In a manner of playing the devils advocate: who do you think is to blame if there is still poor performance after extensive coaching (no fixed answer):
A. The coach?
B. Those being coached?
C. The method?
D. The content?
Thank you very much, it is not only a option question, comments and explanations are necessary.© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 10, 2019, 6:55 am ad1c9bdddf
A study on coaching for employment interviews( Maurer et al, 1998), indicates that coaching has a positive impact on interview performance. Many other studies support the fact that coaching positively impacts performance.
Coaching is therefore integral to organization's meeting their strategic goals by building high performing teams. Therefore companies need to have a mentoring and coaching program in place, to ensure that the organization does not suffer due to poor performance of their employees. Having said that it is important the company pays attention to critical success factors to ensure that they have a winning coaching and mentoring program in place.
The coach ?
A book devoted to this topic( Stone, 2007 ) reveals that while coaching can dramatically improve performance there exist semantic differences in the way 'coaching' is perceived, even by the coaches themselves . There is definitely a need to have trained coaches who know the art and science behind coaching. Coaches need to be versatile and adopt different methodologies for different cadres and departments. For example coaching of HR managers would be dramatically different from that of Production Managers. ...
The expert determines what is to blame for poor performances. Extensive coaching is evaluated.