Leadership Coaching

December 29, 2009

How to…. New Year’s Resolutions

Filed under: Leadership Coaching — richclarke99 @ 12:08 pm

Less than a quarter of Britons will achieve their New Year resolutions in 2010 because they go about it the wrong way, according to Professor Richard Wiseman. http://bit.ly/6vf1Gc

According to Professor Wiseman there are a set of strategies which work for the 22% who do achieve their resolutions. Great! No, not great that there are a set of strategies you can adopt, but great that 22% do actually achieve what they set out to do. My advice based on these findings would be different. This is because I suspect that the 100% pool of people in the research actually is composed of three types of people.

Type A – the goal achievers, this group generally achieve most of the things they set out to achieve, for the Type As goal setting is an effective life strategy. The sense of achievement is self reinforcing and if you want, you can use this to set yourself ever more stretching goals, with reasonable certainty (life’s unforseen events excepted) that you will achieve them. The 22% in professor Wiseman’s research probably all fell into this group. A good test of whether you are a type A - do you typically achieve your goals? If you are uncertain at this point, move on, you aren’t a Type A.

Type B – For the Type Bs, the New Year Resolution process is a fun and enjoyable game. You set yourselves interesting and topical resolutions. You might publish them on your blog, share them widely and engage in the initial steps (such as joining the gym). There is no way that you are going to achieve these resolutions, but you don’t care. For the Type B the only important factor is joining in with everyone else. Your memory of last years resolutions will be completely forgotten by the time next year comes around and the game starts all over again. You already have your strategy sorted, but for the Type Bs who want to be stretched a little in their game. Make your resolutions outrageous, your aim with your resolution is to pitch it right at the edge of believability. This means that some people won’t believe you. That’s fine, just as long as you have some believers the outrageous nature of your resolution will be far more satisfying for you. After all you have no intention of achieving it anyway… have you? ;)

Finally, Type C, – egged on by the pressures of the Type As and Type Bs you will be under considerable pressure to set yourself resolutions. This secretly conflicts with an underlying sense that there isn’t really anything you want to resolve to do that strongly. For you you probably would have done it already. But the Type Cs get sucked into the whole resoultion thing and take is seriously. The problem is that there will be real remorse when the resolutions aren’t kept. You will begin to doubt your own will power and ability to keep promises to yourself. This, like the inevitable hangover, will at some point in the following year make you feel bad about yourself. Your stategies for coping are more limited. If you can extract yourself from the whole resolution process, or perhaps find yourself a plausible excuse for when you are cornered about your resolutions. Something like “oh no, I didn’t make any resolutions this year, I am going to be too busy with my charity work this year and can’t afford to indulge in myself by making resolutions”. If this doesn’t work for you then I suggest that you too go bold. Find yourself a truly outrageous resolution. In fact it needs to be so outrageously challenging that no one will believe you have the slightest hope of achieving it. This way there will be no expectations that you will be successful, not even from yourself. You can then relax in the self knowledge that you have nothing bad to feel as your resolution was totally impossible for anyone to achieve. 

The more inquisitve amonst you, especially those who have continued to read down this far, may be asking what type am I? When I started off I decided that I was a Type A. However I suspect that there is a little of Type B and Type C in me too. So following my own advice, my outrageous resolution for this year is to set up a business with the aim of  working with the unemployed and helping them get in to meaningful and enjoyable employment. Check in with me next year to see which Type in me won out :) .

Whatever you do make 2010 a fulfilling and enjoyable year in whichever way works best for you.

Warren Buffett’s Coach

Filed under: Business Issues, Leader Development — richclarke99 @ 11:17 am

Recently Warren Buffett announced that Berkshire Hathaway would be making its largest acquisition yet. Burlington Railway in the US was moving 100% into the Berkshire fold. I was set to reflecting on the role of the Executive Coach in Warren’s life. I confess to not knowing whether Warren has or ever has had an Executive Coach. However I recognise a number of traits the he has developed within himself that are often on the agenda for my clients in our Executive Coaching sessions.

 

The BBC a few weeks ago ran an hour long documentary on the man from Omaha. I am working from memory rather than the transcript. I remember that he said the certificate that he keeps proudly on his wall doesn’t relate to his educational achievements, or accountancy or finance but rather a course he did with Dale Carnegie early in his career. Dale Carnegie came to fame for the classic book, “how to make friends and influence people”. I got the sense from Warren’s comment and the way that he made it that this was somewhat pivotal in his own development. This is something I see with many clients.

