Coaches lead through motivation and support, whereas managers direct using procedural, formal, and transactional methods. While some situations may call upon a more managerial style, a coaching style can often be more effective. As Lumsden, Lumsden & Wiethoff (2010) point out, managers believe in their superiority, and often use fear-driven methods to induce compliance. Rating my past supervisor along the twelve points outlined by Lumsden, Lumsden & Wiethoff (2010), I can see that the person was more of a manager than a coach. This supervisor acted like he knew all the answers, and pointed out errors in our work rather than motivating us to learn (Point4; Point 6). Also, this manager was a stickler for the rules and did not seem to recognize the big picture.
Because of my experiences with ineffective managers, I have evolved a greater appreciation for the coaching style of leadership. I believe in the power of transformational leadership, which uses coaching as one of its tools for getting results. A good coach can motivate members of the team to contribute their own creative ideas, thereby allowing the team to come up with solutions that are possibly much more cost-effective and efficient than those that a more narrowly focused manager might have. I believe in celebrating learning, and allowing other people to come up with their own solutions, trusting that their process is going to be effective even if it might be different from my own. Finally, I tend to engage others in dialogue, rather than simply telling others what to do. In many ways, it can be more challenging to be a coach than a manager but it can also be many times more rewarding.
References
Lumsden, G., Lumsden, D., & Wiethoff, C. (2010). Communicating in groups and teams: Sharing leadership. (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
