Coaching to Engage the Human Elements in the Era of Automation and Millennial
The turn of the new decade is just around the corner. Change is coming, and change is accelerating. De Smet and Gagnon (2018) stated the wave of growth and profit in the 2010s has favored companies that are agile, fast-moving, and adapt to the new technology breakthrough (De Smet and Gagnon, 2018). Miller (2019) highlights that changes in the competitive environment had created radical changes in the past decades, where the current top-performing enterprises are no longer ExxonMobil and Walmart, but Apple and Microsoft (Miller, 2019).
So, what would it take to stay ahead in the next two decades? A joint study of Harvard Business School’s and Boston Consulting Group has identified some of the influencing factors, or ‘forces’ that would shift the tectonic plates. Among the strongest external ones are automation, robotics, machine learning, and artificial intelligence (Fuller et al., 2019).
With the disruptions these technologies bring, the questions arise on would happen to the human elements. Will the human lose the race against the machine? Or will a human be more pivotal in the era of an automated workplace of the future? Furthermore, the paper will discuss how business leaders shall engage their crucial partners in their efforts to prepare for the future—their workforce. Then, we will compare the theories offered with the findings from two leading juggernauts: Google and Microsoft. We will also study the dominant cohorts of the workforce in the 2020-2030s: Millennials. (Gallup, 2016). By understanding this generation’s wants and needs, we will identify the most effective method of engaging them and retaining their talent in the future.
The Decade of 2020-2030s: Man, and the Machines
One of the future scenarios brought by these disruptive technologies is a bleak one for humans. As reported by Wakefield (2016), Foxconn has replaced 60,000 human employees with the machine in their China factory. (Wakefield, 2016). The case has shown that 5$ per hour wage of human employees is considered more expensive than a machine. Similarly, Amazon is installing robots to scan and package its order to replace more than 29 roles that are currently done by blue-collar workers (Dastin, 2019).
Hauptmann (2018) from Deloitte predicted the trend would continue in the next decades to come. With the acceleration of automation and digitization, the goal of companies will be solely maximizing shareholders’ returns in the short term. The theory suggested that companies would invest heavily in technology that could signal large-immediate saving. Competitive pressure will drive the human replacement initiative. Cashier, banker, driver, even lawyer will be displaced by automation and artificial intelligence. The relationship between the company and employees will become weaker as enterprises prefer to invest in machines than humans. The employees would be forced to change their job often as the machine will design employment contracts that were solely optimizing between incentive and performance. (Hauptmann, Rosenbach, & Klein, 2018). This first theory indicated that organizations would focus more on the machine and less on humans. The most vigorous enterprise to lead will be the one with the best automation infrastructure and investment on hand. Managing the workers and their complexity will be less of a concern for future investors and business leaders.
However, an alternate human-centric theory is offered by Falzon, Chairman of Prudential. In an interview with McKinsey, Falzon stated that any organization today and in the future would be on the losing side if they believe the future of competitions is only about cost-saving. The expert argues that company leaders shall look beyond the cost of people versus machines doing work. While automation and A.I could provide the enterprise with a wealth of data and efficiency, the right enablement of digitization and capturing the value is still uniquely reserved for humans. At least till two decades to come. Falzon believes that the real opportunity in the future lies in the human talent that could create competitive differentiation and unlocking the value of digitization.
The future of work, as Falzon envisioned, is where machine taking over the routine-repetitive elements, while humans will be seated in pivotal roles. The human-talent will focus on creating competitive differentiation, and enhancing the customer experience, shifting from the function of work efficiently (Falzon, 2010). This theory suggested that future workplaces will rely more on the human element to stay ahead over the machines. Falzon emphasizes the strategic element of people shall be among the top priority of the company leadership’s mind.
De Smet and Gagnon were also supporting this theory in their findings. They analyzed the top-performing companies in recent years have put the right focus on the human worker’s element. Companies such as IBM, Alphabet, and Microsoft engaged their workforce early to adapt to the coming changes in the new way of working. The future of work will require a higher level of creativity, problem-solving, and outside the box thinking. The soft skills and hard skills of the people in the organization must be upgraded rapidly to adjust the changes brought by automation and AI (De Smet & Gagnon, 2019). The two McKinsey senior partners highlight further the need for engaging the human elements have become higher as the working network is changing in the next decades. The typical hierarchy structure is perceived as slow and prone to mistake. The future of the company’s process, except for treasury and security, would function more like a network and less like a chain of command. Decision making of an agile organization is moving toward the front line’s manager and employees. It is paramount to ensure the alignment of the front lines with the company leadership. (De Smet& Gagnon, 2019).
