The mutual learning model is a theory that when used enables one to act with increasing effectiveness as a coach or facilitator.
Please listen to the podcast http://www.themulvaneygroup.com/2009/09/mutual-learning.html and i will be discussing how this approach to my work gets to the core of the issues presented in a productive and direct manner in the weeks to come.
Some final observations from Tom:
For C-level executives, having a coach is well on its way to becoming an accepted corporate practice. Since a certain level of credibility is automatically attached to an individual who has attained the position of CEO or COO, a coach is viewed as a valuable asset in propelling that successful executive to even higher levels of productivity.
Unfortunately, perceptions change when you progress down the corporate ladder. For vice presidents or managers, the suggestion to accept coaching may come with a certain stigma (or suspicion) attached:
“Is someone at the executive level trying to force me out, and using a coach as the vehicle?”
“Is my performance lagging behind?”
“Is my department’s output so dismal that outside reinforcement is necessary?”
For individuals who haven’t attained C-level status, an appointment with a coach can take on the ominous overtones of a summons to the principal’s office. It shouldn’t. A good coach is an invaluable asset. If you have the opportunity to work with one, you may find that activities as varied as strategic planning, on-boarding, and transitioning run a lot more smoothly.
If you’re sincerely seeking ways to improve your performance, on the job or off, don’t dismiss the benefits of engaging a professional, objective partner. Get yourself the best coach you can.
Last month, NewYork Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote about rewarding Wall Street high fliers who not only contribute little social value, but who actually engage in activities which are harmful to the common good.
Two activities Krugman addressed were Goldman Sachs’ practice of high-speed trading (the use of super-fast computers to buy or sell stocks a fraction of a second before anyone else can react), and oil and other commodity speculation by an arm of Citicorp. These two practices actually make everyone else poorer — poorer because the high-speed trading decreases profit possibilities for those who lack such technology, creating negative wealth for the majority, and the oil and commodities speculation has lead to soaring incomes in the financial industry, resulting in sharply rising income inequality.
Krugman argues for a broad range of financial practice regulations. He concludes his column with the statement, “Neither the administration, nor our political system in general, is ready to face up to the fact that we’ve become a society in which the big bucks go to bad actors, a society that lavishly rewards those who make us poorer.”
Reading Krugman’s piece, I began to ponder the definition of leadership. A great deal is written about leadership, yet much of it is vague, generalized, and based on opinion rather than on research. One of my favorite definitions is provided by the scholar, practitioner, and now academic administrator at Yale University, Robert Sternberg. Sternberg’s definition is concise, clear, and makes eminent sense for those who take the time to reflect on it.
This broad and encompassing definition? WICS. It’s an acronym for wisdom, intelligence and creativity, synthesized. I’ll get into a bit more detail about how Sternberg interprets the attributes of wisdom, intelligence, and creativity in future blogs.
Another aspect of “hardlines” hard choices and actions relates to what to do if you have a difficult manager. I have had my share of them and I wish I knew then what I know now. Although it is often best to leave such situations, many times it is not practical. Perhaps now so more than ever.
I helped my friend and colleague Gary Ranker with the information below in the interview below. I studied some many of these management types once I started doing psychological profiles and reviews for corporations and their potential new recruits.
I think you will find it of interest.
Sydney, www.afr.com
Recognizing your manager’s style can help you in your workplace, writes AFR Editor Fiona Smith.
Do you hate coming into work in the morning?
It is probably not the work you mind so much, but rather your boss is making your life a nightmare. Once you might have quit but, since the recession, you are probably stuck and you have to find a way to deal with it.
Research shows that one of the main reasons people leave their jobs is because of poor relationships with their managers or inadequate leadership. So with a tough job market, there are many people gritting their teeth and biding their time until they can make an exit. One way of making life bearable in the meantime is to ‘‘manage up’’, says US-based ‘‘corporate politics coach’’ Gary Ranker, who was visiting Sydney last week.
Ranker is a former president of Hallmark Cards in Germany who specializes in helping negotiate the power plays and emotional minefields that are unavoidable in almost any workplace. His clients include senior leaders at General Electric, Goldman Sachs and Sony. He says the most important element in managing your boss is to let go of your own ego.
‘‘Remember, it is not about you, it is about them,’’ Ranker says. This means allowing their bad behavior to wash over you while you watch them loose their heads. Don’t take it personally; try not to show emotion and work out how to best manage them. ‘‘More than anything, when you deal with someone who is problematic, take it seriously and try to look through their eyes – even if their view is distorted,’’ he says. ‘‘Try to think about how that person views the world, and how they view you. Begin to get inside them.’’
