should work on self-awareness and the effect of our words on others. There will be people eager to please and who will act on your words, regardless of your intent. Self-monitor. Incorporate Sutton’s suggested phrase about thinking out loud into your verbal scripts. I recall in my Air Force days a general commenting offhandedly on the color of a gym. Next visit it was the color he was wondering about. He had just been thinking out loud – and was not happy about the time or expense wasted by those who had it painted. 
 
Sutton, R. L. (2018, August 13). How bosses often waste their employees’ time. The Wall Street Journal. 
 
Image, "Wasting Time", by C x 2. –Image slightly reduced inside from the original image at https://www.flickr.com/photos/c_x_2/23853285506  Used with permission: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/
​
© John Ballard, PhD, 2018. All rights reserved.
 _________________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless . . . Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Ron Riggio, Book Review, Academy of Management Learning & Education, June, 2018. Now also available as an audiobook. 

How many leadership theories do we need? Since the early 1980s transformational leadership has dominated leadership research. We also have other popular and positive approaches to leadership: authentic, servant, and ethical. The degree to which these four leadership theories overlap are empirical questions. Fortunately we now have a study that moves us closer to having answers. 
 
Julia Hoch, Bill Bommer, Jim Dulebohn, and Dongyuan Wu published their research in the February issue of the Journal of Management. Using meta-analytic techniques they examined results from over 300 studies involving thousands of working adults. Among their findings were the following:

• Authentic leadership was highly correlated with transformational leadership (.75).
• Ethical leadership was highly correlated with transformational leadership (.70).
• Servant leadership was moderately correlated with transformational leadership (.50).
• Overall servant leadership was most distinct from transformational leadership.

They also examined each theory in relation to behavioral outcomes (e.g., job performance, organizational citizenship), attitudinal outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, engagement, commitment), and relational perceptions (trust, leader-member exchange). 

• The relationships between the outcome variables and authentic leadership and ethical leadership were about the same as transformational leadership 
• On the other hand, servant leadership explained about 12% more of the variance than transformational leadership alone
• “Servant leadership is the only emerging form that seems to support construct nonredundancy [with transformational leadership theory].

The authors suggested, based on their findings, that the primary instrument used to measure transformational leadership, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), “could be augmented by including a fifth explicit ethical dimension.” For organizations, they suggested incorporating training in moral and ethical behavior, adding an ethical component to evaluations, and hiring ethical leaders.
 
My take-aways:
 
1. I have stated my opinion about leadership in my book, blogs, and other writings. Leaders inspire others to go above and beyond the normal requirements of the job. Transactional leadership is management; transformational leadership is leadership. 
2. Hoch and associates have offered empirical results that suggest authentic and ethical leadership theories cover leadership activities mostly covered by transformational leadership. However what they do offer, and what is brought more to the forefront by servant leadership, is the importance of ethical, moral conduct by a leader. Increasingly in popular media, we see the need for ethical leadership. 
3.  Organizational culture is important in nurturing and supporting ethical conduct. Unfortunately leaders who are less ethical or morally inclined may damage long-standing organizational norms.
 
Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501-529.
 
Image, "Leadership", by Nick Youngson - http://www.nyphotographic.com/. Attribution: Alpha Stock Images - http://alphastockimages.com/  Original image:  http://creative-commons-images.com/handwriting/l/leadership.html Shared with permission: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
​
© John Ballard, PhD, 2018. All rights reserved.
 _________________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless . . . Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Ron Riggio, Book Review, Academy of Management Learning & Education, June, 2018. Now also available as an audiobook. 

The headline on the opinion page of The Wall Street Journal: “Why Do Women Shun STEM? It’s Complicated.” In the article Barbara Oakley, PhD, Professor of Engineering at Oakland University in Michigan, argued that professors “outside scientific fields” degrade STEM careers. They suggest to students that engineering is “not creative,” even “dehumanizing.” Non-STEM professors steer potential STEM students into non-STEM areas of study. As for the STEM workplace, she noted STEM career fields are not the only ones with “jerks” and “bullying.”
 
I understand Dr. Oakley’s arguments. The low number of women in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) is very complicated. In Lean In Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, suggested stereotype threat “is one of the key reasons that so few study computer science.”  Women are more likely to pursue careers seen as more appropriate for women.
 
