DEVELOPING FRONT-LINE EMPLOYEES THROUGH SUPERVISORY COACHING
Andrea D. Ellinger
The University of Alabama
Alexander E. Ellinger
The University of Alabama
Scott B. Keller
MichiganStateUniversity
Dr. Andrea D. Ellinger, Research Associate
The Center for Business and Economic Research
The CulverhouseCollege of Commerce and Business Administration
The University of Alabama
C/O 1411 Greystone Drive
Tuscaloosa, Alabama35406
(205) 348-6191 Work Phone
(205) 248-6206 Home Phone
(205) 248-6226 Home FAX
Email:
Alexander E. Ellinger, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Marketing and Supply Chain Management
CulverhouseCollege of Commerce and Business Administration
The University of Alabama
130 Mary Alston Hall
361 Stadium Drive
Box 870225
Tuscaloosa, AL35487-0225
(205) 348-8941 – Work Main
(205) 348-6695 – Work FAX
Email:
Scott B. Keller, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Logistics and Supply Chain Management
MichiganStateUniversity
The EliBroadCollege of Business
N 370 North Business Complex
East Lansing, MI48824-1122
Phone: 517-353-6381
FAX: 517-432-1112
EMAIL:
Abstract
Human resource practices are increasingly being devolved to the front-line and there is a growing recognition that developing employees is a new role for the 21st century supervisor. Supervisors are being asked to relinquish authority and control by serving as coaches to improve employee performance. Yet, despite the growing interest in coaching, it remains a topic on which little empirical research has been done. This survey-based research within 18 distribution centers uses 281 supervisor and employee matched pairs to assess the impact of coaching on employee job satisfaction and performance within the distribution industry.
Key words: supervisory coaching, coaching behaviors, coaching
Introduction
Many human resource practices are increasingly being devolved to supervisors and line managers (De Jong, Leenders & Thijssen, 1999; McGovern, Gratton, Hope-Hailey, Stiles & Truss, 1997; Mindell, 1995, Thornhill & Saunders, 1998; Schuler, 1990; Yarnall, 1998). In particular, supervisors and line managers often play critical roles in developing and retaining their employees, and are being challenged to adopt new behaviors that involve encouraging, coaching, and facilitating their employees’ learning and development (Beattie, 2002; Gilley, 2000; Hankins & Kleiner, 1995; Lang & Wittig-Berman, 2000; Larsen, 1997; McGill & Slocum, 1998). In fact, Hotek (2002) has suggested that the 21st century supervisor is being asked to relinquish some authority and control and fulfill a new role as a coach to improve employee performance.
Consequently, the concept of coaching has emerged as a new paradigm or metaphor for management and has gained considerable popularity as evidenced by the escalating number of books and articles on the topic (Armentrout, 1995; King & Eaton, 1999; McGovern, et. al., 1997; Redshaw, 2000). While coaching is not a new phenomenon and has typically been perceived as a remedy for poor performance, it is increasingly becoming an important developmental approach for producing long-lasting learning, contributing to high levels of motivation, and improving and enhancing employee performance, working relationships, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, (HR Focus, 2001; Redshaw, 2000).
Yet, despite the growing interest in coaching and the apparent benefits associated with coaching for both individual employees and for their organizations, coaching remains an area on which little has been written from an empirical or theoretical perspective (McLean & Kuo, 2000; Minter & Thomas, 2000; Popper & Lipshitz, 1992). In particular, while there has been some consensus among human resource development professionals about what good coaching looks like, limited published research exists that identifies and measures specific coaching behaviors of managers, the relationship between coaching behavior and improved performance, or that captures the dyadic perspectives of line managers and employees associated with coaching (XX, 19XX; Graham, Wedman & Garvin-Kester, 1993, 1994; Marsh, 1992; Yukl, 1994). Therefore, the current research was undertaken to assess supervisors’ coaching behavior from their own and their subordinates’ perspectives, and to gauge the impact of coaching on employee job satisfaction and on supervisors’ perceptions of warehouse employee performance.
