Leadership & Organization Development Journal

Mentoring and coaching as part of a human resource development strategy: an example at Coca-Cola
Foods
David J. Veale

Article information:

Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AT LUCKNOW At 01:51 08 February 2015 (PT)

To cite this document:

David J. Veale, (1996),"Mentoring and coaching as part of a human resource development strategy: an example at CocaCola Foods", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 3 pp. 16 - 20
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437739610116948
Downloaded on: 08 February 2015, At: 01:51 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 18 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2831 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Bob Garvey, (2004),"The mentoring/counseling/coaching debate: Call a rose by any other name and perhaps its a
bramble?", Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, Vol. 18 Iss 2 pp. 6-8
David J. Veale, Jeffrey M. Wachtel, (1996),"Mentoring and coaching as part of a human resource development
strategy: an example at Coca-Cola Foods", Management Development Review, Vol. 9 Iss 6 pp. 19-24 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09622519610151615
Victoria Johnson, Spero C. Peppas, (2003),"Crisis management in Belgium: the case of Coca-Cola", Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 18-22 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563280310458885

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 272120 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Mentoring and coaching as part of a human resource

development strategy: an example at Coca-Cola
Foods

Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AT LUCKNOW At 01:51 08 February 2015 (PT)

David J. Veale Director, Human Resource Development Coca-Cola Foods,

Houston, Texas, USA and Jeffrey M. Wachtel Associate Professor of Management, Florida International University, North Miami, Florida, USA
Describes Coca-Cola Foods
mentoring and coaching
programmes. Presents directions for future research and
practice based on Coca-Cola
Foods experience.

Leadership & Organization

Development Journal
17/3 [1996] 1620
MCB University Press
[ISSN 0143-7739]

[ 16 ]

Mentorship is considered an important training and development tool in the academic

literature (Hunt and Michael, 1983; Kram,
1985a), and is present as a formal programme
in many companies (Burke and McKeen, 1989;
Klauss, 1981; Kram, 1985b). It has recently
been prominent in the popular literature as
well (Bartlett, 1995; Burgess, 1994; Colborn,
1992). Having a mentor has been linked to
mobility and career advancement (Clawson,
1979; Jennings, 1971; Kram, 1985a; 1985b;
Phillips-Jones, 1982; Scandura, 1992; Stumpf
and London, 1981) and may be even more
important for women and minorities (Colborn, 1992; Kanter, 1977; Morrison et al., 1987).
Additionally, mentoring has been distinguished as different from typical superiorsubordinate relationships (Burke et al., 1991)
and as being composed of a number of different career-enhancing functions such as coaching, sponsorship, facilitating exposure and
offering protection (Kram and Isabella, 1985).
Many companies, Coca-Cola Foods among
them, have invested their resources in the
development of formal programmes designed
to promote mentoring relationships (Burke
and McKeen, 1989) as part of their human
resource development strategy. The purpose
of this paper is to describe Coca-Cola Foods
mentoring and coaching programmes and to
present directions for future research and
practice based on the Coca-Cola Foods example.
Coca-Cola Foods believes that human
resource development (HRD) is a key to building competitive advantage through people
and to the creation of a high-performing organization. The struggle at Coca-Cola Foods has
been to maximize and/or optimize HRDs
contribution to business success. The
approach at Coca-Cola Foods has been threefold:
1 to strengthen the link between business
strategy and developmental focus;
2 to involve leadership of the organization in
all aspects of development;
3 to use a variety of developmental tools to
match personal and organizational needs
better.
For the purpose of this article, we will focus
primarily on the mentoring and coaching

processes which Coca-Cola Foods uses to

develop their people. These developmental
tools clearly involve leaders in the organization which helps considerably to
strengthen the link between development and
business strategy.

Definitions
Coca-Cola Foods views coaching as an interaction that has the purpose of enhancing
performance. By providing goals, techniques,
practice and feedback, the coach helps the
person increase competence and the probability of success. Coaching can occur down the
hierarchy, up it or laterally. In coaching, the
relationship is not of utmost importance,
rather the agreement that the coaching is
valuable is the critical element.
Mentoring, on the other hand, achieves its
purposes primarily through building a relationship. The mentor is usually someone
higher up in the organization, someone
who has experience and knowledge about
whos who, whats what, and how
things get done. It is a formal relationship
structured around the developmental needs
of the mentee. In most cases, the mentor
and mentee are from different departments
so that there are no direct reporting relationships involved.
The processes Coca-Cola Foods uses for
facilitating mentoring and coaching in the
organization are very different, as are the
goals and outcomes expected. We will review
each separately and then summarize by comparing and contrasting the two developmental approaches.