Often overlooked is that many women come to STEM careers after pursuing something else. For example, Dr. Oakley graduated from university with a degree in Slavic Languages and Literature. Five years later, she pursued her degree in Electrical Engineering. Turner, Bernt, and Pecora (2002) noted that “the field of information technology is a roadway with many on-ramps . . . for many successful women, interest and talent in IT emerged gradually and developed overtime” (p. 16). One survey of 275 women in IT found only a third had an undergraduate degree in IT or computer science. 
 
In 2006 I published a research study conducted with an IT professional, Karen Black, who came to IT after she was in the workplace, and also co-authored by a university colleague, Mary Ann Edwards, DBA, who came to academe after working in industry.  Part of our paper was a literature review of factors affecting STEM decisions for women. In 2013 I blogged about our findings. Here are several highlights:

• For women pursuing undergraduate degrees in IT or computer science, by far the most frequently mentioned influence: fathers. The enthusiasm of fathers for engineering or IT was “infectious.” Parents were highly influential but especially fathers.
• Surveys suggested some educators were discouraging: High school teachers (17%); guidance counselors (12%) –“not a field for girls.” 
• Schools emphasizing mathematics and science produced more women interested in STEM. 
• Positive experiences with mathematics correlated with interest in pursuing in STEM degrees.  
• STEM marketing should embrace the problem-solving, creativity, and variety in these careers.

My take-aways:
 
1. Increasing the percent of women in STEM careers will take time. Early influences are easy to overlook and difficult to affect as a society. The finding about fathers I found surprising so I discussed with a good friend, a woman prominent in IT. She agreed with the finding and suggested the seeds are sown by the 6th grade. It would be interesting to see if this finding is still valid in 2018. 
 
2. I agree with Sheryl Sandberg about stereotyping. I think Barbara Oakley makes a similar point. From media to some educators, there is a message that STEM careers just aren’t for women. To some degree rumors from male-dominated tech cultures may feed that stereotyping. But there are women in key positions in tech companies. Women leaders in tech may be the best to diagnose the problem and seek solutions. 
 
3. There is much interest in getting women into STEM degree programs. I think it is important to remember the many on-ramps. For women whose interest in STEM comes later, institutions of higher education and companies might find ways to provide educational support. 
 
4. I agree that STEM careers have opportunities for problem-solving and creativity. These positive attributes should be built into STEM marketing and media. 

Ballard, J., Scales, K., & Edwards, M. A. (2006). Perceptions of information technology careers among women in career development transition. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 24 (2), 1-9.  
 
Oakley, B. (2018, July 14/15). "Why do women shun STEM? It's complicated. The Wall Street Journal. 
 
Image modified from https://pxhere.com/en/photo/693727. Public domain. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
​
© John Ballard, PhD, 2018. All rights reserved.
 _________________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless . . . Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Ron Riggio, Book Review, Academy of Management Learning & Education, June, 2018. Now also available as an audiobook.

Recently I traveled to Wisconsin to attend the memorial service for my friend and colleague, Ben Arbaugh. A much-lauded professor at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Ben was a leader in the Academy of Management (AOM), an international organization of over 20,000 management scholars and practitioners. Among his service over the years was chairing the Management Education and Development Division and being editor of the Academy of Management Learning & Education (AMLE) journal. Ben pioneered online education in business and wrote the definitive Online and Blended Business Education for the 21st Century.
 
There are many who worked more closely with him and knew him far better but for me our relationship was special. I first met Ben in 2002 at an AOM meeting in Denver. When he assumed editorship of AMLE, he invited me to join the editorial board even though I did not work at a major research university. As much as I grew to know Ben over the years, it was not until his memorial service that I learned that he enjoyed line dancing!
 
In Ben’s story I think there are lessons that are useful regardless of where you work or where you are in life. As I have reflected on his story, here are a few of my take-ways. I am sure others could add many more.

