World of Learning Conference Chair Robin Hoyle suggests a reality check when it comes to the concept of coaching … and, whatever you do, don’t ask people to ‘work smarter, not harder’!
Much of the latest research[1] on workplace learning has sought to identify factors that may enable or hinder continuous learning in dynamic environments. In simple terms, when change is rapid, learning is important and cannot rely solely on courses being organised or eLearning modules launched on the LMS.
Much of this research won’t come as a surprise – a focus on workplace learning alongside formal programmes; resources (including time) to experiment with, and apply, new approaches with leadership support and involvement.
Many organisations talk about their ‘learning culture’. What that means in practice may be as broad as ‘we once subscribed to LinkedIn Learning’ through to ‘we have prioritised the creation of an environment in which tangible support is available from internal experts, peers and managers’. Some may reference a (possibly mythical) utopia which revolves around a ‘coaching culture!’
Many of us hear about this ‘coaching culture’. Few have been lucky enough to actually encounter one. And when we do…
Chief People Officers will tell us that line managers are expected to coach their team members. Team members tell us they cannot remember having been coached. Line managers tell us they think coaching is someone else’s job. This is the coaching conundrum writ large. While many think it is a good idea, few have actually created the environment where even the most basic coaching activities routinely occur.
So, let’s assume for the moment that the organisation tells managers to coach. Let’s assume these exhortations are insufficient to effect any kind of change. When I talk to those expected to coach about why they don’t, there are four reasons I uncover most frequently:
1. I don’t have time.
We all have 168 hours per week and some team leaders will be making time to support staff as they try new things, apply new skills they’ve learned (which may even have involved a course!) or pursue their ambitions for advancement.
If this is happening in some teams, then, the issue is not time but prioritisation. Is coaching routinely put aside until this or that other thing is dealt with, or the latest crisis averted?
Many managers have been promoted from within and may retain some operational responsibilities. This represents safe ground for the manager and – let’s face it: “it’s quicker to do the job myself than teach a novice to do it half as well in twice the time, amirite?”
Some team leaders have surprisingly little autonomy over how they spend their working hours. Demands from on high increase exponentially; data requests are never ending; firefighting reduces good intentions to smoking rubble.
The simple fact is that supporting team members to build their capability to meet organisation goals does take time, yet few have factored this into how they hire, how they promote and how they manage team leaders. They are not an infinitely stretchable resource. (And if I hear a senior manager say “We need our team leaders to work smarter, not harder” once more, I may not be responsible for my actions.)
2. Fear.
Even where the need is for managers to coach their teams in core capabilities, and that manager has been promoted from within, they may be disconnected from the coalface.
The special projects, the reports, the meetings, the new technology… is it any wonder managers may feel they are a bit rusty? Not quite as confident to act as a role model for those day-to-day tasks as once they were? Sharing your knowledge is a great idea so long as you’re confident that your knowledge is up to date. Giving feedback on other’s performance relies on having a deep understanding of what good looks like.
There’s also a fear about coaching itself. According to an online retailer, which I refuse to advertise, there are over 50,000 books about coaching. Many of these seem to portray coaching as a branch of the therapeutic industry. Managers without a consulting room and box of Kleenex on hand, may feel understandably out of their depth.
Bardwick (1991) and White (2008) both talk about the ‘fear zone’ – when unconfident individuals trying something new, experience anxiety, self-doubt and a massive urge to avoid the scary stuff. If their organisation tolerates those who ignore the demands for coaching, this seems like a reasonable course of (in)action.
3. Expectations.
Team leaders may be given responsibility but not all of them have an associated level of authority. If a team leader thinks that a coaching conversation may open them up to demands for promotion or additional training or – Heaven forbid! – more pay, then this may be a massive disincentive to engage at all.
Because countless leaders have been told to coach without support in the way of models, tools or guidelines, they don’t necessarily have a clear idea of what they should be doing. The expectations they feel unable to meet for those that they coach are compounded by a lack of clarity around the expectations the organisation may have. Team leaders are caught in the middle, and coaching brings this into a sharp, and pretty disobliging, focus.
4. An absence of role models.
Many line managers – especially the newly promoted – have little first-hand experience of being coached. Whether elevated from within or brought in from outside, the new team leader’s experience of coaching may have been defined by its absence rather than its effectiveness.
Worse, perhaps, is prior experience of having been ‘coached’. When I speak to leaders about their coaching experience, I would estimate that around half of them have felt undermined, unsupported or pressurised. Many will want to transform their negative experience into something useful – some will not. The ‘never did me any harm’ school of management is alive and kicking where it hurts.
If we want managers to coach their team members, then they need support. They need guidance and tools to assist them; clarity on what is expected and where it sits on their list of priorities. They need the confidence to say no to requests that deprive them of the space and time to support their team as they adapt to change and adopt new behaviours. They need to have access to a wide behavioural repertoire to allow them to meet the needs of their team and drive performance.
They need role models – from above and amongst their peers. Coaching – however it is interpreted in their world – needs to be normal rather than exceptional.
They also need informed autonomy to support new skills and new activities in the way that works for them and their team. As with other management actions, one size does not fit all.
Leading a team in a period of change is tricky. It takes energy, enthusiasm and expertise. Experience tells us that if we don’t create the conditions for leaders to coach, they won’t. ■
References:
[1] For example: What drives Workplace Learning: a systematic review of key antecedents, Wijga, Kindt and Beauseart, Journal of Workplace Learning Vol. 37 No. 9, July 2025.
About the author
Robin Hoyle is the Head of Learning Innovation for Huthwaite International and has spent more than three decades in Learning & Development. In 2022 Robin was named one of L&D’s most influential people.
This article was first published in Learning Magazine Special Edition 2026. Click here to read the full edition.