Mentoring
Mentoring at Coca-Cola Foods is the creation
of a formal relationship between two people
of different departments and status in the
organization.
The goals of the mentoring relationship are
to help the mentee understand the organization and their role in it better. With the help of
someone more experienced in the organization, the mentee learns more about the culture, mission and context of how things get

David J. Veale and Jeffrey M.

Wachtel
Mentoring and coaching as
part of a human resource
development strategy: an
example at Coca-Cola Foods

Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AT LUCKNOW At 01:51 08 February 2015 (PT)

Leadership & Organization

Development Journal
17/3 [1996] 1620

done than he/she would if working alone.

Additionally, the mentee gains a confidant
(i.e. a neutral coach and observer who can
help the mentee plan a career within the
organization). Websters Dictionary definition
describes a mentor as a trusted counsellor or
guide; Coca-Cola Foods encourages the
process through creation of a formal procedure.
Since much is built on the one-on-one relationship, the selection of people who are to be
the mentors and mentees is critical. CocaCola Foods makes sure that those selected as
mentors are successful, enjoy working for the
organization, are wise in the ways of the
organization and can get things done. Additionally, Coca-Cola Foods ensures that the
mentor is comfortable with being a listener,
being asked questions and with being a teller
of advice and perspective. Mentees, on the
other hand, need to be ready for a relationship in which they know that they dont
know and are comfortable asking questions
and revealing concerns.
Coca-Cola Foods uses a ten-part mentoring
process. Most facilitated mentoring
programmes have a formal process which
defines each step and audits the ongoing
success of the programme. Although these
processes will differ somewhat in how they
address the needs of the sponsoring organization, most programmes generally follow procedures similar to those below:
1 mentee identified;
2 identifying developmental needs;
3 identifying potential mentors;
4 mentor/mentee matched;
5 orientation for mentors and mentees;
6 contracting;
7 periodic meetings to execute the plan;
8 periodic reports;
9 conclusion;
10 evaluation and follow-up.
Each procedure is explained below:
1 Mentees identified: In this step, Coca-Cola
Foods identifies the group of people who
are eligible for the mentoring programme.
This can be done in a variety of ways looking at certain job levels, departments,
employee characteristics, etc. Once the
target group is defined, specific mentees
can be identified by having them volunteer,
be nominated by a boss or other sponsor,
or compete for selection through application and testing.
2 Identify developmental needs: In this step
the developmental needs are determined
and an individual development plan can be
prepared. This can be done by having the
mentee disclose what he/she thinks are
their developmental needs, having bosses

10

determine these needs, and/or having skill

deficiencies revealed through assessment.
Identify potential mentors. This step produces a pool of individuals who can serve
as mentors. They may volunteer for the
role, may be chosen by a mentee, or may be
recruited by senior managers. Prior to
selection, a mentors general ability and
willingness to handle the role should be
assessed.
Mentor/mentees matching. A mentor is
selected for a specific mentee after considering the skills and knowledge needed by
the mentee and the ability of the mentor to
provide practice or guidance in those
areas. Compatibility of styles and personalities can be critical.
Mentor and mentee orientation. Before the
start of the mentoring relationship, an
orientation is held for both the mentors
and mentees. For mentors this orientation
covers time commitments, types of activities, time and budget support, the relationship with the natural boss, reporting
requirements and the mentees responsibility for the development.
Contracting. A clear agreement is an
essential foundation for a good mentoring
relationship. It includes a development
plan, confidentiality requirement, the
duration of the relationship, frequency of
the meetings, time to be invested in mentoring activities by each party, and the role
of the mentor.
Periodic meetings. Most mentors and
mentees meet for performance planning,
coaching, and feedback sessions. The frequency can be determined by the nature of
the relationship and by geographical proximity. At these meetings, both parties are
candid about progress of the process.
Periodic reports. It will be easier to evaluate the success of the mentoring
programme if periodic status reports are
by both the mentor and mentee. Depending
on the level of formality in the
programme, this step may or may not
occur.
Conclusion. A mentoring relationship
concludes when the items delineated in the
initial agreement have been accomplished
or when time/business/budget constraints
will prevent the relationships from continuing. It may also be concluded when one of
the pair believes it is no longer productive
for them to work together.
Evaluation and follow-up. After the relationship concludes, both the mentor and
mentee are questioned, via interviews or
other assessment instruments, about the
value of the process, timing, logistics, time

[ 17 ]

David J. Veale and Jeffrey M.

Wachtel
Mentoring and coaching as
part of a human resource
development strategy: an
example at Coca-Cola Foods

Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AT LUCKNOW At 01:51 08 February 2015 (PT)

Leadership & Organization

Development Journal
17/3 [1996] 1620

constraints and any other valid concerns

that could affect the mentoring process.