• Bring people together. Herbert Shepard is his classic article, "Rules for Change Agents," suggested that when you know people with similar interests who do not know each other, bring them together. Ben knew many people and was expert at bringing people together, often creating synergies for initiatives and research projects.
• Don’t just build networks, build friendships. In his last lecture Ben talked about the joy of working with friends. His manner of interaction made you feel special, appreciated. He was an easy person to like.
• Work hard but seek balance. I know this was a tough one. Ben was prolific in his many undertakings. But he knew his priorities and he stuck to them even when conflicting priorities also offered rewards. He liked the question posted by Clayton Christensen, how will you measure your life?
• Time management is about tradeoffs. Choose wisely.
• Know your metrics, be evidence-based. Let the data speak and try to understand what the data are saying. Decisions based on evidence will usually be superior to those they are not.
• Read. Never stop growing, developing. At Ben’s memorial service there were tables and displays from a life well-lived. I should not have been surprised when I saw that one display was “Favorite Books.”
• Help others, support others. I was deeply moved when I realized that one of his last activities on Twitter was in support of the release of the audio version of my book. Helping others is not just an attitude but involves behaviors. Hang around Ben long enough and you could see that being kind and supportive was in his DNA. 
• Live a life of integrity. Know who you are. Have virtue.

It was my honor and privilege to have called Ben Arbaugh my friend.

Image,"Hawaiian Flowers," © John Ballard.
​
© John Ballard, PhD, 2018. All rights reserved.
 _________________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless . . . Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Ron Riggio, Book Review, Academy of Management Learning & Education June, 2018

How does the leader, or manager, affect employee well-being? Most leader research has focused on performance, and occasionally job satisfaction. But there is more to well-being than job satisfaction. 
 
Ilke Inceoglu and colleagues (University of Exeter, University of Surrey) reviewed research on leader behavior and well-being in a recent issue of The Leadership Quarterly. They argued that researchers have not paid enough attention to how the leader affects employee well-being. For their qualitative meta-analysis, Inceoglu and her co-authors screened over 5000 leadership studies, then closely examined almost 400, of which they selected the 71 most relevant for in depth analyses.
 
They identified five groupings (mediators) of how leaders affect well-being (all grounded in social and organizational theories). Here are their groupings with associated examples of leader behaviors:

• Social-cognitive: Leaders model attitudes and how to view events; they help shape the context of what is happening in the workplace and the organization; they share and clarify information and help clarify how the immediate work fits the bigger picture.
• Motivational: Leaders affect motivation in many ways, positively  and negatively; leaders can use job redesign principles to make jobs more meaningful; provide opportunities and resources to help employees satisfy workplace needs.
• Affective: The emotions of the leader affect followers; events created by the leader can affect followers emotionally. 
• Relational: The relationship between leader and followers can be crucial; is the leader seen as trustworthy; is the leader someone with whom followers can talk openly. 
• Identification: Through words and actions leaders can foster followers’ identification with the leader, the work group, and the organization.

Inceoglu and her co-authors then discussed the studies they reviewed, classifying by type of leadership (change, task, relational, passive, other), the type(s) of mediators, and type(s) of well-being (hedonic, e.g., job satisfaction; eudaimonic, e.g., work engagement; negative, e.g., burnout; physical, e.g., sleep quality). They concluded employee well-being deserves much more research. 
 
This is an important, sophisticated review deserving the attention of management and organizational behavior scholars. Of great benefit to future researchers will be Appendix A: a table of all 71 studies reviewed with methods and results of each. 
 
My take-aways:
 
1. I can think of many examples, both positive and negative, from my career that fit easily into these five categories. I know how they affected individual well-being and morale. My guess is you can also. 
 
2. So what questions might this research pose to the leader concerned about the well-being of followers:

• What attitudes do you project? How do you come across to employees?
• Do you put work assignments in context or do you just task people to do things with no explanation as to why? 
• Do you keep your employees informed?
• Do you look for ways to grow your employees?
• Do you know what opportunities and resources your employees need?
• Do you keep your emotions appropriate to what is needed, not explosive or exhausting to others, showing enthusiasm where warranted?
• Are you trustworthy?
• Are you a good listener, that is, an active listener?
• Are you a role model, someone with whom others identify positively?
• Do you speak positively about your organization as appropriate?

