From Climbing to Coaching: The Journey to Peak Employee Engagement

Coaching Lessons at the School of Rock

In May of 2021, I joined my husband and son on a rock-climbing trip. While the focus of the trip was having fun as a family, the trip quickly turned into a real-life training in leadership and coaching employees. While rock climbing is something that can be done alone (soloing), most rock climbers will climb in teams of two. When two climbers work as a team, one person will take on the role of the “belayer” and the other will take on the role of the “climber.” At the start of a climb, the two will determine who is taking on which role and then tie into the same rope. The belayer will stay at the bottom of the climb to provide additional rope to the climber as he or she advances up the route. The belayer constantly monitors the climber’s progress and uses a belay device to instantly take slack out of the rope if the climber slips or falls. To engage in this type of climbing, the belayer and climber must clearly and consistently communicate with each other during the entire climb.

As I watched my husband belay for my son on various climbs, I started to notice that the communication cycle they participated in was very specific and followed set patterns before, during, and after each climb. Before a climb started, there was always a clear goal and role establishment. They were clear on what route was being climbed, who was climbing, and who was belaying. Next, they discussed any potential obstacles or challenges together like tree branches or moss along the route and would plan for them. Once they were clear on the goal, roles, and potential obstacles, they would make sure they were both prepared to climb. Finally, they would confirm that they were set to begin the climb, and the climb would only start once this was vocalized by my husband saying, “Climb on.”

During the climb, the two continued to communicate but instead of communicating to prepare, they communicated to relay information and respond to what was happening during the climb. My husband constantly watched my son climb as he belayed for him and monitored if he needed feedback, encouragement, advice, or support. He would yell encouragement up to my son when needed and help him locate better holds to use when asked. My son would ask for help when he needed it, at times asking for my husband to “take”—meaning to take the slack out of the rope so he could rest for a moment on the rock.

At the end of each climb, they communicated to learn from the climb. There was always a celebration of what went well and a debrief of what could go better on the next climb. If needed, the two would practice or engage in some training together before the next climb. When they were ready, they would move to the next route, and the communication cycle between them would continue in the same fashion.

At no point was there an annual review or scoring of how my son did on climbs from a year ago. Instead, there was consistent communication in a collaborative coaching format that allowed my son to learn essential skills and achieve a challenging goal. My son flourished during this trip, and his rock-climbing skills and overall confidence increased tremendously due to the coaching he received. By the end of the trip, he was already talking about when we could come back again and what climbs he would attempt on our next trip. I, on the other hand, was trying to figure out how I could take what I had observed and use it to transition from being a “boss” to a “coach” for the staff I was responsible for so they could flourish inside the office just as well as my son did outside on the rock face.

The Cass County Friend of the Court

Due to my experience on the rock-climbing trip, I knew I wanted to find a way to introduce coaching as the primary management style in the Cass County Friend of the Court (FOC) when I was appointed as the Friend of the Court director in December of 2021. The Cass County FOC provides mandated child support enforcement services for Michigan’s 43rd Judicial Circuit Court. With only 15 staff positions and a fluctuating caseload of approximately 3,000 cases, the Cass County FOC is one of Michigan’s smaller FOC offices. As a smaller office, the Cass County FOC has been agile in responding to employee engagement matters and in piloting several different employee initiatives. In 2017 the Cass County FOC conducted a “Positive Office Culture” initiative to focus on creating a team dynamic and collaborative office culture among staff (Bealor, 2018). In 2020 the office conducted a “Performance Review” initiative and began to transition away from a quantitative report-card-style review to a qualitative employee-driven performance review. Both the “Positive Office Culture” initiative and the “Performance Review” initiative resulted in increased trust and collaboration and communication between management and staff. Given the success of these initiatives, continuing to increase the communication between management and staff by moving to a coaching management style seemed like the next logical step as the office continued to work on building a positive office culture.

A “Goal-Setting” initiative to introduce coaching into the Cass County FOC was launched in June of 2022. This initiative was designed to provide FOC staff with the opportunity to interact not only with myself as the FOC director, but also with their supervisors in a coaching format. Staff received goal-setting books, instruction on how to set achievable goals, and an initial goal-setting session with myself and the deputy Friend of the Court to chart out goals for the year, as well as to establish roles and what they would need to accomplish their goals. During this initiative, staff met regularly with their supervisors to discuss specific court-assigned, supervisor-assigned, and personal professional goals instead of just at an annual performance review. Supervisors routinely checked in with staff to provide positive praise, redirection, mentoring, training, or other assistance. When necessary, supervisors assisted staff with updating or changing goals, as well as connecting them with training if needed.