Review of Literature
The concept of coaching is not a new phenomenon. Coaching emerged in the management literature in the 1950’s as an approach to develop employees through a master-apprentice type of relationship (Evered & Selman, 1989). In the 1970’s several articles appeared that attempted to translate athletic and sports coaching into managerial contexts and much of the literature about coaching in the context of management has been drawn from sports coaching (Evered & Selman, 1989; McLean & Kuo, 2000; McNutt & Wright, 1995). Although a general base of literature on coaching exists from a sports and athletics perspective, some scholars suggest that using the sports analogy of coaching may be insufficient for business settings (Evered & Selman, 1989; McLean & Kuo, 2000).
The term coaching is often used interchangeably with counseling and mentoring, but many scholars differentiate between these activities (Burdett, 1998; Evered & Selman, 1989; Hargrove, 1995; King & Eaton, 1999; Kirk, Howard, Ketting & Little, 1999; Mink, Owen & Mink, 1993; Minter & Thomas, 2000; Orth, Benfari & Wilkinson, 1989; Popper & Lipshitz, 1992). Counseling generally addresses the employee’s emotional state, the causes of personal crises and problems, and involves short term interventions designed to remedy problems that interfere with the employee’s job performance (Burdett, 1998; King & Eaton, 1999; Mink, Owen & Mink, 1993), while mentoring typically describes a longer-term process that is developmental, career focused, and covers all life structures (Burdett, 1998; Hansman, 2002; Mink, Owen & Mink, 1993).
In contrast, coaching has been variously defined as a process for improving problem work performance (Fournies, 1987); as a day to day, hands on process of helping employees recognize opportunities to improve their performance and capabilities (Orth, Benfari & Wilkinson, 1987; Popper & Lipshitz, 1992); as a process of empowering employees to exceed prior levels of performance (Burdett, 1998; Evered & Selman, 1989; Hargrove, 1995), and as a process of giving guidance, encouragement, and support to the learner (Redshaw, 2000). Coaching has traditionally been perceived as a remedy for poor performance, and an approach that links individual effectiveness with organizational performance (HR Focus, 2001). However, other scholars have incorporated the importance of providing relevant learning opportunities so that improved performance becomes a by-product of learning (Mink, Owen & Mink, 1993; Redshaw, 2000).
According to Mink, Owen and Mink (1993), coaching is “the process by which one individual, the coach, creates enabling relationships with others that make it easier for them to learn” (p. 2). Thus, Mink et. al.’s conception of coaching is different from many of the “control-dominate-prescribe” paradigms that are associated with sports coaching in which, to achieve higher levels of performance, the coach directs and defines goals and the behaviors of players. Rather, Mink et. al’s model is grounded in empowerment where the coach no longer prescribes action. Coaches “must be participants in looking at reality, critically examining the assumptions being made about that reality, and then changing the model, and therefore, the actions that flow from it” (p. 37). This view of coaching is much more aligned with evolving organizational forms that emphasize the development of a high performance work environment through management practices that value and support learning and growth.
There is general agreement about the skills required for effective managerial coaching. The requisite skills often described in the literature include listening skills, analytical skills, interviewing skills, effective questioning techniques, observation, giving and receiving performance feedback, communicating and setting clear expectations, and creating a supportive environment conducive to coaching (Graham, Wedman & Garvin-Kester, 1993, 1994; King & Eaton, 1999; Marsh, 1992; Mobley, 1999; Orth, Wilkinson & Benfari, 1987; Phillips, 1994, 1995; Zemke, 1996).
Some empirical research has been conducted within the sales management context examining the specific behaviors that employees associate with managers who possess effective coaching skills. For example, incorporating Schelling’s eight behaviors associated with successful sales managers, Graham et. al. (1994) interviewed account representatives and obtained their ratings of their respective manager’s coaching skills prior to the implementation of a manager coaching skills training program. The findings supported the existing literature on coaching concerning the importance of providing feedback, setting clear expectations, and creating a climate for coaching that involves a positive trusting relationship. Graham et. al.’s (1993, 1994) findings also suggest that providing a coaching training program positively impacts managers’ coaching behaviors. Additionally, research by Peterson (1996) indicates that an individualized coaching program for managers was effective in enhancing their on-the-job behavior. Similar research conducted by Marsh (1992) also supports the positive impact that coaching programs have on managers’ behaviors.