Then try to forestall their next ‘‘episode’’ by giving them the type of response that keeps their insecurities or other ‘‘inner demons’’ in check. Meanwhile, make sure you document every interaction in case you need to protect yourself in the future. This may mean sending them an email detailing your understanding of an instruction or proceedings during a meeting.
‘‘Maintain your sense of humour, it can help defuse a situation,’’Ranker says. If you want to directly tackle their behavior, talk to them about a specific incident as if it was all your fault, your inability to understand what was required by them. Tell them you are the type of person who needs more clarification from them, which means you are likely to avoid misunderstandings or being blindsided. Ranker says most of the dysfunctional managers he sees don’t see themselves as bullies; they describe themselves as ‘‘hard taskmasters’’ or ‘‘people who don’t suffer fools lightly’’. They sometimes tend to mean the same thing: bully.
Most are surprised when they learn what effect their behavior has on the performance of their organization – and they are more likely to be concerned about that.
Ranker gathered some strategies on how to manage some typically difficult bosses, with the assistance of some of his PhD students in management and psychology from the Marshall Goldsmith School of Management at the Alliant International University of San Diego, California.
If they are giving you a dressing down in front of others, go quiet. Don’t engage with them. Otherwise, avoid contact with them as much as possible and limit meeting times by scheduling them 15 minutes before they are expected elsewhere. Walk in with notes and take notes from your conversation so you don’t forget anything. Try not to talk to them when they are stressed. ‘‘What you don’t want to do is trigger any defences they already have,’’ says Ranker.
Give them more information than they ask for and unsolicited progress reports, which note the status or stage of completion on projects. This means they have less reason to peer over your shoulder. Micromanagers are usually control freaks, so be proactive and keep them fully informed.
Make like a psychologist and keep asking clarifying questions to help them understand what it is they want you to do. Those questions will also help you find out whether they favour one action over another. You can also tell them what the problem is and what you think the ideal solution is and they are likely to agree. Have a back-up solution in case they can’t agree to the first. There is a danger with this tactic, however, because if everything goes wrong with your idea, you make a handy scapegoat.
Do not appear threatening in any way. Do not withdraw or attack, it will only make things worse. Don’t acquiesce to their attacks, or you will mark yourself as an easy target and, if it is possible, let them know that you are not a threat to them. Avoid getting into arguments and don’t contradict yourself as it will only add to their paranoia. ‘‘Over communicate wherever possible and never surprise the boss,’’ says Ranker.
Don’t try to make them change their show-off behaviour or tell them how it makes you feel as they can’t empathize with you. Don’t criticize them because they will get angry or defensive. Don’t gossip about them, as they will have their spies. Exercise an unusual amount of tact to protect their fragile self image, esteem and worth and don’t try to correct them, unless it is literally a matter of great importance and urgency. If things go wrong with a project, accept responsibility and say you will do it differently next time.
This type of manager is just plain unpleasant. Make sure you document everything, don’t play dirty and make sure you have witnesses when you ask for feedback. Keep as much of your communications as possible in electronic form. Take care making alliances with your manager’s boss or clients, because it could be viewed as disloyalty.
Here’s another installment from Tom about our coaching work.
I’m an avid golfer. Before the days of digital cameras and email, I had a friend who spent about ten years on and off the PGA tour. He was an excellent golfer, and was always in the top five in driving distance. And even though his knowledge and ability were similar to the winners’, he never quite made it. I asked him why.
He replied, “It’s about the coaching.”
Seeing my quizzical expression, he elaborated.
“Tiger Woods and I both know the same stuff. Tiger travels with his coaches, and most professionals travel with one or more. I don’t. I have to videotape my game and send the tape back to my coach. By the time he gets it, views it, and gives me feedback, I have not only reinforced whatever I was doing wrong at the time, I’ve picked up something new to compound the problem!
“At the end of a round, a pro who travels with his coach goes to the driving range. The coach gives immediate feedback, so any errors can be corrected on the spot. The pro doesn’t carry those errors into the next day’s round. I, on the other hand, am left to my own self-assessment. And you can see how effective that’s been!”
