Do you think HR needs to take up the role of the "coach" to the organization?

Lauren,
I believe "coaching" is an essential management competency. Everyone in management and leadership needs to develop and apply coaching skills and abilities.
That being said one of the most significant challenges facing the world economy right now is alignment or engagement- employees feeling committed to the goals of the organization and contributing at their highest and best level. "Progressive" organizations are recognizing that systems like lean or six sigma and templates on "best practices" are not going to fix that.
In many cases HR has either deliberately chosen or been relegated to a role of compliance officer- the "rules" police.
I feel passionately that the appropriate role for HR is that of change agent- building that bridge between individuals and organizations.
The essential "tool box" to make that occur is in three areas; technical expertise, project management, and facilitation.
In order to do this the first thing HR leaders need to develop are baseline business competencies- then we can connect the dots between people and the business...

This is a loaded question and answering it depends on multiple variables. Of all functions in a thriving business, HR is probably the one that requires the donning of multiple hats more than any. If the organization needs a coach and the HR professional has the coaching acumen, why the heck not let them play that role?! But coaching is also a powerful tool and if wielded without proper care, it could end up hurting someone (read employee or organization) along the way. I don't think role of Coach in and of itself is HR's responsibility nor do I think they should make it their responsibility. If it turns out to be the highest and best use of their talent, though, go for it.

While I think that HR should help insure that people in the organization who want/need coaching get it, I'm not convinced that HR should actually BE the coach. Now as an independent, external executive coach, you could say I have a vested interest in this view ... and I do! But consider my logic:

+ HR personnel often coach in addition to their regular duties and are often not sufficiently trained or qualified to coach at a masterful level -- or affect permanent growth and development;

+ coaching conversations can be a messy exploration of fears, doubts, and self-limiting beliefs before all the insight and clarity kicks in and many employees just don't want to 'go there' with co-workers, colleagues, and fellow-employees;

+ the importance confidentiality in a coaching conversation cannot be understated so it's ill-conceived to just assume that everyone would be comfortable talking with HR in this manner.

Agree? Disagree?

Coaching is not just HR's job. It is everyone's job in the organization. Anyone and everyone in an organization can be and should be a coach and can be trained to be coaches. Coaching is all about focusing talents, competencies, skills, and behaviors. If everyone is assisting each other to identify each one's strengths and utilize those strengths to peak performance, that what makes an organization successful. Coaching is about simple conversations (exchanging expectations), plans that are internalized, and on-going support. When you confine it to one person or one department's job, it is not as effective.

Let me just respond to Guy, w/a hug and affirmative yes.
Fred, you are right, and there is more.
Since this is an essential resource book for HR professionals (see, http://www.amazon.com/Management-Government-Essential-Nonprofit-Leadership/dp...) some may have a copy. I wrote chapter 15 (& 2 previous, slightly different, for the first 2 editions of Steve's book). my view is that HR is essential to the vitality of a business, or government or non profit organization over a certain size.

I invite HR professionals, as per Guy's excellent statement, to break out of the box in order to cultivate not only the collaborative, creative, healthy organization potential as a whole but also the role of HR within your "home" environment.

Reach out, learn expertise (& good communication, conflict analysis, problem solving skills and tools are based in sound science & practiced artfully) & apply. HR & your organization will benefit. Doc Peg of docpegisin.com

Barry,

Not sure I completely agree with your view that the Personnel Function possesses the innate skills and abilities to be an effective coach.

As early as the mid 80's perhaps the key role I played as the senior HR executive for a highly respected broadcasting company located in the SE, was intensive and regular executive coaching with my CEO, 5 EVP's and numerous VP's located through out the organization. At the time the term "executive coaching" was not used on the HR landscape.As you know our profession is known for the creation of new "buzz words". More recently, the term "coaching" has become the basis for new cottage industries. Very recently, my 6 senior directors to include me at Western University for Health Sciences worked diligently to achieve the certification of CPC or certified professional coach principally to stay abreast of rapidly evolving developments and more importantly to meet the needs of numerous executives located in general administration and academics in one of the noted graduate medical universities in the western states in particular California. I also advocate supervisors/directors at all levels be exposed to and trained in the value of grasping sound coaching concepts.