As a performance improvement strategy, it is often assumed that coaching positively impacts individual and team performance. For example, research has suggested that specific coaching behaviors have been directly correlated with net increases in sales (Graham, Wedman & Garvin-Kester, 1994). Other research has suggested that improvements in systems and cost savings may be directly attributed to coaching interventions when managers serve as coaches for individuals or teams of employees (Ellinger, 1999). Yet, beyond these studies, research that examines the linkages between coaching behavior and individual, team, and organizational performance improvement is scarce and Yukl (1994) has acknowledged that “empirical research on the effects of coaching…by managers is still very limited” (p. 125). Thus, while scholars suggest that the benefits of coaching are enormous, limited empirical research has been conducted that examines the impact of line managers’ coaching behaviors on performance outcomes (Ellinger, 1999).
In summary, despite the growing popularity of coaching as an important approach for facilitating employees’ learning and development, considerable research is needed that examines the influence of line managers’ coaching behaviors on employee satisfaction and performance.
Research Setting
Warehouse distribution centers (DCs) were selected as appropriate research settings for studying supervisory coaching behavior and its influence on employee job satisfaction and performance in an industrial context. The distribution industry has consistently struggled to attract and retain quality employees with annual turnover rates frequently exceeding 100% (Speh & Maltz, 2002). Warehouse workers have traditionally been modestly compensated and have performed relatively mundane and repetitive tasks under adverse conditions. The distribution industry has been accused of not placing sufficient emphasis on front-line employee development (Warehousing Education and Research Council Report 1999) with efforts often being limited to employees learning by trial and error and on-the-job experience (Mississippi State University 1999).
However, firms in the distribution industry are beginning to realize that they cannot afford to wait for employees to either leave, or become partially competent at their jobs (Warehousing Education and Research Council Report 2001). Warehouse employees often have final contact with products prior to shipment, and/or with customers during the exchange process. Therefore, it is critical that they are able to exercise high levels of customer consciousness and provide exceptional service quality when performing their job duties. Modern day warehouse employees are also increasingly called upon to utilize sophisticated technology, to make decisions that may require analytical skills, and to establish and maintain effective interpersonal relationships both with customers and fellow workers. These new skill requirements have shifted the traditional supervisory role from one of intensely directing and managing employees to educating employees about their roles in key processes and assisting them with goal setting and career advancement.
Therefore, the coaching concept offers firms a theoretical rationale for adopting a more people-oriented approach to supervision that may prove beneficial to the growth, development and retention of employees. Developing supervisors’ coaching skills may help them provide employees with assistance and feedback more effectively, thereby enhancing job satisfaction and improving performance. However, firms may not be inclined to make the significant efforts that are inherent in the adoption of developmental initiatives like coaching without some indication that there is a payoff involved. Accordingly, the current research assesses the following research questions:
Research Question 1: To what extent is supervisory coaching occurring in organizations?
Research Question 2:Is supervisory coaching associated with job satisfaction?
Research Question 3: Is supervisory coachingassociated with performance?
Research Design
A survey methodology was used to address the research questions. Due to the exploratory nature of the research, the sampling frame consisted of a convenience sample of warehouse supervisor-warehouse employee matched pairs in the distribution industry. Measurement pre-testing was accomplished through the administration of a questionnaire to 50 employee-supervisor matched pairs from two distribution centers during regular working hours. The pretest results supported the a priori measurement conceptualizations and multi-item scale configurations. Therefore, the researchers proceeded with the main study.
The researchers visited 18 distribution centers to collect the data. The facilities were located in northwest, southwest, mid-west, and eastern United States. Respondents were from distribution facilities supporting wholesale and retail grocery/mass-merchandise, paper product manufacturing, various third-party manufacturing distribution, motor carrier transportation cross-docking, and loading services firms. Fresh, frozen, and dry storage facilities were represented.