Successful mentoring programmes generally

need: voluntary participation from both mentor and mentee outside the normal hierarchy
relationships, one-on-one relationships, integration with other developmental efforts,
commitment to the programme by the boss of
the mentee, the creation and communication
of policies and procedures. The policies and
procedures should include a process for nofault conclusions, a format for contracting, a
requirement of confidentiality, meeting and
feedback guidelines and a duration limit for
the formal programme.
Some of the advantages to mentoring programmes are that the mentee adopts the work
culture of the organization better, increases
performance, has increased commitment to
the organization, increased job satisfaction,
low-cost but highly relevant learning, and
better cross-functional knowledge. In addition, having a programme such as this can be
used as a selling point for potential employees.

performance and relationships. Thus, it is

important to ensure that coaching is done
well in terms of style so that it is perceived as
a positive process. To maximize the benefits
of coaching, Coca-Cola Foods trains managers to establish a communication environment of mutual respect, that is problemfocused and change-oriented. Coca-Cola
Foods does this through a variety of different
training programmes starting with a programme which uses the Hersey-Blanchard
model with its emphasis on both task and
support skills as a requirement of good coaching. Also, Coca-Cola Foods uses ZengerMillers Front-line Leadership programme
which has basic principles defining the tone
and style of the conversation, and then other
modules focused on the formats for communicating to enhance performance. The Frontline Leadership series clearly advocates
mutual goal setting, discussion and problem
solving within an atmosphere of trust and
collaboration. Finally, some members of
Coca-Cola Foods have attended a week-long
programme devoted to the building of coaching skills. However, because of the expense of
this course, only a very few have attended.

Some caveats

Types of coaching

Some concerns are that there is a potential

for the mentee to play the mentor against the
boss and that the relationship can lead to
breaches of confidentiality which may hurt
the parties involved. Mentees can be the focus
of gossip and jealousy and may develop unrealistic expectations about their potential.
Finally, the mentee may not take responsibility for his/her own development.

Coca-Cola Foods identifies five different types

of coaching: modelling, instructing, enhancing performance, problem solving and inspiration, and support. These types are delineated so as to provide people with a flexibility
of approach to different coaching situations
and needs. This makes Coca-Cola Foods definition of coaching very broad, broader than
the Hersey-Blanchard model. In fact, CocaCola Foods includes directing (called
instructing) and support (called inspiration
and support) as part of the coaching model.
Also added is modelling and problem solving
as a separate categories. Coca-Cola Foods
recognizes the considerable overlap of their
types of coaching and does so intentionally.
At Coca-Cola Foods, the objective is not theoretical precision, but usefulness.
Modelling, Coca-Cola Foods first category,
is usually not thought of as a coaching type.
For example, McBers Inventory of Management Styles separates pace setting (a modelling style) from coaching. However, Coca-Cola
Foods thinks modelling is an important part
of the coaching process, and perhaps a fundamental type. If the coach cannot or does not
enact the skills and values that he or she is
trying to get the other to do, it becomes very
hard for the coachee to learn. One can see
football coaches, ballet teachers and piano
teachers all demonstrating what they want
the coachee to do. Sometimes, the coach
cannot do it as well as is expected. For

Conditions for success

Coaching
Coca-Cola Foods considers coaching a
method for increasing accountability, renewing commitment, and facilitating continual
learning. The expected results are more
highly skilled people who perform better and
have better working relationships. The oneon-one discussions with ones boss talking
about performance enhancement wires-in
accountability. A coaching process which
involves people discussing their performance
in relationship to business goals is a process
for building commitment. Since coaching
usually involves goal setting and feedback, an
environment is created which enhances continual and purposeful learning.
While the coaching process can facilitate
the above outcomes, the style and perceptions
of coaching may subvert the intention of the
coaching and create less accountability,
learning and commitment resulting in worse

[ 18 ]

David J. Veale and Jeffrey M.