The same holds true in business. Without a third party to help you assess your knowledge and skill against your ability to execute, it’s very difficult to stay on target. Continual self-evaluation of your own effectiveness can be exhausting (and fruitless). Get a professional to help you!
On the op-ed page of last week’s New York Times, Deborah Warner talked about racial identity in America, and how that identity affects whom we are and what we do.
She made some interesting observations – our racial identity has impacted the recent arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. at the hands of a white Cambridge police officer, and it has also driven some of the criticism of Sonia Sotomayor during her judicial confirmation hearings. Sotomayor’s critics refuse to concede that who we are, ethnically speaking, directly determines (at least in part) what we see, how we think, how we reason and how we react.
For now, many see and feel African Americans, Caucasians, Latinos, Asians and (any race not our own), as ’other.’
When I think of race, and how our feelings and attitudes about race are developed, two of those ethnically ‘other’ memories come into sharp focus. The first is that of myself as a young boy, visiting the South on our way to Florida, following the water cooler line for ’colored.’ The second is my long-ago visit to an integrated school in Evanston, Illinois. I was playing in the all city orchestra, and was struck by the sight of kids of all colors talking and playing together. I was drawn to the interplay among races, and was somewhat startled that they all interacted so well.
Since some part of who we are is conditioned by our race, couldn’t this conditioning have affected the Cambridge police officer as well? It seems that he assumed that the two ‘suspects’ at Gates’ home were African Americans. This, despite the fact that the woman who called 911 to report the incident described one of the men in question as ‘possibly Hispanic’ and was unable to see the other. The 911 recording backs up the caller’s statement — there was no mention of African Americans on the tape.
And perhaps our difficulty in dealing constructively and comfortingly with race issues was demonstrated on MSNBC yesterday. The network reported that during a weekend event in New England, Dr. Gates was able to poke fun at the interaction with the police officer who arrested him. The network broadcast a replay of Dr. Gates making jokes about helping the officer’s kids get into Harvard, “As long as he doesn’t arrest me again!”
Almost as an afterthought, the newscaster added that, following the incident in July, Dr. Gates has received death threats. The mainline network message here? “Let’s focus on the humor and downplay the discomfort of facing and discussing the violent responses that this incident has evoked.”
Hard lines, anyone?
Here’s a continuation of Tom’s comments from last week:
Time is a valuable commodity. Before I started coaching, my tendency was to think, “Is this going to give me a commensurate value for the hours I spend? I could be spending those hours working!”
What I learned is that it’s not just about the time I spend working, it’s about the effectiveness of that work. Failing to take the time to evaluate effectiveness is enormously costly in the long run. Coaching allows me to work on my productivity. It’s an investment any executive (or any other employee, for that matter) needs to make in him — or herself.
I honestly don’t understand why coaching isn’t more highly regarded as a profession. Athletes, actors, and entertainers all have an entourage of coaches. In the business world, however, there seems to be this sense that by the time you reach the executive level, you’re supposed to know everything. That’s ridiculous. And even if you know everything, you may not be the best at implementing it 100 percent of the time!
Several years ago, when I was on a business trip, I ran into Tiger Woods in the hotel gym. He wasn’t there by himself — he had a coach with him. The coach’s purpose was to observe how Tiger was executing, and provide immediate feedback. The same concept applies to the world of business. A coach helps you to observe how you’re executing. You can keep doing what works and correct what doesn’t. That way, you don’t end up with a lot of firmly entrenched, unconsciously created harmful ha
While I can tell you anything you’d like to know about coaching, sometimes it’s more fun and valuable to hear what the client has to say. I’ve decided to start a series of ‘Client Clips,’ where my clients can share some of their stories. Here’s the first, based on the experience of a financial executive I’ll call Tom:
I’m an executive in the financial industry. Initially, our business was doubling every 26 months, and we wanted to help executives at a level of Senior Vice President and above to evolve as the business grew. As a commitment to upper level management, the company hired an on-site coach. However, I had the opportunity to look outside, and my CEO referred me to Jim. What a partnership!
Jim is a student of his own profession. He’s always actively learning and growing. He gets the latest and greatest information — he doesn’t rely on some study that came out 20 years ago. That spirit of continuous updating of knowledge really gave me confidence in him, because he’s committed to his own excellence.
Lots of coaches can listen to you and tell you what to do. With Jim, the process is totally interactive. He listens, probes, and helps you to see for yourself where you want to change. He challenges me on my assumptions, and lets me vet my thoughts and find my fallacies.