Moreover, the future of the work environment has become more complex. Fuller describes work models are developing through the rise of remote work and delivery of work through a complex intra-company ecosystem. Where people used to work with a team in an office, now they are working around the clock with email, instant messages, conference calls, and mobile devices that have reduced the barriers between their work and personal lives. Fuller was describing this as an evolution in the work structure. The changes in the work environment are also driven by the worker’s demand for a more flexible and self-directed form of action to achieve a better work-life balance (Fuller et al., 2019). However, with decentralization and remote working, there is an inherent catastrophic risk of misalignment. To mitigate, De Smet and Gagnon suggested embedding high involvement leadership through coaching, into the agile, fast-moving environment in the future. In short, this second theory suggested that future companies shall put more focus on aligning and developing human elements in the organization (De Smet & Gagnon, 2019).
To support the second theory, we do the reality check on how leading companies gained their competitive advantage in the past decade. This paper selected Google/Alphabet and Microsoft as both companies ranked among the highest of top-performing companies (Miller, 2019) and the best employer (Murphy, 2019). These are not a coincidence. Shibu (2019) reported that Microsoft is on board with human-centered engagement. Satya Nadella, the current CEO, stated the company delivered its record performance thanks to the implementation of a new manager-worker framework. Microsoft named it Model-Coach-Care. This framework is created based on Microsoft’s extensive survey, study, and performance data of their organization. The purpose of the framework is to implement a growth mindset in its workforce through empowerment and accountability by modeling, coaching, and caring. Microsoft defines coaching as the manager’s initiative to create a space where employees can learn from their mistakes and emphasize their potential to grow and learn (Shibu, 2019).
Microsoft’s rival from Silicon Valley, Google, reported the same approach of human eccentricity. Eric Schmidt, Google’s former CEO, emphasizes the importance of high involvement in leadership through coaching towards Google’s remarkable success. In an interview with Quartz, Schmidt (2019) acknowledges that he owed the success of Google to coaching. While the Silicon Valley environment seems to provide little time for the coaching session, he emphasizes its importance. There were challenges of shorter deadlines, more considerable money, and global competition. However, Schmidt, as CEO, made sure to attend and hold coaching sessions at least once a week. He emphasizes that coaching sessions were crucial for his team on google to feel that they are valued and motivated. As people were Google’s primary asset, Schmidt wanted to make sure they get prioritized. Beyond the engagement side, Schmidt also emphasizes the importance of coaching as the tool to align goals. Schmidt mentioned that in the high-pressure situation when things could go wrong, people could be distracted as to what the goal was. He believed a coach was needed and applicable for any high impact environment (Schmidt, 2019).
Aligned with Schmidt’s statement, there was a full management study conducted by Google under the umbrella of Project Oxygen. Schneider describes the project is a result of the analysis of over 10,000 bits of information from Google’s internal performance reviews, surveys, and results to determine the best practices of its most effective managers. Project Oxygen revealed the top eight Google manager behavior that contributed the most to the enterprise’s success. Surprisingly it was not about adapting the cutting-edge technology or being an efficient cost saver one but being a good coach (Schneider, 2018). For companies as innovative as Google and Microsoft, it is refreshing to see how they resonate with the importance of human elements over the machine for the organization’s future. Also, both companies agreed on one specific management practice that would be explored further in this paper: coaching.
The Modern Management Practice of Coaching
John Whitmore defines coaching as the art of releasing the potential in another in order to improve performance. He saw coaching as a critical facet in modern leadership. Coaching provides the bridge in the evolution from hierarchy to self-responsibility, from autocracy to more democratic control of the enterprise. Whitmore argues that as skills in the next decades become more specialized and technically diverse, coaching shall be an absolute prerequisite for managers in order to maintain control and alignment of his organization. Coaching used the discussion-based technique to enhance a person’s skills and knowledge. Whitmore concludes that if managers manage by the principles of coaching, they could achieve better results while developing their people simultaneously. Coaching usually focuses on specific short-term skills and goals which agreed between manager and employee. The employee maintains primary ownership of the goal, and the manager has primary ownership of the process. (Whitmore, 2009). Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, describes qualities of a coach as a person who provides timely and specific feedback, delivers harsh criticism positively, tailored their approach to individual, and practicing active listening. He defined further coach as someone who listens to the individual situation, figure out what the team is doing, and help the coached person to figure out how to be successful. (Schmidt, 2018).