3.  For my management and organizational psychology colleagues, I highly recommend this study. Inceoglu and her co-authors have provided a framework for years of meaningful research that could enrich our workplaces. 
 
Inceoglu, I., Thomas, G., Chu, C., Plans, D., & Gerbasi, A. (2018). Leadership behavior and employee well-being: An integrated review and a future research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 179-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.006
 
Image,"Well Being" by Nick Youngson. Obtained from Alpha Stock Images. http://www.thebluediamondgallery.com/handwriting/w/well-being.html
Use with permission: Creative Commons 3 - CC BY-SA 3.0
​
© John Ballard, PhD, 2018. All rights reserved.
 
Author of Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
 _________________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless . . . Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Ron Riggio, Book Review, Academy of Management Learning & Education, in-press.

How is the manager as coach viewed in your organization? Does your organization have a training program to help managers develop or improve their coaching skills? If so, how effective is it? Is coaching done formally or informally?  The consultant and practitioner literature is replete with ideas to enhance the manager as coach. One idea that management scholars have rarely studied is "coachable moments."
 
In 2015 Christina Turner (Queensland University of Technology) and Grace McCarthy (University of Wollongong) published a study examining “coachable moments.” They defined a coachable moment as “an informal, usually unplanned or unexpected opportunity for a manager to have a conversation with an employee aimed at facilitating the employee to problem solve or learn from a work experience” (p. 5). They wanted to determine what factors determined whether or not managers took advantage of coaching moments in the daily business of the workplace. To that end, they interviewed ten managers in depth. This is a small sample but it is twice as large as Mintzberg’s study of CEOs that gave us interpersonal, informational, and decisional managerial roles. 
 
Their review of previous research found:

• most managers do not coach much
• managers often don’t have the skills to be effective coaching employees
• some managers see coaching as micro-managing
• some managers prefer traditional controlling and directing
• benefits of coaching: “learning, self-awareness, cost savings, and enhanced commitment” (p.2)
• characteristics of coachable moments: impromptu, short, timely, spontaneous, quick, focused

​
From their interviews Turner and McCarthy identified six themes (In italics are comments from managers):

1. Coach’s awareness: Managers have to size up a situation as a coaching opportunity and then assess the risk. Decisions to coach are “conscious and deliberate”. “It’s triage – critical decision-making about whether to coach.”
2. Type of employee:  Managers don’t see all employees as being coachable. “Some employees just don’t want to be coached – they just want direction.”
3. Relationship: To be effective, there has to be a relationship of “mutual trust and respect.” “If there’s no rapport, it won’t work.”
4. The situation presenting: Just not enough time. Too busy. Benefits not offset by time lost.
5. Physical environment or location: Most coachable moments were informal, not in the workplace per se, e.g., having coffee, sharing ride. “The office reminds you of status.”
6. Coach’s skills: Managers varied in how competent they felt coaching. “There are some issues and people I just don’t feel competent enough to tackle by coaching.”

 
Coachable moments involve managers assessing risk: 

• risk that the employee will react negatively
• risk that the employee will not like feedback
• risk that coaching will lead to conflict
• risk that the relationship will be damaged

 
My take-aways:
 
1.  In my managerial positions, I found coachable moments contributed greatly to building my work force. The conversations were usually in the workplace, private and off-the-cuff. They complemented formal workplace training programs. I saw large individual differences, from the employee who just wanted all the coaching I could provide to the employee who wanted none. 
 
2. I think some managers are capable of little more than an occasional coaching moment, at best. It’s just not their personalities. This does not mean that cannot be effective managers and leaders. This is just not a skill in their tool kit and they probably wouldn't use it if it were. On the other hand, some of us could benefit by training, especially training that includes practice in effective coaching. 
 
3. Turner and McCarthy’s study identified risk assessment as a major factor affecting the use of coachable moments. In many situations the manager’s assessment of risks is probably a key factor – along with just not enough time. Identifying the importance of managerial risk assessment in coachable moments is a major contribution of this study. 
 
4. We need more qualitative studies like Turner and McCarthy’s. There is a richness of ideas in good depth interviews. These ideas can enrich qualitative and quantitative studies that further our understanding of coachable moments -- and how to use coachable moments in the workplace.
 