 

I am privileged to work with many wonderful clients, and I suspect that I probably learn far more from them than I believe they ever do from me. I find it quite scary that the more I learn, especially in connection with people and behaviour in general, the more I realise there is to learn. I haven’t quite got to accept that I am never going to get to the bottom of all life’s mysteries. My curiosity, especially when it comes to leadership and business performance still drives me to discover more and more.

 

Returning then to Warren, analysis of his acquisitions and investments inevitably focuses on his ability to assess intrinsic value; to take the longer term view and an ability to judge movements in markets hence investing favourably against market trends. But there is another aspect to this success that I see differentiates him, and it is here that I see the parallels with the type of work I do in developing leaders:

 

  • Putting judgements about people at the heart of his decision making: a fundamental philosophy of his strategy is to ONLY go into business with people who he likes, trusts and admires. He says he doesn’t get involved in the operation of the businesses acquired. And his comments about the managers of the businesses are uniformly positive and complimentary.
  • Independent thinking, which for him means avoiding business cravings, stated positions or management fads: there is an amazing openness and transparency in all aspects of the person and the business. He accepts that he hasn’t a clue what will be the next quarter’s performance (so not setting up a temptation to massage figures to expectations). He is clear that he doesn’t have a strategic plan (so there isn’t an ordained direction that then becomes owned by the individual and hard to back away from). He owns up to a lack of knowledge in many areas (so doesn’t get tempted to mess with operational management, investing in areas, like technology, in business models he doesn’t understand).
  • He is willing to own up freely and frequently to mistakes: The Berkshire Hathaway annual report is as full of the mistakes as it is of the successes. These mistakes include: the wrong businesses acquired, businesses held for too long before disposal or closure, problems within businesses that were procrastinated over for years before the right action was taken, purchases that were available but not made. In my experience this ability to own up to mistakes is invaluable to learning for the future.
  • Clarity around business ethics and personal morals that translate into business activity: on a wide range of topics Warren is outspoken in his view on sharing the whole picture in the accounts (rather than a favourable presentation benefitting management), appropriate approaches to executive compensation that are fair but not to the detriment of shareholders, the ability for his shareholders to contribute to charities which relate to their own personal choices and values (rather than company giving perse).

 

These are all topics relevant to many of the executive coaching sessions that we deliver in the AoEC. And as a result, Warren has created a kind of haven – a little like a reef that protects fish from the predators in the deep ocean. Some, like Goldman Sachs and GE bought themselves a ticket to enter this reef when the financial crisis was at its worst about a year ago. Others like Burlington have decided to move permanently within the protective confines of this reef. There they can focus on doing what they do best, operating and growing their businesses, without the complexity of allocating the capital they generate, this is a task that arguably, Warren does best.

November 2, 2009

Do women make better leaders?

Filed under: Uncategorized — richclarke99 @ 2:37 pm

This article was first submitted as part of one of my regular articles for a very popular top job site. They requested a different one because their readership (95%) are male. I have reprinted it here as it was submitted. I hope my male readers of the blog aren’t offended ;)

One of the most enjoyable and at the same time frustrating aspects of coaching is the opportunity to take a broader view of organisational life. Enjoyable because you see things from a higher perspective, like taking a helicopter ride over a city; you see streets and patterns you weren’t aware of from the ground. Frustrating too, because as a coach it is hard to address the injustices you see, except on a case by case basis.

This column is dedicated to one of those injustices. It is widely reported in the press that there is a scarcity of talent. Yet there is a massive talent pool which exists and yet is untapped. Recent figures show that whilst women make up 46.2% of the workforce, only 11% of managers in large organisations are women, 3.8% of executives and only 2.7% of the Fortune 500 top earners.

Several analyses and reviews of leadership research indicate that there are few differences between male and female leaders. Female leaders are as effective, or in some situations (requiring a more participative and less autocratic leadership style) more effective than male leaders.

The research does outline several barriers to the advancement of women leaders. These can be classified as organisational, interpersonal and personal. In particular, prejudice (male leaders assess women leaders more harshly than male leaders for example), male executive’s preference for gender similarity, non equivalent developmental assignments, lack of support and work/home conflicts are amongst the major barriers.

Yet organisations continue to fall foul of both making the most of their talent and the law!

“On the 18th July this year following a Review Hearing that took place in June, the Employment Tribunal announced its decision to uphold the decision of an earlier Employment Tribunal that Gillian Switalski had suffered sexual discrimination, victimisation and harassment whilst employed by City-based F&C Asset Management as the Head of Legal.”