Whitmore believes coaching provides the best of a balance of managing people compared to traditional methods, as shown in Table 1. He believed coaching the best of the balance of developing and engaging the employee while the manager is having control of the outcome. (Whitmore, 2009)
Table 1
Behavior and Result of Different Communication Method
Notes: The table shows the behavior and expected results of different methods in communication style. Summarized and adapted from Coaching for Performance – GROWing human potential and purpose (Whitmore, 2009).
There are multiple frameworks of coaching. An example from Google is the GROW model (Schneider, 2018). Whitmore (2009) explained the GROW acronym as Goals-Reality-Options-Will. He emphasized that the GROW model provides a useful framework from which to structure any coaching session. It provides the manager as a coach with a broad understanding of what the employee is trying to achieve, to a clear plan of action with detailed process steps as to how the outcome is. The first step is to determine the ‘Goal’ of the discussion and where the individual being coached wants to end up. The second step is defining the ‘Reality’ of the individual’s current situation, including what actions they have taken to date and what they perceive the constraints are of moving forward. The third step is to discuss the ‘Options’ for moving forward. Furthermore, the fourth step is to determine what ‘Will’ the individual do to meet the goal, including a timeline (Whitmore, 2009). The illustration of GROW the coaching process is shown in Figure 1
Figure 1. GROW Model Coaching Framework (Whitmore, 2009)
Coaching and the Engagement of the Future Workforce: Millennials
One would argue that with the considerable commitment it brings, the coaching would drain the future manager’s time and resources on top of his day to day job. After all, why the future manager should put emphasize on the individual? One could also argue that the manager could have just set the target objective and monitor as it goes just like a typical ordinary day job. If the managers spend so much time on coaching and having personalized conversations with each of their employees, would that hold them back from doing their duties on managing the company’s operation? Why there is a need for change from the standard practice of manager-employee?
The answer to the skepticism lies in the characteristic of future workers in the decade of 2020-2030s: Millennial. Gallup defines Millennials as generations who were born between and 1980 and 1996. The Institute highlights the rise of Millennial generations that will fill up the most of future talent pipework in the 2030s horizon (Gallup, 2016). According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Millennials have taken over the previous generations as the largest segment of the workforce in 2015. By 2030, they will be made up to 75 percent of the workers’ population (Mitchell, 2015).
There is a strong trait of Millennials, which companies have never encountered at the current scale. As an example, the older generation typically willing to do any job without complaining in exchange for their paycheck and benefits. The worker would follow their bosses’ instructions and able to disconnect after working hours without much afterthought. That scenario is no longer reflected by Millennials in the workplace today. Gallup reported that Millennials would leave their job once they are unhappy with their working environment. They would switch to a career with a better sense of purpose and work-life balance over one with high compensation. They are mostly unattached to their company, and most are not planning to work for the same enterprise until they retire. Correspondingly, Millennials change jobs more often than those of any older generation. Six out of 10 millennials stated that they are actively looking for new employment opportunities. (Gallup, 2016). Similar research conducted by Adkins highlights major concerns that half of the current millennial workforce is ready to leave the current company they are working for within less than one year (Adkins, 2018). There is a big problem of retention and engagement with current and future enterprises when facing this generation.
So, what causes the sense of disconnection and non-engagement of this generation’s workforce? Adkins suggested that millennials mainly think the company is not giving them the compelling purpose of staying. Grant explored this phenomenon further by stating, “They [Millennials] left when their job was not enjoyable, their strengths were not being used, and they were not growing in their careers.” (Grant, 2018, para.2). His disengagement theory highlights the attrition rate of future millennials is rooted beyond compensation and regular HR practices. The theory highlights the importance of having an organization with highly involved managers to retain the organization’s talent.
