We seem to use the words of coaching and training to mean the same thing. What are the real differences between coaching and training. Is it possible for trainers to coach in the workplace or is it the role of the manager alone?

We have to clearly define what coaching is and compare the two processes side-by-side. Which one will give us improved productivity? If we look at the difficulties faced by managers, we can see how taking on the mantle of productivity coach can help them in tasks like target and goal setting. Just think about the difficulties associated with moving from being a follower to being a leader. And then think how much harder it is to move from being a manager to being a coach.

Coaching is not training

For a lot of people the word "coaching" has replaced the word training meaning to teach or instruct people. Both training and coaching our very important but let's be absolutely clear that training comes before coaching. In the workplace, training normally takes place in groups and is often conducted away from the workplace. Coaching on the other hand, frequently takes place in the workplace on-the-job. Very often it is one-on-one In both cases we are trying to create a change in behavior..

Coaching helps to develop the skills because it involves the practical application of knowledge. Training cannot perform this function. This doesn't mean that training has no place in learning. Training is the starting place of the mechanism of learning.

People are trying to do job in a particular way and within certain limitations. After this they can generally be coached to do it better. This assumes that training can only take somebody part of the way to their potential. It has been said that most people (80%) reach the limit of their ability through training. They require coaching to reach and learn new levels of performance that under normal circumstances would remain untapped

When you think of it, we all arrive at work with a present level of knowledge, skills and experience. When we receive training, our ability level rises. Significantly, whilst our ability level has increased we all have a considerable level of untapped knowledge and skills that could contribute to an even higher performance level.

In the workplace, one of the greatest differences between training and coaching is that training objectives are normally set by trainers, or HR managers. This process takes place often without the input from the people receiving the training. Because they have been excluded from this process, difficulties are often experienced by the person doing the training because he or she has a group that have become what could be known as training "victims." Their training has been prescribed for them and they have no ownership of the content or the delivery.

Whilst the trainees may physically take part in the training session, mentally they will not accept any change. The result is that there is very little transfer of the training evident in behavioral change in the workplace. Frequently, there is no coaching, so the value of the training to the business is extremely low.

When it comes to coaching, often the same thing happens. This is in spite of the fact that the coaching needs are best determined by the people receiving the coaching.

The solution is relatively simple, make sure that the people receiving the training have input to the selection of the trainer, the method of delivery and the desired results. A similar solution can be applied to the coaching. The selection of the coach and the desired results should be a part of the responsibility of the people being coached.

Training without coaching has very limited effect on behaviour. Coaching should always take place so the participants in the training know that they are going to receive coaching. From a behavioral science aspect, this makes perfect sense. training is an antecedent and coaching is a consequence. When they are paired together the results in productivity performance can be considerable.