The settlement claimed is in the region of £19million.

Organisational, it is more important to identify, track and support female talent. Internally organisations need to raise awareness of gender barriers.

For female leaders the 9 top tips would be as follows:

- express an interest in challenging development assignments

- make sure that you get line P&L roles in a variety of departments

- find influential mentors, attract top level support

- find topics of conversation that allows for building rapport

- focus on building relationships through projects rather than “pure networking”

- be discreet about sharing personal or confidential information

- find your own “voice” don’t be tempted to blend in and display strong entrepreneurial initiative

- focus on the job and follow what’s exciting

- face opposition with resilience and humour

Research Source: Northouse, Women and Leadership

October 14, 2009

Announcing the Hogwart’s MBA

Filed under: Business Issues, Leader Development — richclarke99 @ 2:50 pm

It is that time of year. Universities and business schools have welcomed their new intakes. I have often worked with students on their MBA courses. I find the youth, energy and generally positive outlook both refreshingly inspiring and invigorating. So I thought I would give something back, offering an alternative frame for viewing the studies undertaken during an MBA. What better way to tackle this, I thought to myself, than using Hogwart’s; that fictional school of Wizardry as a reference point. As I reflected on the topics studied at MBA I made my own links; please let me have yours.

Operations: this has got to be that magical subject of Transfiguration – the art of changing the properties of an object. At Hogwart’s this also includes switching spells altering only part of an object, vanishing spells and conjuring spells; creating objects from thin air. They have mastered the art of JIT (Just in Time) at Hogwarts. No need for long production lines. In fact the recent trend towards off shoring, where an email whizzes off an order to a factory, typically in China, only for the goods to appear, as if by magic, some time later, shows that the real world really is getting closer to the magical one.

Marketing: obviously this is Charms, the lesson that works on developing incantations for the uses of bewitchment. Charms are a type of magical spell concerned with giving an object, new and unexpected properties. For example washing powder; choose the right one and you too will have a harmonious and relaxing household. You can picture the adverts with happy smiling children and the mother who handles mud caked clothes with nothing more than a tilt of the head in mock condemnation. (In our household, now with five kids, neither washing powder nor charm spells seem to do anything to quieten the chaos).

Strategy: was there ever a better parallel between strategy and the magical art of divination? Divination is the art of predicting the future. Various methods are used: tea leaves (PESTLE analysis), crystal balls (Five Forces), dream interpretation (Scenario Planning)|, cartomancy (SWOT analysis), and the list goes on. It is described as “one of the most imprecise” branches of magic. Supporters claim that it is an inexact science that requires innate gifts (McKinsey). Those opposed claim the subject is irrelevant and fraudulent.

Economics: like Potions it seems that for economics to work, also requires the correct mixing and stirring of ingredients at the right times and temperatures. As a branch it is related to sciences (like chemistry) but with a more sinister twist (an art rather than a science). It is a most appealing subject and on the face of it appears that even muggles (the name for non magical people) could follow this subject. However, this is only an illusion, as according to Rowling (authoress) for economics (sorry potions) to really work there does come a point when you need to do more than stir.

Finance: closely aligned to Arithmancy, which is a branch of magic concerned with the magical properties of numbers. Neither of the heroes of Harry Potter take this subject, and whilst it is included in almost every MBA, non of the students I have worked with confess to either doing it, or if they are confronted with attendance records, confess to understanding it. Arithmancy is reportedly very difficult, as it requires memorizing or working with large numbers (like CEO reward packages).

And finally, Human Resources, the humanist in me draws the linkage with “Care of Magical Creatures”. This subject instructs students how to care for magical beasts (not just Union representatives but all of us, whom I believe, are truly magical). At Hogwarts the instructor, Hagrid a truly experienced and knowledgeable wizard, constantly misjudges the level of risk that the creatures (people) pose. Now this really is an instructive point for those of you just starting your MBA….

Thanks to wikipedia for the details of Hogwart’s subjects and Harry Potter related quotes.

September 22, 2009

Dilemmas in Talent Management

Filed under: Uncategorized — richclarke99 @ 8:13 am

I have noticed a couple of common themes, or problem areas in most organisations: Talent Management strategies and initiatives. In conversations with HR, L&D and in the line, nearly all agree that line managers play a critical role in motivating, retaining and developing their talent. Sadly they also acknowledge; most of their managers are not up to the job.