Back to Gallup’s report, the survey reveals Millennials’ emphasize on having managers who can appreciate them as both people and employees and helping them to build their strengths. As recently revealed by the Institute, Millennials generation prefers coaching style manager over bosses who commands and controls. As shown in Figure 2, the previous generation approach of annual review and delivering orders through e-mail is theorized to be not as effective with Millennial. (Gallup, 2016).
Figure 2. The Change in Employee’s Expectation Past versus Future (Gallup, 2016)
Another expert in the field, Tulgan, argues that any leader who is charged with managing anyone for any given time must be a coach. With Millennials, the importance has become doubled. With high-performance Millennials, the urgency is tripled. If the manager is disengaged from the ‘superstar,’ the talent will quickly lose confidence in the organization and the chain of command and sooner than later will depart the company in the next available opportunity. Tulgan emphasizes that superstar Millennials desire managers who:
“…Care enough to teach them the tricks and the shortcuts, warn them of pitfalls, and help them solve problems. They want managers who are strong enough to support them through bad days and counsel them through difficult judgment calls (Tulgan, 2016, p.166.).”
Furthermore, Tulgan mentioned, even more than average Millennials, the superstars wish that their work is acknowledged and rewarded (Tulgan, 2016). However, one might ask if the future managers shall take a softer approach to retain millennials and ‘babysit’ them in order to manage attrition? Tulgan argues that it should have been the opposite. He emphasized that:
“Managers should never undermine their authority; should never pretend that the job is going to be more fun than it is; never suggest that a task is within the discretion of a Millennial if it isn’t; never gloss over details; never let problems slide; and should never offer praise and rewards for performance that is not worthy of them (Tulgan, 2016, p.15).”
Tulgan prescribed managers to spell out the rules and expectations. The high-maintenance Millennial Generation workforce calls for stronger leadership instead of weak ones (Tulgan, 2016).
The Future of Coaching: How Technology Comes into Play
So far, the paper has presented the argument that deliberate efforts by the organization to structure the coaching interaction between the employee and its management will be the key for the future organization in retaining talent and managing its human. However, the constraint of time and resources remains. What can be enhanced in the next decades?
Human to human interaction that was previously bounded by space and time is currently made more accessible by information technology. The same shall apply to the coaching process. The interaction shall feel personal, but both managers and employees shall do the engagement from any time, anywhere. Gallup suggested that manager-employees coaching does not have to take the form of face to face meetings. The most successful managers are those who use the combination of phone, electronic communication, and direct interactions. (Gallup, 2016).
According to Fuller, the methods resonate well with the increase in numbers of remote work (Fuller et al., 2019). Gallup emphasized that while daily connect offers the chance for managers and employees to catch up, formalized feedback still should take place. The combination of both informal check-ins and formal development conversations will be the best form of communication. (Gallup, 2016).
With the rise of automation, will coaching taken over by the machine? After all, wouldn’t the young generations prefer to interact with the machine over a human? Tulgan has disputed this argument. He emphasized that although self-learning from the computer helps, they need the human element to do their best learning. Millennials would learn best from a combination of the human element in the form of coaching and shared wisdom with the powerful capacity of information systems to get the information available at their fingertips. Tulgan acknowledges that making a plan with the employee to meet one-on-one regularly is a huge commitment for both employees and managers. However, the gestures serve as powerful statements that the manager cares enough to spend time setting his team up for success. When a manager follows through and spends that time, he/she is creating a constant feedback loop for ongoing goal setting, performance evaluation, and coaching (Tulgan, 2016).
It can be synthesized that the future of coaching shall be a combination of both the human elements and machines. To illustrate, with the calendar tool and scheduling assistant embedded in Microsoft outlook, a manager could easily book a placeholder meeting with his team weeks in advance. With the skype-link provided in the tool, a manager could hold productive and personalized meetings with his team members without having to travel. The result vs. progress of critical actions can be displayed automatically using a digital enablement tool. The interaction will still be felt human, personal, while efficient.
Conclusions and Future Study
The paper has emphasized that even with the future of the workplace being transformed by digitization and artificial intelligence, human elements will still play a pivotal role. Additionally, we have presented similarities within the top tier companies that they are implementing high-involvement leadership to stay ahead of the competition. Coaching has been identified as the element shared among these companies as their method of engaging their employees.