The goal-setting initiative increased staff’s access to and communication with supervisors. It also created an avenue for supervisors to change their interactions with staff from “bossing” to positive collaborative coaching. By the end of the initiative in May of 2024, approximately 42 percent of the staff had received a new professional certification because of the goal-setting initiative. All staff met and continue to meet all mandated training requirements for FOC employees since the implementation of the goal-setting initiative despite dealing with budget cuts and diminishing resources. While the office did not track specific data or conduct staff surveys during the initiative, the response from staff to having an office culture where they communicate with their supervisors in a coaching format and have annual performance reviews that are conversations based off their goals and prior coaching sessions continues to be overwhelmingly positive.

ICM Fellows Research

When I was accepted into the Institute for Court Management (ICM) Fellows’ program in 2023, I knew immediately what my research project would be—employee engagement and coaching court employees. The project would allow me to look at whether the positive impact of coaching that the Cass County FOC experienced during its goal-setting initiative was supported by data and something that should be expanded to other court departments or if we had just lucked out during the initiative. It would also allow me to dig more into the overall topics of employee engagement and coaching employees and look for ways to continue to build on the coaching that was already taking place in the Cass County FOC. 

While employee engagement and coaching may be viewed by many as “HR” topics and not typical for a court-related research topic, they are topics that are critical to the management of the courts’ most important asset—its workforce. As I highlight in my paper, “Climb On: The Case for Coaching Court Employees,” courts, just like private-sector businesses, must build and maintain a skilled and engaged workforce to conduct their daily functions (Mathews, 2024). The recent trend of “quiet quitting” among employees has caused many employers to examine employee engagement in their organizations to ensure they can maintain their workforce. Courts must do the same thing. In Michigan, the judicial branch has been proactive at the state level in pursuing initiatives to ensure that the needs of the current and future workforce in its nonunified trial court system are met. At the state level, the Michigan Judicial Council (MJC) recently facilitated the creation, distribution, and review of a statewide survey of Michigan trial court employees to determine the needs of Michigan’s judicial workforce (Michigan Judicial Council, 2023).

Considering the court employee initiatives being pursued in Michigan at the state level, as well as the success at the local level of the goal-setting initiative in the Cass County FOC, I decided to examine three questions related to employee engagement and coaching in my ICM Fellows project. First, can employee coaching by court managers increase employee engagement? Second, what are the promising practices among Friend of the Court offices in Michigan that would support transitioning from the past practice of isolated annual performance reviews to a managerial coaching culture? Third, what barriers exist among Friend of the Court offices in Michigan that would need to be addressed by court leadership to facilitate a transition to a managerial coaching culture?

To answer these questions, I conducted a literature review of the concepts of employee engagement, coaching in the workplace, and the role of coaching employees in court administration. Additionally, I collected and reviewed data from three separate sources: 1) a review of the survey results of the Michigan Judicial Council’s Workforce of Today and Tomorrow Workgroup’s survey of Michigan court administration and trial court employees; 2) a self-administered electronic survey of members of the Michigan Friend of the Court Association; and 3) a self-administered electronic survey of Cass County Friend of the Court staff. The literature review and data collection both supported the implementation of coaching as an effective and efficient tool to build and maintain a skilled workforce while also highlighting the need to further explore and define employee engagement and coaching within the context of the courts. 

Literature Review Highlights

While the concept of employee engagement may seem like a popular buzzword that has appeared in response to the pandemic trend of “quiet quitting” among employees, it was introduced as a critical management topic in 1990 by William Khan. Khan published an article in the Academy of Management Journal in 1990 that outlined his research and findings that workers who were in work environments that provided more psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety, and psychological availability were more engaged (Khan, 1990). Based on his research and findings, Khan proposed that future research should be conducted to explore the remaining question of how these three specific psychological variables combined to either produce personal engagement or disengagement (Khan, 1990: 718).

Even though Khan’s initial research into the concept of employee engagement was more than 30 years ago, there is still no definitive definition of employee engagement. Since Khan’s research was published, additional academic research has been conducted with the research often advocating for multiple different constructs, as well as definitions, of employee engagement. This has resulted in some researchers specifically noting, “Although there is a great deal of interest in engagement, there is also a good deal of confusion. At present, there is no consistency in definition, with engagement having been operationalized and measured in many disparate ways” (Kular et al., 2008: 1). As recently as 2019, researchers Sun and Bunchapattanasakda (2019: 66-68) reviewed 21 different definitions of employee engagement and found that they fell into for distinct categories (see Table 1).