I agree with Howard. I have 34 years (gulp) in HR. Coached many hundreds of senior leaders. Taught Leadership & Development programs including an emphasis on "Coaching and Feedback" and never felt as comfortable as I am now having completed an ICF chartered Coach Training Program (am also CPC and ICF ACC certified) and coached another 37 senior leaders using these refined skills. While in HR, there was always an agenda that may or may not have been the client's. As an external coach now, the agenda is always the client's. Another issue is one of confidentiality. I cannot say I could keep EVERYTHING confidential when I was internal. When you are external it is imperative! Also, when hired by the company now, I make it clear my confidentiality still lies with the client regardless of who pays the bill. You can check out my programs at www.CXO-Coach.com

@Victor, spot on re: the traditional agenda as well as the need to receive extensive training & organizational support for coaching. as you will see from my post, I take it several steps further w/the idea of HR morphing (not out of what you do now so well) but also into learning/practicing collaborative, CR procedures internally. HR has the technical knowledge of the organizations culture (people usually lack the skills & support Victor & I describe). With the additional training for key people in HR + support w/in the organization, HR becomes a positive force that supports not only management but also staff and line management. it also supports innovation as well as gradual change so the organization becomes more flexible & adept at meeting new challenges.

Howard, I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

My point had very little to do with “the innate skills and abilities” that HR personnel (or external coaches) possess – or any coaching competencies that HR personnel (or external coaches) have or could learn or develop over time.

My point was that when HR personnel are the ones doing the executive coaching, their impact and ability to succeed can be (and often is) significantly diluted, if not undermined entirely, by any number of preexisting organizational and cultural constraints:

+ Many executives don’t like the vulnerability inherent in talking “openly and honestly” with coworkers lower down, or across, the organizational hierarchy, regardless of how “private” those conversations are said to be.

+ Inherent conflicts of interest can develop depending on who says what to (or about) whom – and who else hears about it.

+ Office politics, grapevine rumors, personal opinions, hidden agendas, department rivalries, and the like, can irrevocably damage the real or perceived objectivity and perspective that internal coaches can bring – before they ever even get started.

+ Many employees simply do not trust HR with any more privileged and confidential information than they absolutely have to.

+ Because of organizational pressures to “be more responsive,” and “get on with the coaching, already,” HR personnel can all-too-easily find themselves having to fill their calendars with executive coaching appointments before fully developing and implementing their strategies to deal with these, and other related, internal coaching concerns.

That’s why I'm not convinced that HR should actually BE the coach.

Margaret, unequivocally agree with your vision of what a high quality HR organization should consist of with the specific skills you have identified with respect to taking a proactive role in the "coaching" area. Effective coaching skills can skillfully address a host of critical organizational issues.
I'm often reminded of the basis of an executive level program implemented some years ago as we focus on our responsibilities to impact our success as the HR leadership in any organization..as"A manager's responsibility to those in his/her charge is to help(coach) them to succeed. Circumstances and human frailities are enough to help them to fail"

Having worked with executives at all levels in different industries over the last 30 plus years and managed HR functions globally HR must have "coaching" as a core competency. HR leaders must have the courage to be open to communicate about the good , the bad and the ugly. But at the same time they need to be sure to provide suggested solutions as well.

People are open to hear what HR has to say just like they do from consultants if it is said the right way,in the right context and with a plan of action to make things better. Sure it takes time to develop that "trusted advisor" role but it can be done. My advice to those working inside HR functions today is to spend time in understanding the business, getting to know the people in the organization at all levels, as well as the technical side of HR.

So much agreement in all of the great comments. My immediate response to the post..."before HR is a coach to their client groups (or manage the outsourcing of such), HR needs to learn and apply coaching within their own organization". I think the same can be said for "before HR pushes leadership development out to their client groups, HR needs to learn and apply leadership skills within their own organization". How many HR managers have received coaching?