The second theme is that the practical task of identifying key talent within organisations is far more difficult than it sounds. It tends to be bedevilled by internal politics and favouritism, and whilst criteria can often be in place there isn’t much confidence that all the right people are identified.

The problem of the former often comes down to the lack of basic people skills amongst line managers. It seems that line managers struggle to have difficult and sometimes critical conversations with the people who report to them. They can also lack the fundamental understanding of the people development process, which is a vital part of any developmental conversation. No wonder then that the talented individuals leave in droves, their own managers can’t talk to them about what really matters and they can’t help them develop to the next step!

At the AoEC one of our popular interventions is a two and a half day course to help line managers have that critical conversation. And it’s not just about critical conversations; when the organisation needs to change, it needs its’ people to change. Changing behaviours and improving performance are both impossible without the support of the line managers. The problem is not that the line isn’t willing, it is just that they don’t have the skills to help coach people through the change. That’s why we keep busy.

The second problem: that of identifying talent; is different in nature. In our experience there is often an abundance of talent. We see a lot of very good people through our work in coaching across a variety of organisations. If anything this seems to increases year on year. Perhaps there is a parallel with the recently released GCSE results: standards are rising.

Our analysis of the problem would be somewhat different. There are a lack of leadership roles for talent to rise into! The world’s largest corporations are now operating at around 2 million employees (Walmart 2009 figures) and still have only one CEO. The opportunities are decreasing at the same time as the standards are increasing.

CIPD’s report earlier this year about the war on talent found: “Greater scrutiny is being placed on talent management systems and processes – this seems to be both from a return on investment perspective and also by placing greater emphasis on more robust and transparent criteria for the selection and development of high-performing individuals. ”

The resulting tensions require HR to find resolution. The use of forced normal distributions (where assessing managers are required to have 50% of their team better than an arbitrary middle grade, say “Good” and 50% better) for assessing people during performance appraisals is one such solution. It does however send a negative message and systemically inhibits a culture where standards can be constantly raised. Which organisations really want 50% of their staff to be performing at less than good!

There is a role here for the coach operating within organisations. Ensuring that the deployment of 360 degree feedback, an immensely powerful tool for developmental conversations, and psychometric tests are ONLY used as development aids and NOT as levers to justify delays in progression. Fortunately, such abuses, at least amongst our clients, are rare. At the heart of this debate is the issue of trust. It is critical for any executive coach to be able to build a bond of trust with their client, and for the organisation to support this. That is why when we engage in coaching, the contract of confidentiality and working to a code of ethics features so highly. This is something with both our coaches and in our training programmes.

Trust is essential in any type of work developing individuals, it is even more important with a coach, who sits in a privileged position with his clients.

This post was published in Goldjobs here http://www.goldjobs.com/news/Content.asp?Topic=Articles

September 1, 2009

Book review: Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers

Filed under: Business Issues, Leader Development — richclarke99 @ 6:40 pm

Malcolm Gladwell is author of bestsellers Tipping Point and Blink. He also writes for the New Yorker and previously the Washington Post

What is an outlier?

An outlier is any person who achieves out of the ordinary success. Within businesses there are some similarities between outliers and what organisations call their talent. Malcolm’s book takes a wider look at all outliers, students, musicians, business and sports.

Malcolm uses a variety of sources and stories to illustrate three key themes when it comes to “outlier” performance:

• Innate talent,  doesn’t account for success, success is a result of opportunity and preparation (training).
• Opportunity often arises through arbitrary, unplanned and unexpected circumstances.
• Cultural legacy is frequently important factor in understanding “outlier” performance.

Innate talent does not account for success

A study of violinists and pianists carried out by a psychologist called K. Anders Ericsson showed that the only difference between elite, good and OK performers aged 20, were the hours that they had practiced. The elite all had practiced a total of 10,000 hours. There were no “innately talented” individuals in the elite group who hadn’t practiced the 10,000 hours, neither were there any good performers who had worked the 10,000 hours but not broken through to the top group.

Malcolm carries this 10,000 hour rule into other spheres. Bill Gates and the Beatles were two of the examples within the book. He argues that Bill Gates had the unique opportunity to indulge in computing at the very start of the computer revolution, an opportunity that was not available to others (to any scale). Secondly, the Beatles had a unique opportunity to rehearse and play, building up their 10,000 hours in Hamburg in the critical formation stage of the band. This opportunity coincided with TV and other promotional opportunities.

