Coaching and leadership: a unique duo for professional development - Coaching Academy | Episode 2

This approach isn't just an organizational choice, but a concrete expression of our culture at Alan. We're convinced that separating the roles of coach and lead allows us to offer more comprehensive and effective support to each team member.

A coach is another Alan colleague who supports their coachee's professional development. Behind this technical term lies very concrete realities.

Their mission is to help the coachee achieve their professional goals, both in terms of approach and expertise, in a conscious manner. It's about guiding them through a process of becoming aware of their strengths and areas for improvement, where Alan's transparent, candid, and 360-degree feedback is properly received and integrated.

The coach guides through open-ended questions, dedicates most of their time to active listening, and never imposes objectives or solutions. AI-analyzed recordings are invaluable in verifying that we're adhering to these fundamentals. And trust my experience at Alan, it takes daily discipline to resist the urge to be prescriptive when you want to facilitate your coachee's growth.

Below is an excerpt from our documentation summarizing what we expect from our coaches.

The lead, on the other hand, oversees the performance, engagement, and wellbeing of a team of several colleagues. They define measurable objectives, establish a clear roadmap for the team, observe and provide specific feedback on the quality of work.

Their stance differs from the coach's as they are the ultimate decision-maker on key issues - not that they don't consult those directly concerned - but when essential choices regarding team life need to be made, this responsibility falls to them.

Here's an excerpt from our documentation summarizing expectations for leads.

In summary: coaching is personalized daily support for another colleague. Leadership is driving a team's performance and engagement.

In practice, their work is interconnected and requires clear boundaries between each role's responsibilities. The lead is recommended to meet quarterly with the coach of each team member. These meetings allow them to compare perspectives on the person's progress, identify potential needs for workplace adjustments, and ensure that messages delivered by both parties are consistent.

Take the example of engagement and workplace wellbeing. The coach supports their coachee's reflection on the desired balance between professional and personal life. They can share practical advice and their own experience without imposing standardized methods. Their responsibility is to facilitate these discussions and flag difficulties when necessary to the appropriate channels: lead or People team.

The lead also plays a fundamental role as they're responsible for collective engagement. This engagement covers several measures, such as trust in Alan's top management, day-to-day work autonomy, and of course workload and its fair distribution - essentially, creating an environment conducive to Alaners maintaining a good personal and professional harmony.

As you can see, the coach's and lead's contributions complement each other.

My HR colleagues often question this division of responsibilities: what about performance management? How does a coach without direct "powers" effectively handle an underperformance situation? It's a legitimate question. But the coach doesn't disengage from their coachee's difficult situations. First, because performance issues rarely arise suddenly - the coach relies on feedback and performance evaluations to identify what's working well and what needs to be done differently or improved. They ensure these elements are properly addressed and followed up with actions. They can provide advice and leverage other Alan colleagues.

When a situation remains problematic, a tandem forms with the lead to ensure the person's work context is adapted (objectives, team dynamic, topic interest...), that their goals are clear, motivating, and achievable, that the person has received necessary feedback, etc. Each brings their perspective and insight, enriching the overall picture. I personally find that this approach demonstrates the investment we make at Alan to enable everyone to give their best, and for those eager to learn and benefit from others' perspectives, it's extremely productive.

Returning to underperformance situations, if despite efforts from all parties - the person concerned, the coach, and the lead - the problem persists, then it falls to the lead to decide whether to continue the working relationship. Indeed, the lead is the guardian of their team's talent density.

Recently, we've reexamined our management model at Alan. This distinction between coach and lead constantly prompts us to question each role's responsibilities and how to clarify each role so that coaches and leads operate within the clearest possible framework to optimally fulfill their mission.

For example, we noticed that our expectations of coaches in performance reviews were somewhat ambivalent. When someone was a candidate for promotion, we would seek the coach's opinion. Yet, referring to the previously established distinction, the coach is not responsible for the coachee's performance. We therefore removed this requirement from the coach's scope and reassigned it to the lead.

I personally wear both hats: lead and coach. Sometimes I even exercise this dual role for a team member. I strive to adopt radically different stances, and I don't hesitate to clarify whether I'm speaking as a lead or as a coach. In fact, I'm particularly supportive of People team members having another Alaner as their coach, because, as I often say, I don't want to be their only horizon.

Also, I don't claim to be a relevant coach for every profile. My character traits and strengths are detailed in my user manual, accessible to all Alan colleagues. This self-awareness is at the heart of our approach: I have my own qualities and areas for improvement, which I actively work on with my own coach.

At Alan, we pay special attention to matching coaches and coachees based on the latter's specific learning objectives. We deeply adhere to the principle that "Only address your weaknesses until they no longer hold you back. Then focus your efforts on your strengths" (Richer than yesterday, Brain food). That's why each pairing is carefully formed so coachees can fully benefit from their coach's strengths, creating optimal conditions for mutually enriching development.

***

I hope I've given you a clear picture of our coach and lead tandem.

In an upcoming article, I'll hand over to Alice Boudhors who will detail how one becomes a coach. Far from being a prerequisite for promotion or an expectation for everyone, the positions of coach and lead share the common trait of being possible development paths, alongside that of individual contributor, which is equally valued at Alan.