Table 1 Categories of Employee Engagement Definitions (Mathews, 2024)

Despite the inability of researchers to agree on one universal definition for employee engagement or even one category for the definitions, key themes have arisen within the research. In the third edition of Employee Engagement: A Practical Introduction, Emma Bridger noted key themes that are consistently found in almost any conversation about employee engagement. These themes include “[w]ords such as involvement, commitment, discretionary effort, collaboration, motivation, and performance” (Bridger, 2022: 3-4).

Even though academic papers and books continue to highlight the lack of a universal definition for employee engagement and focus on common themes within the various definitions, Gallup has taken a different approach and charged forward with firmly setting a definition and outlining who is responsible for it, how to measure it, and what needs to be done to improve it. As an organization, Gallup has been tracking employee engagement for the last 50 years (Clifton and Harter, 2019: 103). For purposes of Gallup’s research, employee engagement is defined as “the involvement and enthusiasm of employees in their work and workplace” (Gallup, n.d.: para. 1). To fully understand and review employee engagement, Gallup created a Q12© survey that considers specific factors (Gallup, n.d.). These include “factors such as role clarity, having the opportunity to do what you do best, opportunities to develop, strong coworker relationships, and a common mission or purpose” (Clifton and Harter, 2019: 103).

Based on their research and data collected through the Q12© survey, Gallup found that employee engagement has a significant impact on an organization. According to Gallup’s research, engaged employees “inspire teams, solve problems instead of create them, volunteer in their community, have far better health and wellbeing, and have fewer workplace accidents” (Clifton and Harter, 2019: 11). Additionally, Gallup’s research shows that engaged employees create some of the following positive business impacts (Clifton and Harter, 2019: 105). 

Table 2 Impact of Engaged Employees (Mathews, 2024)

Gallup’s research into employee engagement not only provides significant data on the positive impact of engaged employees, but also establishes a connection to variances in employee engagement. Authors of It’s The Manager, Jim Clifton and Jim Harter, note in their discussion of Gallup’s research that “70% of the variance in team engagement is determined solely by the manager” (2019: 12). Clifton and Harter dove deeper into the research and outlined not only that variances in engagement are related to the manager, but also that employees want and need a specific type of manager to be engaged. Employees are looking for “coaches” not “bosses” (2019: 35).

This assertion that employees want “coaches” and not “bosses” led to me examining literature on “coaching.” The concept of coaching employees to increase engagement is not a new idea or trend that is popping up just as a response to “quiet quitting” or research by Gallup. Coaching in the business setting has been widely discussed and promoted for a significant period of time just like employee engagement. And, just like employee engagement, there is not one universally accepted definition of coaching.

At its very core, the word “coach” started as representing a type of carriage used for transportation in the 1500s (Witherspoon and White, 1997: 1). In their paper “Four Essential Ways That Coaching Can Help Executives,” Robert Witherspoon and Randall White assert that going back to the root of the meaning is a good place to start as “the root meaning of the verb ‘to coach’ is to convey a valued person from where he or she was to where he or she wants to be” (1997: 1). While giving a starting point for the meaning of “coach,” Witherspoon and White did not offer a definition for “coaching” but did note that “[c]oaching is about bringing out the best in people.” Despite having a definitive root meaning to start with for “coach,” there are still numerous variations of “coaching” definitions for a manager to navigate if he or she decides to transition to a coaching management style.

For example, in their 2010 book The Extraordinary Coach, John Zenger and Kathleen Stinnett defined coaching as “[i]interactions that help the individual being coached to expand awareness, discover superior solutions, and make and implement better decisions” (p. 44). Just three years later, in 2013, Madeleine Blanchard and Linda Miller examined coaching employees in their book Coaching in Organizations: Best Coaching Practices from The Ken Blanchard Companies and defined coaching as “a deliberate process using focused conversations to create an environment for individual growth, purposeful action, and sustained improvement” (p. 7). These are just two of the many different definitions of coaching. Blanchard and Miller pointed out that how a coach helps an individual succeed is different for each individual, and that this individualization creates the ultimate mystery of determining exactly what coaching is (2013: 8).