Wachtel
Mentoring and coaching as
part of a human resource
development strategy: an
example at Coca-Cola Foods

Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AT LUCKNOW At 01:51 08 February 2015 (PT)

Leadership & Organization

Development Journal
17/3 [1996] 1620

The advantages of
coaching are many and
varied. Information is
provided directly, is relevant
and usually done in the
context so it can be applied
immediately. For the coach,
it may lead to such an
increase in skills that they
can delegate some of their
work to a coachee. The
disadvantages really reside
with the individuals involved

example, older ballet teachers tend not to

have the flexibility and the speed of their
younger students, but the demonstration can
still be very important. Some people need to
see a thing done in order to understand and
do it themselves. Other ways of modelling can
be inviting a person to see how a sales presentation is made, or a particular presentation,
or how to facilitate a problem-solving group.
Working together on a project can provide
many opportunities to model the expected
behaviour. Thus, one type of coaching is modelling (i.e. do as I do).
Another type of coaching is instructing (i.e.
do as I tell you). Here the coach knows the
skills and is teaching them to the coachee. In
this type of coaching, Coca-Cola Foods recommends a five-step process. The first step is to
provide a vision of what is expected and an
overview of the goal and the process. Then,
Coca-Cola Foods follows with the familiar
tell, show, do, and correct. The tell
part verbally highlights the specific tasks to
be done, the show part provides an example of
doing the task (i.e. modelling again), the do
allows the coachee to try the task(s) and the
correcting provides an opportunity for the
coach to give feedback on the coachees
actions. In the sense that there is not much
reflection and input from the coachee, this
resembles the directing type in the HerseyBlanchard model.
Another type of coaching is enhancing or
improving a performance (i.e. do this better). This type is most like the coaching of
the Situational Leadership model. The steps
here are: explaining the whys and whats of
the performance, asking for input, providing
feedback and your own ideas on how to
improve, summarizing with a plan and then
offering support. In this type of coaching, the
assumption is that the person generally does
know what to do, but is not doing as well as he
or she could. Thus, the why coach wants
improvement and provides a rationale for the
effort to be made to enhance. Asking the
coachee for their ideas on barriers or possible
improvement strategies provides both an
opportunity for the associate to own the
enhancement effort and an opportunity for
the coach to discover misperceptions. By
adding ideas and later offering support, the
coach indicates both interest and involvement in the enhancement effort. The summary and plan, if it has action that both the
coach and the coachee can take, builds a
sense of this being a team effort.
Another type of coaching helps the coachee
problem solve (i.e. figure it out this way).
The coach, by providing a format as well as
leading the process, helps the coachee learn
and use a method of problem solving. The

steps Coca-Cola Foods asks its coaches to

follow are: to clarify the problem; involve the
participant(s); funnel the problem and build a
plan. The role of the coach in clarifying the
problem is one of asking for specifics in the
description of the problem and then summarizing what was said. This communication
format is common in many types of problem
solving. This aspect of coaching helps the
person be clear and specific at the outset of
problem solving, which can be very valuable.
In the involvement step, the coach helps the
coachee think of the breadth of stakeholders
in the problem and include them. In the funnelling step, the coach may help the coachee
look at a variety of meanings/causes/factors
either by suggesting a wishbone or a forcefield analysis. These methods open up the
problem solving process (the funnel) and then
provide a structure for identifying the major
issues (focusing the funnel). After causes are
identified, the coach may help the coachee by
making sure the list of generated solutions is
large enough and by helping the coachee use
a method to determine the best solution for
the problem. Finally, in the planning step the
coach helps the associate by suggesting
strategies, people, action steps and schedule
dates.
The final type of coaching is the inspiration
(i.e. you can do it!) Here the coach makes
sure of a personal connection with the
coachee and uses that to inspire the person.
The great exemplars of modern day are obviously many of the great sport coaches with
their yelling and cheering from the side lines.
A classic example comes from Shakespeares
Henry V. Henrys St Crispin Days speech
before the Battle of Agincourt inspired his
outnumbered men, not with outlining battle
tactics nor skill practice but with an appeal to
their inner hope, pride and sense of identity.
For experienced coachees, this type of coaching can work wonders. Today, Nike has condensed the thought to their motto: Just do
it!
The advantages of coaching are many and
varied. Information is provided directly, is
relevant and usually done in the context so it
can be applied immediately. For the coach, it
may lead to such an increase in skills that
they can delegate some of their work to a
coachee. The disadvantages really reside with
the individuals involved. Some people prefer
more indirect feedback while others feel that
any correction is punishing. Cultural and
situational variables can play a great part as
well. Some people may lose face if coached
in a group setting. Also, hard coaching may
be seen as intimidation. And, obviously, the
feedback received may be biased, wrong or

[ 19 ]

David J. Veale and Jeffrey M.

Wachtel
Mentoring and coaching as
part of a human resource
development strategy: an
example at Coca-Cola Foods

Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AT LUCKNOW At 01:51 08 February 2015 (PT)

Leadership & Organization

Development Journal
17/3 [1996] 1620

based on style preferences rather than on

outcomes.