One of my big challenges is my 16 years of experience with my company. Experience can be valuable; it can also be baggage. When you grow with the company, you can get pretty narrow in your thought processes. New staff comes on board with new ideas, and my response used to be something along the lines of, “We tried that six years ago and it wasn’t successful.”
Jim helped me to work through that mindset. I learned to balance my experience with a new openness — to consider how something that didn’t work in the past may have value now.
At a senior level, it’s not so much about being ‘right’ or being ‘wrong;’ it’s about getting better. Jim’s brilliant at helping me think through my behavior, and the opportunity costs to that behavior. It’s a chance to evolve my thinking!
Next week I’ll consider the question, “Is coaching worth the time it takes?”
Anonymity equals unaccountability.
Noted Yale surgeon and author Sherwin Nuland has written a new book, The Uncertain Art, which challenges the pandemic of unreflective reliance on technology in medicine. Dr. Nuland hopes that the human connection — interaction between doctor and patient — will be restored to its former position as the center of medical practice.
Sometimes I believe the same unreflective reliance on technology has engulfed corporate America. The technology employed in talent management replaces the more penetrating and valuable human connection. The knowledge that can be culled when coach, client, and key stakeholders interact far exceeds the bounds of a written report.
Unreflective reliance on leadership survey instruments has become pervasive. These surveys are usually based on stated core company behaviors or competencies identified by executives in conjunction with HR. (Both the instruments and the concept of core competencies seem to be losing their luster. I will cover more on this subject later this week.)
While these survey instruments are comprehensive in scope, they are, by necessity, rigid in design. Like a large meal that just won’t digest properly, 360-degree leadership surveys often offer the client more data that can possibly be absorbed in a single (or even double or triple) sitting. To compound the challenge, the data is often contradictory and confusing. And it can easily evoke defensive responses from the client, who sees only the written word. (If the stakeholders who evaluated the client were there to explain their perspectives, and seek the client’s understanding of those perspectives, the client would probably find stakeholders’ comments much more digestible.)
Over the years, I have been involved in 360-degree feedback projects using these rigid, standardized instruments. The client and the coach are given one to three sessions to review the computer-generated report and create an action plan for the client’s development. In the majority of cases, at least half that time is spent trying to understand the major themes of the survey, and often another 20 percent is spent on the client’s defensive responses to the report’s scores and stakeholders’ comments.
One can argue that having the coach meet only with the client, without feedback from peers, supervisors, and subordinates, limits the value of any development plan. Since this is probably true, why not ask key stakeholders to meet with the client, reframing the activity as a leadership learning interview, with the coach acting as facilitator? I have tried this several times, and it has worked wonderfully.
More to follow…
I recently met a female executive who was offered a major promotion to a senior executive leadership position. This promotion entailed jumping a level over her previous boss and garnering a massive increase in responsibilities. In addition, she would become the first female managing director of this multi-billion dollar international firm. She insisted on coaching as a prerequisite for accepting the position.
This is a very smart woman. She understood (rightly) that she didn’t yet have the management skills or the political savvy to succeed in this demanding new position. I am now coaching one of her direct reports. He was just promoted himself, and she insisted that he receive coaching as well. And he wants it, having seen how valuable coaching has been for his boss.
In addition to executive coaching, other resources to support executives in transition include mentoring or informal ‘buddy networks,’ orientation programs, customized assimilation plans and programs, and pre-employment activities.
Executives in transition, take note! Your organizations may not be providing you with the support and individual resources you need to meet expectations and succeed in your new position. And organizational leaders, take note! Failure to provide these resources and supports can cost you a fortune in direct and indirect costs.
According to a recent Booz Allen Hamilton study, global CEO turnover is running at roughly 15%, the highest percentage in a decade. Other studies indicate that 40% of new leaders fail within their first 18 months in a new position. Aon Consulting reports that there is a 50% chance an executive will quit or be fired within the first three years of a new job assignment.
These findings are reflected in a new study commissioned by the Alexcel Group and the Institute for Executive Development. For a full copy of the report, go to www.execinsight.com. In the spirit of full disclosure, please note that I am a member of the Alexcel Group and promoted the use of this study.
The study identifies a few key lessons for leaders: focus on early wins, while learning as much as you can about the corporate culture, what your team needs, whose opinion counts, and with whom you must create and maintain partnerships. And ultimately, while both business and people acumen are essential, failure tends to follow when the latter is ignored.