Previous blogs on coaching:
A Leader and Managerial Skill: The Importance of Coaching
The Manager as Coach
Manager as Coach: Aptitude, Trust, Time

Mintzberg, H. (1975). The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review, March-April, 49-61.

Turner, C., & McCarthy, G. (2015). Coachable moments: Identifying factors that influence managers to take advantage of coachable moments in day-to-day management. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 13(1): 1-13. 
 
Untitled image. Obtained from https://pixabay.com/en/discussion-restaurant-business-2822066/
Public domain. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
​
© John Ballard, PhD, 2018. All rights reserved.
 
Author of Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
 _________________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless – how to relate to others in the workplace, the psychology of groups and teams, the use (and abuse) of power and influence, and how to manage stress. Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Ron Riggio, Book Review, Academy of Management Learning & Education, in-press.

What does it mean to be a manager who coaches? In my last blog I reviewed Patricia Buhler’s perspective and listed activities indicative of the manager as coach. So what does it take to be a manager-coach?
 
Richard Ladyshewsky of Curtin University (Perth) reviewed this literature in an article in the Leadership and Organization Development Journal in 2010. He concluded “coaching in the workplace, between a manager and a subordinate, is part of an overall organizational development and performance management philosophy” and a core management skill. Here are some highlights I gleaned from his review:

• “No consensus on a definition of coaching” but it may be considered “a short-term developmental interaction focused on performance . . .”
• A major challenge is “finding the time to coach” and this becomes more challenging as the span of control (number of direct reports) increases.
• Managers “differ in their inclination to coach subordinates.”
• Managers differ in the communication skills needed to coach.
• Managers with more self-awareness, higher emotional intelligence are more likely to be successful in the manager as coach role.
• In a coaching culture, performance appraisal (e.g., with emphasis on accountability) takes a backseat to performance management (with emphasis on improved performance).
• “Coaching should be developmental and not corrective or remedial action.”

Ladyshewsky emphasized the importance of trust:

• Trust may be cognitive (rational) or affective (based on emotional bonds).

• It takes time for the subordinate to build a relationship of trust with a manager.
• Trust develops more rapidly where the manager and employee share common values and common interests.
• Well-adjusted people build trust faster.
• “When the stakes are very high, trust decreases to ensure security.”
• Managers who are not “competent in the eyes of their subordinates will not be able to build trust.”
• The organizational culture affects ability to build trust, as does the economic viability of the organization.

 
My take-aways:
 
1.  Ladyshewsky makes an excellent point that managers may simply be too busy to coach. If so, then the question must be asked, how important is it to your success as a manager, to the organization, that you grow your people? Time is about priorities and decisions. As a manager, I can recall struggling to carve out time to work with employees developmentally. Fortunately my boss and I talked, he listened, and we got enough adjustments to deadlines to find the time. I understand not everyone has an understanding boss. In my case I had credibility far enough up my chain-of-command to pull this off. Why? Because my employees were growing in their capabilities and it showed in results. 
 
2.  But what if manager as coach is not who you are? You may not be inclined in that direction. It may not be your personality. Can some skills be learned? Perhaps, but it is still not who you are. You may be a technical whiz-kid and respected by your subordinates but just have no talent for developing others. If the organization wants managers to be coaches, then this may suggest better attention to promotion-to-management processes. It may also suggest a look at talent acquisition.

3. My guess is that most managers know whether or not coaching is part of what they want to do, irrespective of finding time. If it is something you want to do, then you can probably develop coaching skills. And organizations should decide if this is a managerial expectation, and if so, support this objective with effective training (one-on-one or group). 
 
Ladyshewsky, R. (2010). The manager as coach as a driver of organizational development. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 31(4), 292-306. 
 
Untitled image. Obtained from https://pxhere.com/ro/photo/480543
Public domain. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
​
© John Ballard, PhD, 2018. All rights reserved.
 
Author of Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards 2016.
 _________________________
"Decoding the Workplace: 50 Keys to Understanding People in Organizations is as informed and informative a read as it is thoughtful and thought-provoking. . . Decoding the Workplace should be considered critically important reading for anyone working in a corporate environment." —Midwest Book Review