Again, like employee engagement, despite lacking a universally accepted definition, the literature review revealed common themes within the numerous definitions and methods of coaching. No matter the definition or process chosen for coaching, communication between the coach and person being coached was at the center of either the chosen definition or a critical component of the process used to carry out the defined coaching. When viewed in tandem with the research on employee engagement, it appeared that Gallup’s research was pointing managers in the right direction. Employee engagement is impacted by their managers and employees are most engaged when managers “coach” them instead of “boss” them—despite the lack of universally accepted single definitions for either concept. This led me to looking at data from Michigan court employees to see if the data supported what I was finding in my literature review.

Data Review Highlights

For the methods section of my ICM Fellows Paper, I reviewed three sets of data: 1) the results of a statewide trial court employee survey conducted by the Michigan Judicial Council’s Workforce of Today and Tomorrow Workgroup (Workgroup), 2) a self-administered electronic survey of members of the Michigan Friend of the Court Association (FOCA), and 3) a self-administered electronic survey of Cass County FOC staff. I intentionally selected the three data sets to provide three different levels of analysis of the potential for using coaching in Michigan courts. First, a high-level statewide view of all Michigan court employees through MJC’s Workgroup’s data. Second, a midlevel statewide court-department-specific managers’ view through the FOCA survey data. Finally, a close-up view of the impact of coaching from the view of trial court employees.

The review of the statewide court employee survey conducted by the Michigan Judicial Council’s (MJC) Workgroup involved a review of the formal survey report and recommendations released by the Workgroup. The report and recommendations were released by the MJI Workgroup after two separate electronic, self-administered surveys were sent to all Michigan trial court employees and court administration and the results were collected and tabulated. The review of the midlevel statewide court-department-specific data involved the creation, distribution, collection, and review by this author of a 39-question survey that was provided electronically to all members of the Michigan FOCA. Members of FOCA are management-level employees of Friend of the Court offices throughout the state of Michigan. Because their offices are subject to the same minimum training and performance requirements for staff, FOCA members were selected to participate in a survey for this paper to obtain insight from court managers in similarly situated Michigan trial court departments. Finally, because the Cass County Friend of the Court (FOC) staff had the opportunity to engage in goal setting and coaching with supervisors during the office goal-setting initiative, they were selected to participate in a voluntary 12-question electronic, self-administered survey conducted by this author to give a view from the employee’s perspective.

Ultimately, the data review revealed that Michigan trial court employees at all levels, both management and employee, want a positive work environment composed of supportive managers, communication, and appreciation. At the statewide level, the MJI Workgroup’s initial review of the data collected showed that Michigan trial court employees desire a workplace that includes 1) a positive work environment, 2) support, 3) acknowledgment of performance, 4) effective leadership, 5) bidirectional communication, and 6) opportunities for advancement (Michigan Judicial Council, 2023: 13). All things that are components of a coaching culture, no matter how it is defined.

At the management level, respondents to the FOCA Survey were open to a coaching culture to increase communication and engagement in their offices and were already doing some form of coaching through providing positive praise, redirection, goal setting, and reviews. However, many indicated that they had not been provided with training on coaching employees. The data also revealed that when attempted on a smaller scale in the Cass County Friend of the Court, a coaching culture allowed staff access to the type of work environment respondents were requesting in the statewide survey with positive results. Respondents to the Cass County FOC survey unanimously reported the coaching sessions to be beneficial with some providing feedback such as:

• It has been beneficial to be able to meet with supervisors to discuss my goals and ways to accomplish them. I have been able to learn more about what exactly is expected of me and bounce ideas off of my supervisor about ways to accomplish my goals. Having a supervisor who is receptive, open, and available to listen and aid me in my goal accomplishment has made me feel more successful and valued as an employee. 
• Personally, I like the accountability factor of the check-ins. It motivates me to stay on task. 
• It was nice to be able to have them help point me in the right direction and give me ideas on what to do to get where I’d like to be. 
• When management is aware of your goals, and you openly discuss them, they are able to assist you in the successful completion or desired outcome. 
• It was helpful so I could make sure I was on the right track and held me accountable. 
• When the supervisors take time to meet with staff about goals, then it makes us feel important and even helps us grow. When the staff are able to grow more, then we are able to add more into the office. Not only have supervisors met with us, they have provided me with resources and other items to help me reach my goals (Mathews, 2024: 49–50).