Opportunity as a factor in selection

Malcolm draws upon several selection processes that are skewed, limiting unintentionally the talent that they select. Some examples: Canadian Ice Hockey, Czech football players, and academic results. The consequences of selection of people within a skewed pool at an early age, for example based on the date of birth, leads to preferential opportunities being provided to those initially selected, who for reasons of age would be better (12 months makes a big difference in physical or mental maturity when you are 8!).

Cultural legacy can be a big factor in outlier performance

• Lawyers who specialised in company takeovers, after they were excluded from mainstream practices because of their background, they became key players after the market changed.
• Individuals from a rice based agriculture, who have a deeper and more ingrained work culture meaning they work harder in school and achieve better results in maths.
• The lack of tolerance to insults in a region of the US, because they have a cultural legacy from an honour based ancestry in the Scottish highlands.
• Plane crashes caused because of the cultural deference of the co-pilots to their Captain and external authority that was unexpected by those who wrote the flying rules and procedures.

The role of intellectual IQ and the concept of threshold

Malcolm agrees that whilst IQ is a valid indicator of a certain level of success: for example achievement at the different academic levels of schooling. Above a certain threshold there is no link to outlier performance in academia. Malcolm draws on studies of individuals with “genius” IQs who fell well short of expectations. He also noted that whilst Harvard alumni has the pick of “perfect scoring” graduate entrants, they performed relatively poorly in Nobel prize recognition from their students. (Interestingly even in the business world University of Wisconsin has as many Fortune CEOs as does Harvard.)

Some tentative suggestions for leaders and managers of businesses (some of my conclusions here too!)

1. The critical factor in identification of talent within organisations is probably more linked to the 10,000 hours than other factors.
2. Constant and continuous training is key to performance.
3. Avoid being influenced by tests, other than as a threshold measure. Exceptional performance in tests seldom translates to exceptional performance.

The book

Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers: The Story of Success

July 29, 2009

How relevant is performance coaching for senior executives?

Filed under: Business Issues, Leader Development, Leadership Coaching, Leadership Issues — Tags: , , — richclarke99 @ 4:23 pm

I am often asked about links between coaching and “business benefits”. When the coaching in question is connected with a simple task or activity the benefits are relatively straight forward to ascertain. There are several well documented studies showing that coaching provided in support of acquiring a new skill or knowledge assists in the absorbtion of the knowledge and acquisition of skills. In fact the improvements of training + coaching over training alone are so remarkable you have to question any L&D strategy that doesn’t follow it’s training with coaching interventions! In this context I would include activities such as “sales”, “people management”, “customer service” and “presentation skills” as typical simple activities. These are all tasks that can be broken down into measurable competencies.

The picture however gets a lot muddier when you attempt to infer similar results with roles which are of the more senior, leadership and general management types. These roles don’t break down so neatly into measurable competencies. Leadership itself has thousands of definitions and approaches many of which aren’t even compatible with one another. Furthermore, a major component of assessment in these roles is often based on business performance, for the business or business unit which is controlled or led by the role in question. In the complex world of business, certainly for businesses which compete in markets, there is an argument that the major factor affecting business results is “luck” and is hardly, if at all influenced by the senior executive in question. Whilst this might feel an extreme viewpoint to some of you, and the perhaps more popular press seem to delight in blaming the leaders of our financial institutions for the current financial crisis. A crisis that has led to widespread failure of many of the world’s top financial institutions (albeit many have been rescued by national governments). I don’t believe they had the slightest element of control over the outcome. In the same vein I believe they have little control over the success their organisations enjoyed either. They were purely lucky to be in the right place/role at the right time – or as recent happenings show, their luck ran out rather earlier than expected.

So what about business justification of coaching for executives? If coaching’s role, like the executive themself, is marginal, it would be hard to claim any credit for business performance (unlike for example a sports coach or coaching for less senior task related roles). Here are some of my suggestions of the benefits:

- coaching plays a cathartic role easing organisational stresses and strains
- coaching helps executive ‘find themselves and their purpose’ reducing burnout and supporting self motivation
- some senior executives can be difficult, awkward, status seeking individuals thus creating unproductive stress and tension in team members and colleagues, coaching increases awareness and facilitates change
- when change is both necessary and desirable, coaching changes individuals, so it can provide widespread support of change initiatives.

June 19, 2009

Coaching or mentoring? And does it matter?

Filed under: Leadership Coaching — richclarke99 @ 1:47 pm

How would you define the difference between executive coaching and mentoring?

