THE INSIDER: More coaching please

In the distant past, I wrote an article for this site about producers not making good managers. Someone commented that this was because the calibre of top producers is so high that they can be left to deliver with a high degree of autonomy.

This is a very Adam Smith view of the world. While much of what Adam Smith wrote about the "invisible hand" aligning individual interests with collective interests is accurate, there are clear examples of where an Adam Smith approach is sub-optimal.

John Nash in the film "A Beautiful Mind" illustrated how in some circumstances behaviours that appear aligned with individual interests are both sub-optimal collectively and for the individuals. Nash's key insight was that there are clear instances where collaboration trumps individualistic behaviour, as famously highlighted in his "Prisoner's Dilemma."

Collaboration is not a trait for which investment bankers have historically been renowned, notwithstanding the continuing focus on cross-selling. A number of banks have put in place programmes and incentives specifically focused on driving collaboration and they have born some fruit.

However, collaboration could be better increased by giving bankers better guidance in how they fulfil their duties on a day-to-day basis. Instead, the current modus operandi is very much in the spirit defined by our commenter: putting the right body in the seat and relying on their intrinsic capabilities to deliver.

I find it hard to believe that we all could not be more effective with closer coaching, direction and instruction. I imagine this to be an anathema to many who will revolt against the slightest sniff of "micro-management" - particularly those who consider themselves experienced professionals.

Doing a job in banking, whether it is in sales, corporate finance, trading, or any other area, is no different than doing a job as a professional athlete - ultimately it all boils down to performance. Even the world's best professional athletes, both in individual sports such as tennis or golf or team sports such as rugby, football or cricket, receive intensive coaching - no matter how good they are.

Peter Sampras and Paul Annacone, Andre Aggassi and Brad Gilbert, Tiger Woods and Sean Foley, England Rugby World Cup winning team members have multiple coaches. These individuals are not just seasoned professionals, they are the very best in their fields. The individual athletes often employ these coaches out of their own pocket with the sole focus of making themselves better performers.

If these world class performers benefit from coaching, direction and instruction why not anyone else in more mundane jobs? Why not bankers?

I am not advocating a whole new layer of coaches in banks - to come full circle, this is the job of managers. What I am questioning is why managers don't do more direct coaching at all levels of seniority, not just to freshly minted grads, and perhaps more importantly why bankers are so loathe to receive advice on how to do their job better.