Conclusions and Recommendations

The literature review and data collection from my ICM Fellows project, briefly summarized in the preceding sections, led to my making the following conclusions and recommendations specific to the Michigan court system:

Conclusion 1: Employee engagement is critical to organizational success and employee well-being. As such, it must be defined, measured, and monitored as part of a court’s workforce management strategy. 

Recommendation 1: The State Court Administrative Office should adopt Gallup’s definition of employee engagement and support Michigan courts in using resources provided by Gallup, such as the Q12© survey, to measure and monitor court employee engagement as part of the judicial branch’s strategic workforce development plan.

Conclusion 2: Coaching is an effective and efficient tool that managers can use to build and maintain a skilled and engaged modern workforce that employees expect their managers to use. 

Recommendation 2: The State Court Administrative Office should support and assist all Michigan courts in adopting and promoting a collaborative coaching culture to increase employee engagement and meet the expectations and needs of modern court employees. 

Conclusion 3: Managers within Michigan Friend of the Court Offices are already performing components of coaching, such as goal setting, without formal training and are receptive to the implementation of a coaching culture. 

Recommendation 3: A coaching pilot should be conducted within Michigan Friend of the Court Offices to formally train Friend of the Court employees in management roles to coach employees as part of the judicial branch’s strategic workforce development plan. 

Conclusion 4: Michigan court employees are voicing concerns related to workplace culture and employee appreciation that need to be further explored and addressed for coaching to be fully effective. 

Recommendation 4: Listening sessions should be conducted at both the statewide level and individual court level to determine the workplace culture dynamics that are creating concerns and how employees want and need to be shown appreciation (Mathews 2024: 53–57).

Climb On

At the end of my ICM Fellows Project, I did not walk away with a firm definition of employee engagement or a firm definition of coaching. I walked away with more work to do and research to conduct—most likely in the form of another pilot in the Friend of the Court—as my conclusions and recommendations reveal. But this did not surprise me because just like with rock climbing, there is always more than one way to reach your goal. How you “climb” depends on your own skills, gear, and goals. And on who you have coaching you on from the bottom of the climb.

How you, as a court leader, reach peak employee engagement with your staff will be unique to you and the staff you are climbing with on the journey. As you investigate coaching as a potential for your court, I hope you take time to dig fully into the topic either by reading my full paper, “Climb On: The Case for Coaching Court Employees,” or finding another book or paper on coaching that speaks to you. While the transition from the old style of “bossing” employees to “coaching” employees as they work to achieve goals may seem daunting given the lack of universal definitions for employee engagement and coaching, it is what the research and data show employees want and need to be successful. If you take the time to engage your leadership and staff in conversations about the topic, you’ll find the right definition and style of coaching that fits the unique needs for your staff. And when you hit a part of your journey to peak employee engagement that seems tough, remember when managers and employees take the time to collaborate, communicate, and “climb” together, everyone will flourish, and your office will benefit. Climb on.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Sarah Mathews is director, Cass County Friend of the Court, Michigan.

References

Bealor, C. M. (2018). “Positive Office Culture—One Baby Step at a Time.” The Pundit, December 20. 

Blanchard, M., and L. J. Miller (2013). Coaching In Organizations: Best Coaching Practices from the Ken Blanchard Companies. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Bridger, E. (2022). Employee Engagement: A Practical Introduction (3rd ed.). London: Kogan Page. 

Clifton, J., and J. Harter (2019). It’s the Manager: Moving from Boss to Coach (1st ed.). Gallup Press.

Gallup (n.d.). “What Is Employee Engagement and How Do You Improve It?”

Khan, W. (1990). “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work.” 33 Academy of Management Journal 692.

Kular, S., M. Gatenby, C. Rees, E. Soane, and K. Truss (2008). Employee Engagement: A Literature Review. London: Kingston University. Retrieved May 7, 2024.

Mathews, S. (2024). “Climb on: The Case for Coaching Court Employees.” Institute for Court Management, Williamsburg, Va.

Michigan Judicial Council (2023). “The Workforce of Today and Tomorrow Workgroup: Report and Recommendations.” Michigan Courts, November.

Sun, L., and C. Bunchapattanasakda (2019). “Employee Engagement: A Literature Review.” 9 International Journal of Human Resource Studies 63. 

Witherspoon, R., and R. P. White. (1997). Four Essential Ways That Coaching Can Help Executives. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. 

Zenger, J. H., and K. Stinnett (2010). The Extraordinary Coach: How The Best Leaders Help Others Grow (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.