Coaching and mentoring are not new activities. Perhaps what is new is the extent to which they are being adopted within the workplace as an enabler for changing the way in which people do things at work. Organisations are after all a collection of people doing tasks, and as organisations attempt to change, so do the needs for people to change within those organisations.

So there has been this explosion of interest and growth in these two services within the business world. With it has been a corresponding growth in the number of practitioners and providers of the services. Whilst it might seem a somewhat semantic exercise to attempt to separate the two by definition, there are several good reasons for this attempt to bring clarity:

· Several National and International Bodies are working to bring common standards to the practices of coaching and mentoring. So it is important to be clear, what activities are the standards relating to!

· The purchasers of services within the business world frequently look for specific outcomes. So it is important that there is a match between the requirement and service provided. Definitions serve a role here to help bring that clarity and facilitate the match.

· An important aspect for an individual coach/mentor’s professional development is the clarity about what type of interventions and in which situations they are competent to work. Here too a definition will help with this process.

The two activities, whilst having their differences also have much in common. Both activities enable and support learning to happen. In fact many practitioners use the words interchangeably, coaching and mentoring is used as a broad title to encapsulate this learning process. Mentoring organisations1 are keen to broaden their definition, often claiming that coaching is nothing more than a sub-set of mentoring. And coaching organisations, like the International Coaching Federation (ICF) define coaching broadly the other way, for example as:

“partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential.”

So what are the differences?

Broadly speaking, coaching is a process where the coach is not typically giving ‘advice’, so superficially they are not required to have any specialist experience within the area in which their client requires support. However, in practice it can be very difficult to ask the right questions without at least a basic knowledge in the area of support. Also initial credibility with the client is easier if there is some form of track record or experience. Undoubtedly though, the coaching skill is in questioning and listening and the coach’s role to enable the individual to find answers within themselves. Some people draw a comparison with the Socratic method.

Conversely, mentors will typically have an expertise within a particular field, or on a particular journey (through life, career or role) and have a wide ranging and recognised wealth of experience within the field in which they are advising and supporting others. However here too mentors require good influencing skills (including questioning and listening) otherwise their advice will be like dust blowing in the wind.

Many times coaching can be an intervention which is designed to assess and improve a particular area (often linked to some form of performance) and so it concentrates on specific issues which are identified with goals with clear outcomes.

Mentoring, meanwhile is more usually delivered as part of a wider development plan or perhaps on induction to a company or new role. It can therefore form part of a longer term professional development path, which opens doors, shares experiences and widens individuals’ networking systems. So it can in a sense be less ‘defined’ than the outcomes specified for coaching.

Coaching engagement will often be a ‘time bound’ relationship with a defined duration to meet the specific goal identified. Individuals will often use the same coach to support them with different issues.

Mentoring relationships can go on for a long time, seeing progress through many stages and often survive through numerous relocation and career changes.

How do these play out in the executive space?

The purpose of the remainder of this article is on a hypothesis that there is an activity in mentoring executives which is distinctive from an activity of coaching executives, and there is also an activity which could be called both coaching and mentoring.

What would executive coaching encompass, that is distinct from executive mentoring, and what do they share?

Based on our previous definition, the executive coaching process could potentially involve someone who has not previously been an executive, but who is working with an executive on improving some particular aspect of their role and perhaps something related to performance, or overall business performance. The relationship would be time bound, for example an agreed number of sessions.

So the part that is exclusively executive coaching, would relate to a part of the executive role. The executive role isn’t easily split down into simple competencies and skills. However, there are some major areas which are held to be linked to performance, interpersonal skills, leadership skills, learning about the industry, and networking are but a few of the examples of fields for an executive coach.

How about our executive mentor? What is exclusively their domain? A discussion about what it is like operating in a board environment, introductions to key players in the city, the mentor sharing their experience of coping with the stresses and strains of operating at the highest level. All of these would be outside the scope of your executive coach operating solely on that activity.

The final area then is the overlap between the two: where the executive coaching and executive mentoring worlds meet. This would perhaps mean working specifically on the developmental journey of the executive. This would need to be underpinned with a good understanding of the executive and business environment as well as working with some models for individual development, also perhaps with a leadership developmental model. Many with a background or knowledge of psychology and/or counselling have therefore been drawn to this world. According to some2 in this world, development is only achieved through relationship, so our executive coach/mentor needs to be able to connect real time in relationship for growth to occur.

