Trainer, Consultant or Coach?

There is a much quoted aphorism about the benefits of teaching people to fish over simply giving them fish to eat.  What is not included in the story is that when you teach someone to fish, it may be a while before they catch anything.  If their need is now, it may be too long to wait till they have learned the necessary skills to be consistently successful.  They may even be distracted by their current need and not be able to fully engage with your teachings.
 
The ideal solution is the one which most effectively addresses both current and future needs.  Is it better to have someone come and do the work for you or for someone to show you how to do the work?  If the task is something that will only be required once during the lifetime of the organisation, or requires a level of expertise that takes a long time to achieve, then clearly buying in the talent makes sense.  If the skills are going to be needed regularly, and will enhance the talent pool of the team, then training would seem to be a sensible option.
 
Perhaps, though, there is more to this process of involving others in our business.  Getting in an outsider may bring new perspectives, but also allows senior managers to shift some of the responsibility for decision-making outside of the organisation.  Where the consultant organisation is a recognised leader in the field, or even simply a very large organisation, there can be an assumption that they know more than we do and that we should do whatever they suggest.  Of course if it turns out not to be helpful then we can blame them.
 
This deference to another’s expertise can come at a high price for while they may have knowledge of other similar organisations that they have worked with, do they really understand the history and culture of your particular group of people?  In some ways more importantly, how easy will it be to deliver top down change which has been designed and developed by outsiders?
 
Word of mouth is regarded as the single most useful measure in gaining business for consultants and their organisations.  We recommend a good builder because we can see the results of their labours.  On what basis can we truly recommend a consultant whose advice and support might not deliver results for several years?  Even when the results are positive, without the benefit of a control we have no way of measuring this intervention against any other we might have chosen, including doing nothing.
 
A list of former clients is important but for many organisations, particularly those in the public sector, the fact that another organisation similar to yours may have used their services is often seen as being enough without any evaluation of the benefit received, particularly in relation to the cost.
 
There is an often repeated story among government departments that they would not consider hiring anyone with a daily rate below a certain figure.  This is based on the assumption that if their charges are low then they can’t be any good.  There is both good and bad sense in this and neither obviate the risk inherent in bringing unknown outsiders into your organisation to tell you how it should be run.
 
Consultants bring a range of skills but the most important, from their point of view, is to be able to convince you that they know exactly what needs to be done.  This is a skill which is not transferred as part of the transaction and so you need to keep going back for more.  Indeed, many consultants seek to cloak their efforts in mystery to maintain demand for their services and most will seek to retain intellectual property rights over any learning that emerges, whatever its source.
 
Where there is unwillingness within the organisation to draw upon individual and collective resources to resolve issues, possibly from a reluctance to share thoughts and feelings or an inability to learn from colleagues through listening and reflection, there is no choice but to call in the fixers.
 
Imagine instead that you could combine the in depth knowledge and understanding of the organisational insider with the ability to step back and evaluate individual contributions across the management team within the context of the organisation’s current and future needs.  I would suggest that only those with sufficient in depth knowledge of existing resources are in a position to identify what is needed, what is available and how best to bridge that gap.   This form of leadership takes knowledge, skill, confidence and authority.
 
You cannot coach knowledge.  Instead a coach can support people in developing the skills and resources they need to find things out for and about themselves, their colleagues and their organisation.  A coach can help sense-check conclusions and evaluate proposed actions using real-time scenarios, to create a solid platform of knowledge, skills and understanding. This can become the launch pad for each new phase of personal and organisational growth.
 
Being supported in growing through a difficult situation increases our confidence that we will be able to resolve it the next time.  Learning for the future creates a spiral of growth in skills and confidence that is very different from the circular process of asking outsiders to fix our issues for us.
 
Is it better to be supported until you are able to ride your bike, or would you rather have someone explain how it is done and leave you to it, or even worse someone who will ride the bike for you then after a little while hand it back and walk away?
 
To return to the earlier analogy, a coach is able to support you in developing your skills so that not only are you able to make a proper assessment of your food needs you can also find the means to resolve them.  It may just be that what you really need isn’t fish.
 
© 2016 Michael Golding