If you spend much time talking to people who have a stake in working with other people, the topics of mentoring, coaching, and performance management are bound to come up.

As managers of others, we have been bombarded with information that tells us how to get more and better performance from the people who work for us. We have been inundated with suggestions that extol the virtues of timely and specific feedback. And we have heard from the experts that if we improve our coaching and mentoring skills we will enhance our ability to develop employees and manage results.

When, however, does a good mentoring relationship interfere with the ability to manage an employee's performance? Can a mentor be truly effective if there is a direct supervisor/subordinate relationship? How does coaching contribute to or inhibit direct performance management and feedback? And who are you, playing which role, when?

Results, behavior, and potential

As a starting point, it's important to understand the difference between results, behavior, and potential.

As business people we are obsessively concerned with results. It's rather simple, really: if an organization consistently fails to achieve its goals, it ceases to survive. More to the point, if the people who work for us fail to achieve the results we expect from them, who's accountable? I'll bet some of you are thinking why ask such a foolish question - the answer is obviously the employee. And you may be right, but not necessarily.

• Results - Robert F. Mager, a well-known educator and author, says there are only three reasons people fail to achieve results: they don't know what to do, they don't know how to do it, or they don't want to do it.

If someone does not know what to do and fails to perform we could argue that the accountability is mutual between the manager and the employee. But it's just not so. Let's get real: it's the manager's job to make sure that the employee clearly understands what needs to be done, including what results are expected, during what time frame, and how those results will be measured. Results are the periodic and precise measurement of what has been accomplished (tasks) within the context of agreed upon expectations.

• Behavior - In order to achieve results, people will typically engage in a series of well-defined, observable behaviors that are usually clustered into measurable tasks. If the correct behaviors are performed at the right time and in the right manner, tasks are completed satisfactorily and anticipated results achieved. If behaviors are performed incorrectly or at the wrong time, tasks are not completed in a satisfactory manner, causing results to be disappointing. The individual might be fully aware of what to do but not know how to do it.

Behaviors are the observable building blocks that, if performed at the right time, in the right sequence, and in the correct manner, result in the measurable achievement of tasks (results). Assuming an individual has the right background, he or she can learn all sorts of new behaviors, engage in a wide variety of tasks, and achieve spectacular results - that is, if they want to. As the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

• Potential - Which is where potential comes in. Potential is what an individual might achieve given the proper knowledge, tools, guidance and motivation.

While potential is an inexhaustible resource, capable of being deployed productively in many directions and for a wide variety of purposes, it remains unrealized unless it has been nurtured and cultivated. Moreover, potential will never be achieved if an individual's motivational energy is not fully behind the effort. As Sir Isaac Newton brilliantly pointed out, "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it." In other words, while an employee might know what to do and how to do it, the attainment of outstanding results is likely to have more to do with the degree to which the tasks of the job (e.g., behaviors) are fun (engaging, stimulating).

But how does all this translate into performance management, coaching, and mentoring?

Performance management

Performance management is about results. At the end of a marking period we find out how we did. Hopefully, the grade we received is not a surprise because we've had specific and objective feedback about how we've been doing along the way. As managers, we owe it to the people who work for us to define the results we expect, make sure they understand what we expect, and provide periodic feedback about progress. We will and need to make judgments about how well the individual is doing.

And it is through feedback that we provide new goals, objectives, and measurable expectations. Performance management feedback is not about coaching and mentoring (though feedback must always be delivered in a manner that facilitates acceptance and encourages action). These activities come before and after performance feedback. Rather, performance reviews are a time to make certain that the "what to do's" are well defined, understood, and agreed to.

Job coaching

While performance management is about results, job coaching is concerned with the continuous improvement of job-related tasks and behaviors.

Coaching is the ongoing observation and cultivation of the behaviors that lead to results. Its purpose is developmental rather then judgmental and it has, at its core, a fundamental level of mutual trust and respect between the manager and employee. Under optimal conditions, there is an unstated contract between the coach and employee through which the coach demonstrates that he or she will do everything in his or her power to help the employee succeed. Likewise, the employee demonstrates a willingness to learn and exhibits an all-out effort to embrace and internalize the coach's advice and support.

Many managers find it difficult to balance the roles of job coach and performance manager. However, the two are integrally connected and necessary to facilitate the attainment of results. While it is possible to have job coaches who are not direct supervisors, the most powerful learning will come from the person who also provides performance feedback.

Mentoring

Finally, mentoring is about non-job specific potential. Both performance management feedback and job coaching are tied to the attainment of job-specific results. They directly affect both the manager and the employee. Mentoring, however, is directed to benefit only the individual and may or may not have a positive impact on the organization. There may, in fact, be a conflict of interest if the potential of the individual falls outside of the scope of the organization. It's often hard for a manager to lose his or her star employee to a promotion. It's even harder for an organization to lose a great worker to another company. Yet if mentoring the individual is to be truly effective, it must be altruistic at its core.

So here's the conundrum: can a manager be a performance manager, job coach, and mentor? The answer is "maybe," but only if the manager remembers that the three roles are distinct from one another and focus on different topics. Performance management is about results. Job coaching is about job-related behaviors. Mentoring is about the development of untapped potential. Watch out for the conflicts of interest and make sure that attempts at mentoring are truly altruistic. And, if you must sacrifice one or more of these roles, remember that as a manager you are primarily focused on attaining results through the efforts (behaviors) of those who report to you. Performance management and coaching are critical. Mentoring, however, might better be left to those who do not have a vested interest in the organization.

---

Harold Weinstein, Ph.D., is COO of Caliper Management in Princeton, NJ, a global employee assessment and HR consulting firm. He is a NEHRA member and can be reached at .