This would certainly be supported by the approach to leading organisations who train executive coaches. I sit on the Board of the AoEC, and that organisation’s experience from training over 500 executive coaches is that to be effective as a coach you need to understand how you work, to be able to explain your own theoretical underpinnings and to demonstrate this to your peers. This in fact is the basis of their accreditation which is supported by both the ICF and the EMCC (European Council for Coaching and Mentoring).

Case study – executive mentoring

Bill is a 52 year old Finance Director. Bill has just been promoted to his new role and to the Board of his FTSE listed company. Bill’s previous role’s as head of management accounting, FD of one of the subsidiaries and head of internal audit have given him a range of different experiences and exposures within the company. Bill is very competent professionally, has a long track record within his company and is confident he will be successful but his exposure to the Board and to the City has always been on the periphery or as number 2. John, Bill’s 65 year mentor has previously served on three Plcs as FD and has a breadth of experience of what being in that role means. Their conversations, since Bill has known about his promotion have been open and frank. They are pricipally about helping Bill succeed in his new role. John shares his experiences, provides tips and suggestions and is always available on the phone or via email for useful snippet of advice.

Case study – executive coaching

Frank is a 42 year old CEO of a technology company. Frank’s background was primarly in sales and marketing across a variety of companies in the technology sector. He is driven, intelligent and has a very impressive record of success. On his appointment, the Board, whilst agreeing him as the best choice to take the company forward, experienced a couple of minor reservations. These were identified during their reference checks and concerned his sometimes brusque attitude with other people (typically direct reports) and his somewhat limited leadership styles. Frank, to his credit accepted both criticisms and had himself identified these as topics he would like to develop. In his first session (of six agreed sessions) with Stephen, his executive coach, they identified “the use of stories as a tool for communicating within leadership” and “reacting under pressure to poor performance from subordinates” as specific coaching areas. Stephen has guided Frank towards some resources he has been aware of in these areas and Frank has committed to undertaking his own research and reading between coaching sessions. Within their session Stephen actually give’s Frank direct feedback on how their interactions are together as a resource for them to both explore. Especially concerning what triggers Frank’s brusque behaviour. The combination of reading, direct feedback and exploration “in the moment” improve Frank‘s awareness of his own style, approach and behaviours. He becomes aware of how he impacts others in a way that he has never had before in his life. This in itself provides the basis for Frank to change and increase his flexibility as a leader.

  1. International Mentoring Association http://www.mentoring-association.org/DefM&Coach.html
  2. Carl Rogers

June 9, 2009

The role of struggle in growth

Filed under: Leader Development, Leadership Coaching — admin @ 11:32 am

I have been curious about the topic of struggle for a while. In fact you could say I have been struggling with it! I decided the only way forward is to post something, but I remain convinced that this is a topic I will return to.

In my straw polls on the role of struggle (a question asked mainly of coaches I confess) there wasa  vast array of responses. Ranging from, “never come across it”, to “I am working on it now, I want it out of my life because when I tell myself I am struggling I realise that I am stuck”.

I wondered whether I concurred with Napoleon Hill when he said: “Strength and growth come only through continuous effort and struggle.” This certainly seems to concur with my experience with sports training. You increase the load and the struggle to achieve/to keep up leaves you stronger (after the necessary recovery of course). I think Toynbee would have concurred also; I recall he said that successful civilisations were those that responded to a series of continual external challenges (and often geographical ones as well).

Here perhaps is some insight. The word “challenge” has perhaps more positive connotations. In my twitter search test, the word is certainly used considerably more often. However, challenge is the external part, isn’t the internal experience of challenge struggle?

“Eddy Merckx (cyclist 5 Tour de France wins and 5 Giro d’Italia)  wasn’t invincible, although in retrospect his results make it look like he was. Life was a constant struggle for him.” Procycling.

Perhaps then all top performers learn to welcome struggle (nè invite struggle) into their lives and get better at dealing with it? This also aligns with the definition of being human, by one of my favorite people authors (read New Peoplemaking if you are interested) Virginia Satir. Her definition of  a human being living humanly:

“…a physically healthy, mentally alert, feeling, loving, playful, authentic, creative, productive human being; one who can stand on his own two feet, who can love deeply and fight fairly and effectively, who can be on equally good terms with both his tenderness and toughness, know the difference between them, and therefore struggle effectively to achieve his goals.” [Emphasis in bold is mine]

Then there is the dark side of struggle: Mein Kampf, in English: means My Struggle, and is a book by Adolf Hitler, which combines elements of autobiography with an exposition of Hitler’s political ideology.