Researchers obtained a total of 392 warehouse front-line employee questionnaire responses. However, a unique aspect of the data collection process was that matched-pairs of subordinate-supervisor responses were collected in order to assess both groups of respondents’ perceptions of coaching behavior. In addition, employees answered questions about their own job satisfaction, while supervisors answered questions pertaining to the performance and productivity of the employees for whom they were directly responsible. Accordingly, the sample was reduced to include only matched-pairs of subordinate-supervisor responses and responses with large amounts of missing data were also excluded from the analyses. Consequently, the final sample consisted of 281 matched-pairs of employee and supervisor responses (or 71.7% of the questionnaires that were originally collected).
An extensive search of the literature failed to identify a coaching scale that had previously been empirically tested. Accordingly, items for coaching were adapted from the results of Ellinger and Bostrom(1999) examination of managerial coaching behaviors. The qualitative critical incident study identifies behavioral themes that emerged from extensive interviews with managers nominated as exemplary facilitators of employees’ learning by their organizations. Items for job satisfaction were adapted from Camman et al.’s (1983) and Porter and Smith’s (1981) existing scales, and items for warehouse employee performance were extracted from the text of research studies by the Mississippi State University (1999) and the Warehouse Education and Research Council (2001).
Limitations
There are several limitations associated with this research. The sample consisted purely of service organizations in the distribution industry, therefore, different and more generalizable findings may be obtained if other types of organizations were included in the study. Additionally, the cross-sectional nature of the data prevents an examination of the influence of coaching over time. Additionally, we solicited supervisors’ perceptions of employee performance and employees’ perceptions of job satisfaction using subjective pre-existing measures. It is possible that other outcome measures could be obtained such as more quantifiable measures of employee output and employee retention data.
Results and Findings
The following sections describe the analysis utilized to address the research questions as well as the study findings.
Supervisors’ Coaching Behaviors:To assess the extent to which coaching is occurring in the distribution industry (Research Question 1), the mean scores for employees and their supervisors on 8 coaching behavior items were examined. Respondents were asked to indicate their perceptions of how often each of the coaching behaviors was encountered by employees or used by supervisors (7 point scale: 1 = almost never; 7 = almost always). Mean scores for employees on the 8 items ranged from 3.02 to 3.89, while supervisors’ mean scores ranged from 4.27 to 6.00.
The coaching behaviors most frequently encountered by employees were “my supervisor provides me with resources so that I can perform my job more effectively” (3.89) and “my supervisor sets expectations with me and communicates the importance of those expectations to the broader goals of the organization” (3.81). The coaching behaviors most frequently utilized by supervisors were “I encourage my employees to broaden their perspectives by helping them see the big picture” (6.00) and “I solicit feedback from my employees to ensure that my feedback is useful to them” (5.90). The least frequently encountered or utilized coaching behavior was the “use of role-plays to help employees see different perspectives,” (employees 3.02/supervisors 4.27).
The relatively low range of mean scores for employees on the coaching behavior items suggests that the average supervisor at firms in our sample is only moderately successful at coaching his or her subordinates. This is also indicated by the consistent discrepancies between employee and supervisor perceptions of coaching behavior frequency. In each case, the supervisors’ perceptions of how often a coaching behavior was used greatly exceeded that of their subordinates. To further evaluate these differences, a series of paired sample t-tests were performed, and, significant differences between the two groups were found (at the p<.001 level) on each of the 8 coaching items.
Coaching Behavior Scale Assessment:Before addressing Research Questions 2 and 3, the psychometric properties of the multi-item coaching scale were assessed. A preliminary evaluation of the 8 items representing the coaching scale was performed using the pretest dataset of 50 employee-supervisor matched pairs. Firstly, principal components (PC) analysis was performed to evaluate the unidimensional characteristics of the construct (Gerbing & Anderson 1988). For initial empirical testing, PC scores that exceed .60 are acceptable (Nunnally, 1967). The (PC) analysis indicated that, with the exception of one item, all variables rendered PC scores above .60. It was decided to retain the item for the main study because of its potential contribution to the construct validity and the overall conceptualization of the concept. Moreover, the PC score of .567 was not exceptionally low for the preliminary assessment of an exploratory item and scale.