After the initial week, the Improvement Team’s recommendations and actions were implemented by the 16 packing and making machines. The different shifts and production areas each had a member of the Improvement Team to coach them and take them through the process of change. The result was that the waste levels dropped from 0.96% to 0.39% with no detrimental effect on quality. This meant an annual saving of £30,000 in materials, and operator time was optimised because the operators spent less time reworking waste and more time adding value to the process.

The people involved in the team were part of something that made a difference to their own and their colleagues working day as well as contributing to organisational success. The ripples went through the organisation with the result that people wanted to be involved. This boosted morale as well as creating further trust and belief in the organisation.

If the recommendations of the consultants had been accepted there would have been some savings, but nothing like the outcome from asking the people directly involved in the process to look for answers and enabling them to find a better way without instruction.

For example, take this case:

A coach was hired by a business with a substantial turnover (circa £10 million) – specifically to address the sponsors concerns about Joe’s ability to develop the new role of training/quality manager. There were problems with low productivity and high customer returns, and substantial stocktaking errors were common. Joe’s current approach was very hands-on and he was achieving only limited success whilst working with small teams on two shifts.

How could the effectiveness of this coaching engagement be measured?

In order to make the intangible tangible in this case, first of all the coach needed to establish the following prerequisites.

• The client must be coachable.
• The coach must fully use all the data the organisation has that will help support and track changes.
• The coachee must identify the real problems, with the help of the coach.

Point number 1 can be assessed by finding out the answers to the following questions.

• How open is the coachee to receiving feedback?
• How aware is the coachee of their own need, and do they have a sense of urgency?
• How do they perceive the value of coaching and of the likely outcomes?
• How strong are any competing commitments and any fear of consequences if the coachee does not seek and accept help?

Point number 2: It was agreed by the organisation that the coach must fully use all its available data to help support and track changes. They also fully supported the individual and verified that the metrics set out at the goal setting stage were real and trackable through their systems. Metrics such as production throughput and customer returns could be easily tracked.

Point number 3, the coach and coachee must identify the real problems. As coaching progressed, the coach investigated past attempts at solving the problems and what the outcomes were. The coachee explored the current situation and what options there were to move forward. The outcome they agreed was that the coachee needed to adopt a more engaging management style and change the way he interacted with his teams, which would change their behaviour as well. With a less hands-on style from him and by securing buy in from his teams, changes began to happen.

Through feedback, the coach was able to identify and verify behavioural changes in the way the coachee was interacting with his team.

The outcome was that the coachee, whose coachability was established at the start and who had the full support of the organisation, made a series of decisions based upon past experiences and newly found options, and was committed to change his approach to dealing with the challenges he faced. His intangible mindsets and beliefs changed and drove tangible behavioural changes in the way he managed his team. His behavioural changes could be, and were, verified by feedback from his teams and his direct manager. The teams changed their perception of their manager and their role which then allowed them to change procedure and practice. Commitment was increased because they, the employees, initiated these changes with the managers support and facilitation. This was then tracked by the organisations management reporting systems which showed an increase in productivity and a drop in customer returns.

Both the individual and the organisation had benefited from the coaching process.

• Increased output “ better efficiency, less use of overtime = cost savings
• Better quality and fewer returns “ better customer perception, customer loyalty increased, less time re-working = cost saving
• New working practice and procedure “ training new people easier as training now fully understood by all through formal written quality procedures that can be followed and taught by people below managerial level = increased confidence
• Engaging people “ involvement, satisfaction, being listened to
• Optimised manager’s time to concentrate on job/people development rather than hands-on problem-solving
• Increased team involvement and understanding organisational goals
• An easy assessment method for quality procedures
• Staff retention

After the initial week, the Improvement Team’s recommendations and actions were implemented by the 16 packing and making machines. The different shifts and production areas each had a member of the Improvement Team to coach them and take them through the process of change. The result was that the waste levels dropped from 0.96% to 0.39% with no detrimental effect on quality. This meant an annual saving of £30,000 in materials, and operator time was optimised because the operators spent less time reworking waste and more time adding value to the process.

The people involved in the team were part of something that made a difference to their own and their colleagues working day as well as contributing to organisational success. The ripples went through the organisation with the result that people wanted to be involved. This boosted morale as well as creating further trust and belief in the organisation.

If the recommendations of the consultants had been accepted there would have been some savings, but nothing like the outcome from asking the people directly involved in the process to look for answers and enabling them to find a better way without instruction.

For example, take this case:

A coach was hired by a business with a substantial turnover (circa £10 million) – specifically to address the sponsors concerns about Joe’s ability to develop the new role of training/quality manager. There were problems with low productivity and high customer returns, and substantial stocktaking errors were common. Joe’s current approach was very hands-on and he was achieving only limited success whilst working with small teams on two shifts.

How could the effectiveness of this coaching engagement be measured?

In order to make the intangible tangible in this case, first of all the coach needed to establish the following prerequisites.

• The client must be coachable.
• The coach must fully use all the data the organisation has that will help support and track changes.
• The coachee must identify the real problems, with the help of the coach.

Point number 1 can be assessed by finding out the answers to the following questions.

• How open is the coachee to receiving feedback?
• How aware is the coachee of their own need, and do they have a sense of urgency?
• How do they perceive the value of coaching and of the likely outcomes?
• How strong are any competing commitments and any fear of consequences if the coachee does not seek and accept help?

Point number 2: It was agreed by the organisation that the coach must fully use all its available data to help support and track changes. They also fully supported the individual and verified that the metrics set out at the goal setting stage were real and trackable through their systems. Metrics such as production throughput and customer returns could be easily tracked.

Point number 3, the coach and coachee must identify the real problems. As coaching progressed, the coach investigated past attempts at solving the problems and what the outcomes were. The coachee explored the current situation and what options there were to move forward. The outcome they agreed was that the coachee needed to adopt a more engaging management style and change the way he interacted with his teams, which would change their behaviour as well. With a less hands-on style from him and by securing buy in from his teams, changes began to happen.

Through feedback, the coach was able to identify and verify behavioural changes in the way the coachee was interacting with his team.

The outcome was that the coachee, whose coachability was established at the start and who had the full support of the organisation, made a series of decisions based upon past experiences and newly found options, and was committed to change his approach to dealing with the challenges he faced. His intangible mindsets and beliefs changed and drove tangible behavioural changes in the way he managed his team. His behavioural changes could be, and were, verified by feedback from his teams and his direct manager. The teams changed their perception of their manager and their role which then allowed them to change procedure and practice. Commitment was increased because they, the employees, initiated these changes with the managers support and facilitation. This was then tracked by the organisations management reporting systems which showed an increase in productivity and a drop in customer returns.

Both the individual and the organisation had benefited from the coaching process.

• Increased output “ better efficiency, less use of overtime = cost savings
• Better quality and fewer returns “ better customer perception, customer loyalty increased, less time re-working = cost saving
• New working practice and procedure “ training new people easier as training now fully understood by all through formal written quality procedures that can be followed and taught by people below managerial level = increased confidence
• Engaging people “ involvement, satisfaction, being listened to
• Optimised manager’s time to concentrate on job/people development rather than hands-on problem-solving
• Increased team involvement and understanding organisational goals
• An easy assessment method for quality procedures
• Staff retention