Thanks Carl. There is a learning curve & what is being proposed goes some against the existing culture of structure-bound/rules-bound/organizational-advocate thinking. While the current culture supports organizations (large & small), the emphasis is less on employees. So, it is a shift in thinking that requires training, practice, and organizational support re; new policies that don't put HR in jeopardy.

As you probably know from my Doc Peg site (as well as my professional background), it helps in training/learning to teach/train more than one tool. That way the boundaries of each become sharper/easier to "see." Say a comparison of coaching & mediation or coaching & facilitation. I go for effectiveness when organizations spend money to upgrade departments.

HR must know and have clear which is the objective of the organization in order to plan ahead, "together with" the rest of the management team. It is HR's role to detect, develop, train and retain talented managers who can be their own HR managers for their own teams. Also, HR must "walk the talk"in order to be a coach or a mentor, whenever it is necessary. Therefore the role should be clearly aligned with the CEO.

You specifically asked if HR should take on the role of "coach" in the organization. The answer is "yes." Functional areas of HR take on the mantel of coach by virtue of sharing their expertise to help business units avoid risk to the organization, as a specialist, generalist, or HR leader. It's the approach and style of coaching versus being the "hall-monitor" of regulation that is important.If the HR department functions under the old model of "personnel", is transactional in nature and is not collaborating with the internal clients on improving business performance, then, of course, by all means, take on the role. That has been this wonderful transformation of HR over the years of not being "paper-pushers" but integral partners with client groups to support success. HR has the perfect opportunity to initiate a coaching culture by demonstrating coaching methods, actions and behaviors instead of a regulative approach as appropriate.

Excellent insights. Barry rightly identifies the potential dangers with HR taking a coaching role. The two disciplines, while related, are distinct and there is a danger in coaching being simplistically seen as a tool for HR to use to 'improve' someone's capability as part of a Capability procedure.

Agree whole heartedly with you, Margaret, about applying a range of tools: facilitation and mediation skills, in particular, go hand in hand with coaching - but for different reasons.

Howard, Jim and Carl flag up HR's role in leadership development. I'd be interested to know how others see HR's role in coaching leaders. Do we need to refine specific sectors of HR who take on this role, as not all of HR would be able to deliver this?

Gerry, yes to all. There are overlaps in skills and knowledge, but the intent & application of each are different. People, in HR or otherwise, need to be trained & there need to be policies in place that protect the org, HR, and employees.

HR's role would be enhanced, but only if done right, with thought & support from the top as well as the bottom of the org. Not everyone in HR would need or want to be trained or to function in these expanded capacities. But, the overall role of HR would be enhanced if done right. Note the terrific program w/in NIH in the US. I also cover a lot of this in my chapter in the Condrey HR Handbook (not pimping the book, just not wanting to rewrite the chapter here :-) Best, P

Thanks for the heads up on the Condrey HR Handbook, Peggy! Lisa also makes a good point about there being different cultures within HR, from a coaching approach working alongside 'internal' clients to the more traditional regulatory approach. Again, the focus is dependent on the role - and both aspects are valid.
I must admit I am a strong believer in the need to 'teach' the art and science of facilitation as part of any coaching approach - this is a fundamental competency for HR and management and leadership. Regards, G.

I think we are singing the same song :-) Best, Peggy

Sorry, joining rather late here.
Can only second several comments: Howard's first, Fred and Carl's.
I'm not sure if coaching has it's roots in the old mentor function that was standard operating procedures in business (or if grew from counseling?). In the "olden days" a more skilled usually structurally higher senior staffer would choose a less skilled worker to mentor into better performance for the company. Rather than focus the function in one department it was spread through the organization as a piece of many manager's style. To me this is ideal (but with out the "old boy's network" short comings). The organizations work flow improves, boards were grown, the culture is enhanced, and the product or service improves. HR may promulgate that function through it's traditional role of training when aligned with mission and executive direction/participation. Thanks for the opportunity.