Summary
Coaching is a relationship activity designed
to increase performance. Generally, coaching
is informal and occurs between the boss and
the employee(s). Mentoring is a more formal
process, based on a one-on-one relationship
with someone distant in the organization.
While a mentor can use all of the coaching
types, their purpose is broader in scope than
that of a coach. Coca-Cola Foods believes that
both processes are an important part of its
human resource development effort and that
human resource development is a key to
building competitive advantage and to the
creation of a high-performing organization.
As stated previously, the struggle at CocaCola Foods has been to maximize and/or
optimize HRDs contribution to business
success. Because there is a great deal of evidence regarding the important contributions
which mentors make to career success, and
because Coca-Cola has tied both mentor and
coaching programmes to business goals, it
would seem that Coca-Cola Foods approach
is in line with both the scientific evidence and
with recent proponents of achieving competitive advantage through people (Pfeffer, 1994).

References
Bartlett, R.C. (1995), The mentoring message,
Chief Executive (USA), March, pp. 48-9.
Burgess, L. (1994), Mentoring without the blindfold, Employment Relations Today, Winter,
Vol. 21, pp. 439-45.
Burke, R.J. and McKeen, C.A. (1989), Developing
formal mentoring programs in organizations, Business Quarterly, Vol. 53, pp. 69-76.
Burke, R.J., McKeen, C.A. and McKeen, C.A.
(1991), How do mentorships differ from typical supervisory relationships?, Psychological
Reports, Vol. 68, pp. 459-66.

[ 20 ]

Clawson, J. G. (1979), Superior-subordinate relationships for managerial development,

unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard
Business School, Boston, MA.
Colborn, K. (1992), Mentoring today, diversity
tomorrow?, EDN, Vol. 37, 5 November ,
pp. 81-4.
Hunt, D. M. and Michael, C. (1983), Mentorship: a
career training and development tool, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8, pp. 475-85.
Jennings, E.E. (1971), Routes to the Executive Suite,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Kanter, R. M. (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Klauss, R. (1981), Formalized mentor relationships for management and executive development programs in the Federal Government,
Public Administration Review, Vol. 41,
pp. 489-96.
Kram, K. (1985a), Mentoring at Work, Scott,
Foresman, Glenview, IL.
Kram, K. (1985b), Improving the mentoring
process, Training and Development Journal,
Vol. 44, pp. 40-3.
Kram, E. and Isabella, L.A. (1985), Mentoring
alternatives: the role of peer relationships in
career development, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 110-32.
Morrison, A.M., White, R.P. and Van Velsor, E.
(1987), Breaking the Glass Ceiling,AddisonWesley, Reading, MA.
Pfeffer, J. (1994), Competitive Advantage through
People: Unleashing the Power of the Work
Force, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
MA.
Phillips-Jones, L.L. (1982), Mentors and Protgs,
Arbor House, New York, NY.
Scandura, T. A. (1992), Mentorship and career
mobility: an empirical investigation, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13,
pp. 169-74.
Stumpf, S.A. and London, M. (1981), Management
promotions: individual and organizational
factors influencing the decision process,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6,
pp. 539-49.

Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AT LUCKNOW At 01:51 08 February 2015 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Marcia S Hagen, Shari L Peterson. 2015. Measuring coaching: behavioral and skill-based managerial coaching scales. Journal
of Management Development 34:2, 114-133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Marcia S. Hagen. 2012. Managerial coaching: A review of the literature. Performance Improvement Quarterly 24:10.1002/
piq.v24.4, 17-39. [CrossRef]
3. Stephen Bowles, Christopher J.L. Cunningham, Gabriel M. De La Rosa, James Picano. 2007. Coaching leaders in middle and
executive management: goals, performance, buyin. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 28:5, 388-408. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
4. Earnest Friday, Shawnta S. Friday, Anna L. Green. 2004. A reconceptualization of mentoring and sponsoring. Management
Decision 42:5, 628-644. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Earnest Friday, Shawnta S. Friday. 2002. Formal mentoring: is there a strategic fit?. Management Decision 40:2, 152-157.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Philip H. Siegel, Alan Reinstein. 2001. An exploratory study of mentor relationships in large CPA firms. Scandinavian Journal
of Management 17, 421-436. [CrossRef]
7. Philip H. Siegel, James W. Smith, Joseph B. Mosca. 2001. Mentoring relationships and interpersonal orientation. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal 22:3, 114-126. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Richard Teare. 1997. Supporting managerial learning in the workplace. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 9:7, 304-314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Richard Stead. 1997. Mentoring young learners: does everyone really need a mentor?. Education + Training 39:6, 219-224.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. William Q. Judge, Jeffrey Cowell. 1997. The brave new world of executive coaching. Business Horizons 40, 71-77. [CrossRef]