After investigating further, we found that the need for high-involvement leadership through coaching becomes more critical with the demographics change. Millennials will be the largest cohorts in the demographics of the workplace in the 2020-2030s. They have different aspirations and needs where the traditional management style is not as effective as with the previous generation. The paper suggested that coaching is the most effective method to bridge the gap.
Therefore, we suggested a deliberate effort by the organization to structure the coaching interaction between the employee and its management will be the key for the future organization in retaining talent and managing its human element. Furthermore, while coaching as a process is unique to the human to human interaction, there are potentials for machine and digital medium to complement the process and help leaders to manage the process effectively.
The human-machine interface might face another revolution in the next few years through groundbreaking technology such as Neuralink (Hitti, 2019). Such technology might transform the workplace in ways not imagined at the time this paper is written. We would recommend further study on improving coaching effectiveness to be conducted alongside the experiment.
References
Adkins, A. (2018, July 5). Millennials: The Job-Hopping Generation. Retrieved November 10, 2019, from https://www.gallup.com/workplace/231587/millennials-job-hopping-generation.aspx.
Bersin, J. (2007). High impact talent management: trends, best practices, and industry solutions. Oakland, CA: Bersin & Associates.
Dastin, J. (2019, May 13). Amazon is replacing some fulfillment center jobs with robots that pack orders. Retrieved November 17, 2019, from https://www.businessinsider.com/exclusive-amazon-rolls-out-machines-that-pack-orders-and-replace-jobs-2019-5
De Smet, A., & Gagnon, C. (2018, January). Organizing for the age of urgency. Retrieved November 4, 2019, from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/organizing-for-the-age-of-urgency.
Fuller, J., Wallenstein, J., Raman, M. (May 2019). Future Positive. Boston, MA: BCG, Harvard Business School
Gallup. (2016). How Millennials Want to Work and Live. Retrieved November 3, 2019, from https://www.gallup.com/workplace/238073/millennials-work-live.aspx.
Grant, L. (2018, January 11). Why People Really Quit Their Jobs. Retrieved November 17, 2019, from https://hbr.org/2018/01/why-people-really-quit-their-jobs.
Hauptmann, M., Rosenbach, V., & Klein, F. (2018). The Future of Human Resources. Deloitte Monitor. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/de/Documents/strategy/Future-of-Human-Resources-2030-Deloitte-Glimpse-Paper.PDF
Hitti, N. (2019, July 22). Elon Musk’s Neuralink implant will “merge” humans with AI. Retrieved November 24, 2019, from https://www.dezeen.com/2019/07/22/elon-musk-neuralink-implant-ai-technology/.
Miller, R. (2019, June 28). The Top 100 Best-Performing Companies in The World, 2019. CEOWORLD magazine. Retrieved November 10, 2019, from https://ceoworld.biz/2019/06/28/the-top-100-best-performing-companies-in-the-world-2019/
Mitchell, A. (2015, August 7). The Rise of the Millennial Workforce. Retrieved November 3, 2019, from https://www.wired.com/insights/2013/08/the-rise-of-the-millennial-workforce/.
Murphy, A. (2019, October 3). Global 2000: World’s Best Employers, 2019. Retrieved November 21, 2019, from https://www.forbes.com/lists/worlds-best-employers/#7f1b438f1e0c.
Schmidt, Eric. (2019, July 9). Retrieved November 8, 2019, from https://qz.com/1596102/former-google-ceo-eric-schmidt-discusses-why-silicon-valley-needs-coaches/.
Schneider, M. (2018, July 30). Google Managers Use This Simple Framework to Coach Employees. Retrieved November 3, 2019, from https://www.inc.com/michael-schneider/google-discovered-top-trait-of-its-most-effective-managers-you-can-develop-it-too.html.
Shibu, S. (2019, November 11). Microsoft is rolling out a new management framework for its leaders. It centers around a psychological insight called growth mindset — Retrieved November 14, 2019, from https://amp-businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.businessinsider.com/microsoft-is-using-growth-mindset-to-power-management-strategy-2019-11.
Tulgan, B. (2016). Not everyone gets a trophy: how to manage the millennials. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Wakefield, J. (2016, May 25). Foxconn replaces ‘60,000 factory workers with robots’. Retrieved November 16, 2019, from https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966
Whitmore, J. (2009). Coaching for Performance – GROWing human potential and purpose (4th ed.). London, MA: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
