“Can you coach this person?”

Owners and executives often reach out to me with a concern about someone on their team.

Sometimes the concern is communication or initiative. Sometimes the person is difficult to work with, too passive, too reactive, or not holding people accountable.

Sometimes coaching is what is needed.

But often, the problem isn’t the person. The person is just where the problem is showing up.

Often, leaders ask for coaching for someone on their team when what the team really needs is greater clarity and consistency from the top.

In other words, the leadership architecture (roles & responsibilities, expectations, boundaries, and accountability) is weak. The “problems” or “gaps” that are thought to need coaching are just symptoms of a weak structure.

This article is about how to fix that architecture first. Then you can focus coaching where it works the best and provides the most value.

Here’s an illustration of what I mean: Near my office is a T-intersection. It should be simple to navigate. But there was a very high level of accidents. Transportation planners could have decided that all the regular users of that intersection needed extra training to be allowed to use it. Or they could redesign the intersection so that visibility was improved and the flow of traffic was clearly defined.

Thankfully, they chose the latter. And now accidents rarely happen.

Too often, what we define as a “people problem” is really a structural problem.

Clarity and consistency are key. Ensure that both are present, and most problems are prevented or resolved.

Clarity shows up in defined roles and expectations. Consistency shows up in healthy boundaries and a predictable pattern of accountability.

Role Clarity: Who is responsible for what? Who is responsible for whom?

I often ask clients to send me an organizational chart. Or, if they don’t have one drawn up, can they draw one for me?

Most of the time, they can’t do either. And if they do, just a few questions usually reveal it doesn’t reflect how things actually operate. For example, we find that multiple people share one responsibility, and it is unclear who is really calling the shots. Or that whole areas of responsibility don’t appear to belong to anyone. Or that people’s titles don’t match their responsibilities.

Ambiguity is the breeding ground for conflict. It allows for informal structures and power dynamics to be the actual drivers of organizations.

As a leader, you may believe that titles don’t mean much and that “we all need to be willing to do whatever needs to be done.” And there is often truth to that.

Titles should help people understand who to go to and for what issue. And people with those titles should know what the accompanying expectations are.

Which brings me to…

Clear Expectations: What exactly is someone supposed to accomplish? Who is responsible? How will success be measured? When will it be completed?

Have you ever sat through a meeting where an issue was discussed thoroughly, it seemed like a decision was made, and then nothing happened?

The chances are highest that:

The specific action or project was never defined

No single person was made responsible

No success metrics were defined

No deadlines were defined

This is ridiculously easy to correct. And it is one of the fastest and best ways to improve organizational performance. Simply: Clearly tell people what you expect.

There are two reasons why this doesn’t happen:

1. Leaders aren’t clear, themselves, about what they want.

2. If they are clear, they assume other people know.

No one can read your mind. And if you don’t know what you want, you can’t expect anyone else to either.

Healthy Boundaries: When I was 19, I was a delivery driver. A manager gave me a delivery route with an unrealistic time expectation to complete it. He told me, “I’m not telling you to speed. But I am telling you I want you back here by X time.”

This leader was creating a boundary issue. Boundaries are clear lines around what is and isn’t acceptable, and what each person will or will not be responsible for. He was telling me that it was acceptable or expected that I violate both traffic laws and driver safety standards.

More recently, I was advising a group of directors. A number were struggling with employees who were regularly late to work.

That’s not an employee issue. That’s a leadership issue. Every one of those employees knew they were late and knew that this was not appropriate. But they also knew they wouldn’t be challenged.

These were leaders not enforcing boundaries.

Healthy boundaries have to be defined and reinforced by senior leadership. If a leader on your team suggests violating a boundary, abdicates responsibility, or usurps someone else’s responsibility, this is a boundary issue.

If a leader won’t accept reasonable responsibilities or you find yourself having to make accommodation after accommodation to try to get them to work, this is a boundary issue.

If a leader is toxic themselves or tolerates someone else’s toxicity, this is a boundary issue.

If there are unhealthy, unethical, or illegal expectations (formally or informally), this is a boundary issue.

As an owner or executive, you define, model, and reinforce what boundaries are set and respected in your workplace.

Consistent Accountability: This is the behavior that makes the three structures above work. Hold your team to account for their behavior when it comes to roles and responsibilities, fulfilling expectations, and healthy boundaries.

Accountability works best when it is structured. When regular check-ins about accountability are planned and scheduled, they feel normal.

Planned check-ins work better than “when needed, impromptu” check-ins because:

They aren’t crisis or frustration-driven. Too often, leaders wait to talk to someone on their team until they can’t wait anymore.

Because they are scheduled and planned, they don’t feel corrective, which means they don’t tend to escalate issues.

They are reminders to follow through and provide space to check in on progress.

How frequently and how long should you meet?

Just enough and no more.

If expectations are clear and defined with metrics, most check-ins can be very brief. It can cut 80% of the time needed because both you and your employees know exactly what needs to be discussed. Long narratives aren’t needed.

For some people and situations, quarterly check-ins are fine. Others may need daily or any time frame in between. Experiment until you find the minimum effective length and frequency. (Emphasis on effective.)

Fix the structure before you coach the person

I believe in coaching and leadership development. Both are services I provide. But neither is as necessary or useful as most executives or owners think if they have the right leadership architecture in place.

Coaching is a powerful tool. It’s just the wrong first reflex when the real problem is fuzzy roles, vague expectations, weak boundaries, and hit-or-miss accountability.

Coaching can be powerful when a leader is stepping into a new role or bigger challenge, working through confidence or mindset issues, or trying to turn new skills into new habits, and they actually want help. In those situations, coaching accelerates growth.

If, after you’ve adjusted the four areas discussed above, a leader on your team is trying but struggling, coaching may be the solution you need. But until then, make sure you’ve built the structure that less-than-perfect leaders can succeed in.

Take good care,

Christian