Finally, lets turn to a definition, or two:

1 : to make strenuous or violent efforts in the face of difficulties or opposition <struggling with the problem>

2 : to proceed with difficulty or with great effort <struggled through the high grass> <struggling to make a living>

It seems to me that struggle is good in your life, provided that it is just enough and not too much and of course, between the various struggles you take time to recover, rebuild and strengthen!

June 1, 2009

April Book Review – Good to Great Jim Collins

Filed under: Business Issues — richclarke99 @ 7:31 pm

Jim Collins is a teacher of executives in private, public, and social sectors.

 

What were their conclusions about what made a great company?

 

  1. Different leadership. GTG leaders were personally humble, somewhat reserved, professionally willed and focussed on building a great company, rather than a personal brand or profile for themselves.
  2. Judgements of the “right” people preceded other decisions. Before building visions and strategies they focussed first on getting the right people together. (Note: whilst there is not a definition of right people, there was a focus on making these judgements). Mini conclusions: when in doubt don’t hire, when there is a people problem act quickly, best people on best opportunities.
  3. Light at end of tunnel, as well as recognising the dark! GTG companies openly acknowledged the challenges in their current situation. They also knew they would prevail and overcome.
  4. Pursuit of passion, economics and what they can be best at. There was a shift in the GTG companies to a different core key metric: eg. from profit per product line to profit per employee. The choice of business aligned with the passion and values eg. cost-effective healthcare.
  5. Discipline an important part of the culture. The GTG companies rigorously pursued the aims without lots of hierarchy or heavy bureaucratic rules.
  6. Technology to support the journey, rather than technology per se.

 

Which are Jim’s good to great (GTG) companies?

 

They looked at established US companies, with a listing on the stock market. They chose companies that were initially delivering stock returns (capital growth of share price and dividends paid) similar to the market average and then transitioned into a company that’s improvement showed a dramatic shift. They defined dramatic shift as one whose returns were 3 times greater than the stock market average growth for at least 15 years. This led to 11 GTG companies being identified: Abbott, Circuit City, Fannie Mae, Gillette, Kimberly-Clark, Kroger Company, Nucor, Philip Morris, Pitney Bowes, Walgreens and Wells Fargo.

 

Given the complexity of business how did they discover what made these companies special?

 

For each company in the GTG list they identified a comparator company (selected for its similarity on many factors, eg. industry, size, date of foundation etc.). They also identified a small list of companies that had similar stock returns for a period, but didn’t sustain this growth. Then they interviewed, researched from press articles and examined a variety of aspects of how the companies were run, looking for patterns in the comparator companies that were different with the GTG companies.

Criticism about the approach?

 

  1. I wondered how easy it would be to replicate the results. It is a shame that there wasn’t an attempt to model or perhaps research companies with similar approaches who didn’t succeed.
  2. A feature of the research is that all the GTG companies entered into their transition in the same historical period. I wondered whether this meant that the study picked up on a couple of early historical shifts which these companies were the early adopters? The implication being that today some of the reasons for becoming great are already widely adopted and no longer a differentiator.
  3. Many of the interviewees, often CEOs of GTG companies, attributed a large part of their success to “good fortune”. The research comments appeared to attribute all success to cause and effect explanations. I wonder just how much of the success was, in fact, due to random events?

 

So what lessons could we draw?

 

I don’t believe that you can follow formulaically the findings from this book and create a great company, however:

  • At the heart of the journey to Great was a relentless and disciplined pursuit of the “best” commercial model for the business. What would this pursuit look like in your business? Are you focussing enough time and attention on this aspect?
  • A lot of the differentiators seemed to concern the “softer and people” side of the business. Are you focussing enough attention in your business to the people aspects? Is there enough attention to: developing leaders, supporting a  culture which works with the business, better interpersonal connectivity within individuals within the business and supporting leaders and managers in honing their ‘assessment of people’ skills?
  • In people selection process, rate higher factors relating to: attitudes, character and culture. When you have chosen the right people, then find the best roles for these people.
  • Adoption of technology, or management practice needs to be driven by the “commercial model” goal, not the other way round!

 

After thought

 

Creating a “Great Company” is near the bottom when it comes to inspiring leadership stories or visions. So what story or vision will you weave to get people on your bus? 

 

The references

The book Good to Great is easy to read (read it). Online research around the book can be gained from Jim’s web-site http://www.jimcollins.com/lib/articles.html.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress