Forbes: Executive Coaching From Prince Hal

By Nigel Roberts, London Correspondent, INSEAD Knowledge

3/12/2013

When Shakespeare was writing there were no corporations, no managers and certainly no courses in leadership.  Jung and Freud hadn’t been born and the academic disciplines of organisational change and employee engagement were not on the curriculum of the few ancient universities that existed in the 16th century. Yet the Bard managed to capture some universal truths about human nature and the complex way that individuals relate to each other which can provide useful lessons for today’s corporate leaders.

Increasing numbers of companies are using the plays of Shakespeare as templates for change. The dilemmas of ancient Kings and Princes provide a fresh perspective on the challenges facing CEOs in the 21st century.  Henry V is a case study in leadership and how to create loyalty. The Tempest a template on how to manage change without destroying the very thing you are trying to create. Julius Caesar an object lesson in how not to build a team.

All the challenges faced by today’s executive were pre-empted and laid bare by Shakespeare many centuries ago. When Henry V delivers his famous Crispin Crispianus speech on the eve of the battle of Agincourt, he is faced with a dilemma familiar to many managers: how to persuade a recalcitrant workforce of foot soldiers and untrustworthy middle managers (his noble lords) to go into battle with the French competition and put their lives (jobs) on the line.

That was the challenge facing a U.S.-based client who had a serious problem with its European operation. Poor performance and a need to cut costs meant that they dispatched the global IT director to restructure the division. The director had prepared a rational justification for the closure which made perfect sense in the Midwest of the U.S. but was likely to be explosive in Europe.

Hal’s Leadership Lessons

His prepared text for a company meeting shared many similarities with George W. Bush’s rhetoric in the ‘Axis of Evil’ speech. Here was a midwestern cowboy shooting from the hip and telling those pesky Europeans to get off the ranch. That might play well in the Midwest but would fail to impress in Europe.

Instead of modelling himself on George W. we reframed and rewrote his address to his troops by looking at Henry V’s call to action before the battle of Agincourt. We made him realise, that like Hal, he faced an almost impossible task. Trying to persuade his men to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the company required a fundamental change to their mindset. Many of Hal’s soldiers faced certain death. Some of his workforce faced certain redundancy. How do you sell that? Certainly not by shooting from the hip and telling them they had no choice. He had to persuade not just order them to do what he wanted.

We deconstructed Hal’s Crispin Crispianus speech, examined the clever rhetorical devices that appealed to people’s emotions, and then reconstructed a presentation that pushed all the right emotional buttons with the audience. By crafting a call to action that focused on the positives rather than the negatives and appealed to a higher calling than individual self-interest, he managed to persuade them to accept the restructuring. A similar process was adopted in developing the messaging and strategy for negotiations with a pugnacious Works Council. The end result was a seamless restructuring with no sabotage or industrial action. He won a battle that he had looked like losing.

The reason why exploring the characters created by Shakespeare can help 21st century corporate managers perform better is partly because it gives them a fresh perspective on their challenges which helps them to reframe their response to events. But the other reason is that it provides a narrative that helps to communicate more effectively with their stakeholders. Don’t just transmit information and hope it is received and understood – weave that information into a story and it is more likely to persuade people to behave the way you want them to.

Telling Tales

I would argue that most companies fail to communicate effectively because they don’t tell their story effectively. They present information but fail to have a meaningful conversation.  As another playwright George Bernard Shaw said, “The problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”

Most companies generate a huge volume of internal and external communication with no way of knowing whether it has been received and understood. One client told me: “We’re very good at cascading information down through the company but as a management team we’ve never acquired the habit of listening. Listening and watching the lessons of Shakespeare has made me a better a better story teller and manager.”

Storytelling is the heart of communication. From the cave painters through Greek myth to the fiction factory of Hollywood, people have sought to make sense of their world by developing a compelling narrative. This serves not just to record where they have been but also to help work out where they want to go.

No executive or organisation can afford to ignore the power of storytelling. No other narrative structure can move hearts and minds in the way that a well crafted story can. Whether you are making a corporate presentation, holding a press conference, communicating strategy or leading your company in a competitive environment, stories help you engage your audience.

Stories are part of our collective unconscious.  Jung argues that, in addition to our personal unconscious (a unique personalised psychic dumping ground for all our experiences, anxieties, neuroses and repressed thoughts) we all also share the same template in the form of archetypes, which help us understand and explain the world in which we live. The collective unconscious is rather like the operating system on our computer and it is by exploring those archetypes in the plays of Shakespeare, that corporate leaders can enhance their rational and analytical core competencies.

But it’s not just individual executives who can benefit from lessons by the Bard. Companies have souls and personalities too which are made up of rational conscious processes and subconscious archetypal cultural energy. Therefore Shakespeare can be used to improve the performance of teams.

It is a sad truth of corporate life that most mergers fail to deliver shareholder value. There is much talk of cost synergies, but these often fail to materialise because cultural differences between the different personalities of the merging organisations clash and subvert the process.

Rough Magic

The Tempest is a good model to help reframe an organisation’s approach to mergers and cultural change and also to build more efficient teams.  As a business case study it operates on many different levels and Shakespeare provides Jungian insights into political and organisational dynamics.  Prospero uses his “rough magic” (soft leadership skills) to challenge and subvert his estranged brother and his court who wash up on the shores of his “island of mystery” (newly merged organisation).You can chose your friends but you are stuck with family in the same way that many executives are stuck with an uncooperative management team post-merger.

The sheer volume of unfocussed and external communication in the corporate world calls to mind another Shakespearean quote. “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Explore the characters and stories of Shakespeare and I guarantee that your communication will mean something and give you “….a muse of fire that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention”. Now that’s something you won’t find on an email or PowerPoint presentation.

S + B: Building the Skills of Insight

Recently read an excellent piece on 'reading conversations' for clues. Invaluable for leaders, effective for intuitive leadership, these are great insights for Coaches as well, to make more meaningful dialogues.

To eminent systems therapist David Kantor, learning to recognize the hidden patterns in conversation is the first step toward more effective executive leadership.

by Art Kleiner

Every once in a while, you meet someone who really knows how to “read a room.” This is the individual, usually a seasoned executive leader, who can walk into a tense meeting and sense why two would-be collaborators are butting heads, why a third manager hardly speaks, and why a fourth seems to be protecting some unspoken priority. Then, with a few words, the room-reader can defuse the problem, get people back on track, and move the team to a new level of productivity. When this type of work is done with an executive team, it can have invaluable impact, rippling out to the rest of the organization. At all levels, the ability to read a room and act accordingly is considered a rare and special gift, innate and not teachable. Many people who have this gift admit that they don’t know how to teach it to others.

But one man has built his career around trying to help people track their conversational interactions, understand the hidden dynamics in them, and learn how to intervene effectively. David Kantor was an innovative family therapist based in Cambridge, Mass., when, in the 1980s, he began meeting regularly with a group of noted organizational thinkers at MIT’s Sloan School of Management. Kantor had the idea that the patterns he had seen in families—the recurring ways that people became stuck in groups, or fell into particular types of emotional turbulence when faced with a grave or urgent problem—might also apply to executive teams in businesses and other organizations.

Kantor began explicitly studying and coaching senior leaders, taking extensive notes on every interaction, trying to discover the combination of factors, as varied as an individual’s emotional and family history and the dynamics in the organization around him or her, that would lead some people to crack under pressure and others to thrive. Over the years, in part through working with such organizational learning experts as Peter Senge, Edgar Schein, and Chris Argyris, he’s become an influential theoretician of individual and group behavior. (He is currently launching a series of empirical studies on measuring and changing leadership behavior with the Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology.)

His book, Reading the Room: Group Dynamics for Coaches and Leaders (Jossey-Bass, 2012), assembles 40-plus years of organizational research and practice into a guide to conversational cues and meanings, with particular relevance for management interactions and executive teams. Kantor makes the case that being attuned to the signals of a conversational system—an approach he calls “structural dynamics”—is the first step toward becoming a far more prescient and effective leader. He met with strategy+business at his Cambridge office to explain the way it works.

S+B: You suggest, in your book, that most leaders need a better model of human systems. Why is that?

KANTOR: In any situation, unseen, unspoken connections among people influence everything that happens. Leaders are typically not aware of these connections, and they can’t be, unless the right conceptual lens is available. The model I’ve developed over the years is a schema for understanding how people talk while they are making decisions together. It’s actually two models—one describing everyday situations, and one for high-stakes situations like crises and conflicts. People behave differently under extreme conditions; there are breakdowns in communications, and things can move forward only if people can overcome those breakdowns. The decisions you make under that pressure are what define you as a leader.

The model is based on work I’ve done with groups—first with families, couples, and teenagers, and then with organizational teams and companies. I’ve been able to observe and track enough conversations in enough contexts that I think I have discovered a universal theory of the structure of communication. The theory suggests that communication can be deliberate; that leaders can measure and understand their impact (and everyone else’s impact) in any context where people make decisions. They can also design their own conversations to generate success or failure.

S+B: What do you mean by designing a conversation?

KANTOR: Every conversation is made up of individual acts of speech: statements and questions. The speech act is my basic unit of analysis. Every speech act can be categorized as having one of four types of action (being a mover, opposer, follower, or bystander); one of three types of content (power, meaning, or affect); and one of three types of paradigms, or rules for establishing paradigmatic legitimacy (open, closed, or random). These categories combine into 36 different categories of speech acts: the building blocks of human interaction. They can be deliberately sequenced to set the direction of a conversation. Intervening with the right speech act at the right moment can catalyze a shift in thinking or action for everyone in the room.

I’ve worked with a number of organizational experts on this, and they’ve put the model under a lot of scrutiny during the past few years. There’s a basic skepticism, especially in the fields of economics and psychology, as to whether behavioral interventions actually produce results. This model allows us to test that question. You can train a team—let’s say a business executive and a group of direct reports—to explicitly shape their language according to this model. They can experiment with speech acts and see whether they produce higher performance or a change in the right direction.

S+B: What’s the difference between, say, a mover, an opposer, and a bystander?

KANTOR: First of all, they’re not categories of people. Although everyone has speech acts that they use more frequently than others, nobody is completely a mover, opposer, bystander, or follower. These are descriptions of vocal actions. Change your vocal action, and you can change how people perceive you. Change what people perceive, and you’ll change how they respond with their own vocal acts.

Let’s start with a single speech act: a statement you make. There are four basic roles you can play in a conversation. (I also call them action stances.) You canmove: Start something new, like saying, “We need to spend less time in these meetings.” You can follow someone else’s move, by agreeing with it: “Yes, I’ve been concerned about the same thing.” You can oppose the move, raising objections or trying to stop it: “I don’t think that’s right. We need time to cover every topic on the agenda.” And then you can step back from the situation andstand by (or as I call it, “bystand”), reflecting on the actions being made, without agreeing or disagreeing: “Ian wants shorter meetings, Ralph wants to keep them the same length. What does everybody else think?”

A gifted communicator knows how to sequence these into compound actions. So if you’re dealing with fierce opposers, you don’t start off by opposing them. You bystand first. “I see how concerned you are about this decision, and it’s having an effect on the group.” Then you follow. “I think you have reason to be concerned.” Only then do you move. “It seems to me that we’ve got to change our decision and address your concerns, but we can’t lose the momentum of the original plan either.” Three different actions: bystand, follow, move.

The second dimension is called the communication domain; I also sometimes refer to it as the language people speak. Each domain is oriented toward a purpose, and you can see that purpose in the content of the speech act. Some acts of speech are in the affect domain; they involve words of feeling, seeking an increase in connection and intimacy. “This decision seems pretty heartless. I wonder how people will feel about it.”

Other speech acts are in the power domain, using words about getting things done, and their purpose is increasing competence and efficacy. “Who’s going to make sure that there’s follow-through here?”

Finally, there is the meaning domain: words about truth and reasoning, and content involving analytics and philosophy, with the goal of a higher understanding. “It is critical that the results reflect our standards for accuracy.”

S+B: And when one person talks in power while the other’s in affect, they can misread each other’s intentions.

KANTOR: That’s one of the most common reasons for breakdowns in communication. People also have preferences for specific communication domains; they do not honor ways of speaking other than their own, and this increases the likelihood that they’re going to speak at cross-purposes.

A third dimension is the paradigm about the rule of order: People have different views of the best way that human conduct should be regulated. All the governance structures in the world can be boiled down to three types. The opensystem is consensual and unregulated until it hits a point of action, and then an authority, chosen by the group, decides. A representative democracy is an open system. In the closed system, authority rests with position—the closer you are to the top of the hierarchy, the more authority you have. This system is highly regulated; a military regiment, for example, is a closed system. In a randomsystem, authority remains with those who take and use it; the group continues to expand, experiment, and move. Jazz bands are random systems, and so are most teams of innovators in an R&D department.

For most people, one of these three systems feels intuitively right. When a conversation doesn’t flow in the way they favor, they feel uncomfortable. I first saw that in my work with families—people intuitively sought out an open, closed, or random family—but I didn’t really grasp the difference until I learned about feedback mechanisms in systems theory. Closed systems rely on negative, or balancing, feedback; when something new happens, they instinctively move to regulate it and tamp it down. Random systems work through positive feedback; they reinforce novelty and make it stronger. Open systems combine the two forms of feedback; they are positive until they reach some point of dysfunction. Then the leader steps in….

S+B: “Let’s take a vote.”

KANTOR: Or, “We have to reach consensus.” Everybody must have a voice in the open system, even if it’s disruptive, but then it comes to a decision, a vote, a consensus. It shifts from a positive to a negative feedback loop.

S+B: How would I, as a leader, use all this to design a speech act?

KANTOR: Everything you say can be framed as a combination of these elements. Suppose you’re in a cold room. You could say, “Close that window now.” That’s a closed-system move in power. You could change it to an open-system statement by saying, “It occurs to me that people are wrapping their scarves around their necks. Will somebody near the window step over there and close it?” It is still in power, but now you’re open. You’re giving people a choice; you’re looking for a volunteer. You could also switch it into affect, by saying, “It would be so much nicer if the room were warmer, and people felt more comfortable.” And you could move that into bystanding by saying, “I notice that people feel uncomfortable, but nobody seems to feel like closing the window.”

The goal of structural dynamics is to increase communicative competency, which means every member of the team becomes capable of reading the room. They know which interventions will improve the conversations. They ideally have full knowledge of the limits of their own repertoire so that when a speech action is called for, if they can’t do it themselves, they can call on someone else who is capable of the act.

S+B: Is there a person alive who can speak eloquently in all 36 combinations?

KANTOR: I think so. And, by the way, this is the road to collective intelligence. The theory says that when a team is capable of communicative competency, there is an exponential leap to effectiveness. By becoming more competent, the team accelerates its ability to define new outcomes, new products, and so on. It’s a bit like improvisational theater. In fact, when I first began putting this theory together, I read a lot about how actors study their craft, and how they are taught to improvise. The theater is fascinating, but it’s not effective by itself as a model for intervention, because it’s locked in to a very small group of activities.

S+B: In your book, you also describe a fourth dimension—the heroic modes, which come out only when there’s a crisis.

KANTOR: A perceived crisis. When the stakes are raised through stress or difficulty, people shift into more urgent, less thoughtful forms of conversation. Someone prone to affect shifts to being an advocate—from “I feel” to “we should,” arguing for passion’s sake. A power-oriented person becomes like a prosecutor: from “let’s do” to “you must do,” forcing others to perform. And a meaning-oriented person becomes an adjudicator: from “I think” to “I decide,” imposing a framework of logic.

If the stakes get raised even higher, these stances become even more pronounced; they turn into what I call “heroic modes.” The advocate is now a protector, doing whatever must be done to shield others from harm. The power-oriented prosecutor becomes a fixer, out to conquer all enemies and win at all costs. And the adjudicator retreats into being a survivor, intent only on manifesting the cause and getting through all the oppression and aggression.

Everyone unconsciously favors one of these heroic modes. They’re all morally neutral; none is more virtuous or vicious than the others. But they lead people, especially leaders, in directions that are counterproductive. At the start of a crisis, people enter the heroic modes in mild form, but they can gradually become more extreme: Fixers become aggressive, protectors feel wronged, survivors withdraw and endure. When left unchecked, they lead to the same basic attitude: The ends justify the means. And then the crisis accelerates. The fixers discover they can’t win, or can’t solve every problem; the survivors discover they can’t really withdraw; and the protectors find they can’t keep everyone from getting hurt. So they start to blame one another.

General George Patton was a classic fixer—and a hero until after World War II. Then all the stories about his vicious side emerged, about him slapping soldiers and so on.

S+B: What’s your advice for the leader—not the professional intervenor, but the person actually leading a group in a company?

KANTOR: There’s always a shadow side to human behavior. These shadows come from people’s childhood stories—from ways in which they weren’t loved. Greed is one kind of shadow, especially when it involves lack of care about anyone else. The crisis is often a manifestation of these shadows, and the enterprise and the industry will be threatened if the shadows are not contained. At that moment, a hero is called for: a leader who can find a way to transcend his or her own shadows, and also transcend the shadow-driven behavior of the systems around him or her.

Leaders are a special category, because what they do and say and the decisions they make affect many others. If shadow behavior is evident, and the leader is not willing to acknowledge it and take responsibility for it, he or she is a dangerous leader. He or she does not have control over the shadow side of the system.

On the other hand, if a leader becomes aware and conscious, in the moment, he or she can direct the system away from its shadow side, moving it in a far more powerful, and more beneficial, direction.

So, for example, a business team hits a crisis point, and the key members of the team are driving one another crazy. They are polar opposites. One is a fixer: “We have to move fast and cut 30 percent, with no nonsense about the damage to morale.” The other is a protector: “My God, do you really believe that? We’ll lose our best people, and the larger culture is going to suffer.” And then the survivor chimes in: “I’m going to keep our morale up, even if I have to do it all myself. I’ll work twice as hard, 24 hours a day. And we’ll get it back.”

If the leader of the team can read these moves in a high-stakes situation, he or she knows how to be a competent bystander. “If we listen to ourselves,” the leader might begin, “It’s clear we all want the same thing, but we’re going after it from different directions. Let’s focus on what we want to have come out of this mess.”

Given enough skill and experience at reading the room, a leader can make some moves that bridge the gap—that don’t just assuage the intuitive needs of the heroic modes of the individuals involved, but that make strategic sense. An individual who can do that is obviously a superior leader. 

AUTHOR PROFILE:

• Art Kleiner is editor-in-chief of strategy+business.

Leverage Leadership Strengths and Mitigate Weaknesses

A good post from Working Resources, an Executive Coaching firm in the San Francisco Bay Area.

 Maynard Brusman
30th January 2013

Leadership Strengths and Weaknesses 

To become a successful philosopher king, it is better to start as the king than as the philosopher. -- Nassim Taleb in "Antifragile" 

I recently spoke with the VP of Talent Management of a company regarding providing executive coaching for the company CEO. She asked some very pertinent questions to determine fit. She specifically wanted to know how I worked with different personality styles, and my methods for initiating behavioral change. 

The VP of Talent Management and I spoke about my approach to coaching, and my belief that possessing a psychological understanding of human behavior and business acumen are important competencies for coaching executives. We also spoke of the need for her organization to create a strengths-based culture where innovation flourishes. 

The VP of Talent Management is interested in partnering with me in helping the CEO to become a build on his strengths and mitigate perceived weaknesses by the Board. We further discussed how company executives can benefit by working with a seasoned executive coach. 

I believe leaders are successful by leveraging strengths, and mitigating weaknesses: by taking prudent risk in the hope of significant reward; and by realizing, as Churchill did, that success is never final and failure rarely fatal—it’s courage that counts. 

I am a strong advocate of helping my executive coaching clients leverage their strengths. I also strongly support the importance of individuals mitigating their weaknesses. Frequently, I stress how much of our success in life comes from utilizing our strengths -- your intellectual strength and determination, for example, may have enabled you to complete your college degree or another significant achievement. However, challenges we face in our future may involve you doing things that are difficult for you -- especially if one's goal involves advancing to a higher level of leadership. 

I'm a fan of strengths assessments such as the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths or the Gallup StrengthsFinder 2.0. However, there is nothing in those two assessments that prompts an individual to consider if they may be using a strength too much, whereas the Leadership Versatility Index (Kaplan Devries) also measures "overused strengths". 

McCall and Lombardo's interview studies conducted at the Center for Creative Leadership of derailed executives led them to them introduce the phrase, "strengths can become weaknesses". The Leadership Versatility Index gives leaders feedback on if they are doing behaviors "too little", the "right amount", or "too much". 

In a study of 421 upper-level managers, Kaiser and Kaplan found that by comparing self-report and 360 degree feedback the least effective managers overrated their effectiveness, and the most effective managers underrated their effectiveness. In fact, the high performing managers often did not have a good grasp of what their strengths are. This lack of strength awareness can cause them to overuse certain strengths in challenging situations because they come naturally to them. Of course this also is an argument to use strengths assessments to increase self-awareness. 

Is there a cost to overusing a particular strength? It seems obvious that to underutilize a strength, when that strength is needed, will lead to lower performance. It is just as true that to use a particular strength more than the ideal amount needed for the situation is equally harmful. 

Kaiser and Kaplan point out that you can have a manager that is a forceful leader -- who can take charge and provide clear direction. This leadership quality is often needed, especially with a new employee or in a crisis. However managers who are too forceful and too tough make employees feel badly about their work, and at the same time a leader who spends too much time including everyone in a decision and is too concerned about people's feelings for the situation, will get lower business results. 

The solution is to be versatile -- to display the "right" amount of their strengths for the situation at hand. The researchers describe being high in versatility as being a master of opposites. For example, managers or leaders can be evaluated for versatility by looking at pairs of leadership attributes such as Forceful and Enabling leadership by calculating how close their ratings are to the "right amount" on both dimensions. 

The bottom line is we need to balance focusing on strengths with a realistic assessment of where and how we may be overusing our strengths. Discovering your true strengths is the path towards improvement and success. When you pay too much attention to your deficits and try to overcome them, you are placing emphasis on becoming what you are not. You wind up living a second-rate version of someone else’s life rather than a world-class version of your own. 

Are you working in a company where executive coaches provide leadership development to grow emotionally intelligent leaders? Does your organization provide strength-based executive coaching for leaders? Sustainable leaders tap into their emotional intelligence and social intelligence skills to create a more compelling future. 

One of the most powerful questions you can ask yourself is “Do I build on my leadership strengths and mitigate weaknesses?” Emotionally intelligent and socially intelligent organizations provide executive coaching as part of their leadership development programs. 

Working with a seasoned executive coach and leadership consultant trained in emotional intelligence and incorporating assessments such as the Bar-On EQ-I, CPI 260 and Denison Culture Survey can help leaders develop their strengths. You can become a leader who models emotional intelligence and social intelligence, and who inspires people to become fully engaged with the vision, mission and strategy of your company. 

About Dr. Maynard Brusman 

Dr. Maynard Brusman is a consulting psychologist, executive coach and trusted advisor to senior leadership teams. He is the president of Working Resources, a leadership consulting and executive coaching firm. We specialize in helping San Francisco Bay Area companies and law firms assess, select, coach, and retain emotionally intelligent leaders. Maynard is a highly sought-after speaker and workshop leader. He facilitates leadership retreats in Northern California and Costa Rica. The Society for Advancement of Consulting (SAC) awarded Dr. Maynard Brusman "Board Approved" designations in the specialties of Executive Coaching and Leadership Development.

Financial Times: Can coaching make the difference?

Great Article. The original can be found here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3820b7a4-3316-11e2-aa83-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2JWbRkDGq

By Maxine Boersma

Andy Murray’s success in winning the US Open tennis championship and reaching Sunday’s Australian Open final have been attributed by many to the coaching he has received from former champion Ivan Lendl, who has helped him to pace his performances and stay calm.

One-to-one executive coaching also helps business leaders prepare for their individual challenges – and it is on the rise.

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. 

According to the International Coach Federation’s Global Coaching Study for June 2012, released in partnership with PwC, there are about 47,500 professional coaches worldwide. In the UK, 91 per cent of the 745 respondents were external, rather than in-house, coaches, and nearly 55 per cent reported an increase in clients during the past 12 months. More than two-thirds expect an increase in clients in the next year.

Keith McCambridge, an executive coach with Wickland Westcott, has witnessed this increase: “I’ve definitely seen a rise. Before 2008, there was an increase in ‘remedial’ coaching, where people were put forward for coaching if they were seen as an organisational problem.

“However, the reverse is now true with a focus on high performing candidates who are deemed to be worth the investment. Companies now want actively to enhance strong capability, manage potential risk better and help the ‘rainmakers’, so there is a strong return on investment.”

External coaches range from retired chief executives, who provide sector-specific or broad expertise, to trained facilitators and niche players.

Although coaching appears aimed at corporate performance, it is not just for the private sector. Jan Sobieraj, managing director of the NHS Leadership Academy, says: “The NHS is going through a period of unprecedented change, with organisations clustering, growing and closing.

“Through all of this, the leadership community remains tasked with leading the workforce to continue to provide care of the very highest quality. Our Top Leaders programme is about enabling NHS leaders to develop the knowledge, skills and competencies needed for the most complex jobs in this transforming system.

“Executive coaching is one of the core elements and can be offered as part of a development plan after each participant undertakes a diagnostic process.

“It is well recognised that the bespoke development that coaching offers is one of the most effective development interventions. An objective coach can help leaders develop self-awareness and recognise blind spots in their approach.

“Participants can also develop the confidence to handle better the challenges that come with leading complex organisations in a rapidly changing operating environment.”

Coaching is not “therapy” or “counselling” but intervention to address specific work related issues. As defined by author and expert Janice Caplan in 2003, a coach “is a collaborative partner who works with the learner to help them achieve goals, solve problems, learn and develop”.

At best, coaching is aligned with organisational goals and linked with the HR department. Coaching addresses issues such as how to resolve conflict, manage dispersed teams or cultural changes.

Tony Page, a coach with Middleground, which coaches leaders across four continents, says people increasingly need coaches, as the economic downturn means work can be an “unsafe” place: “Coaching gives individuals some core conditions in which to function well. A sense of not being split apart, of being aligned with yourself and others.

“Coaching helps leaders think collectively. It is about widening their vision and thinking systemically, eventually ‘cascading down’ the good practice they’ve gleaned.

“In the public sector smaller budgets and greater accountability mean coaching is useful, especially because leaders can’t ‘hand-pick’ teams. Coaching helps explore personal options, choices and impact so that managers can discover their own stance.

“The ultimate goal is that the client becomes the ‘steward’ of a functional organisation. Or, at the other extreme, it may lead an individual deciding that that workplace is no longer for them.”

John McGurk, learning and talent development adviser at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and author of “Coaching: the evidence base”, a CIPD research report from September 2012, is more sceptical. He says: “The jury is still out on the evidence base for coaching. The amount of rigorous and peer-reviewed research is small.

“Often, success is attributed to a coaching episode but, for example, an upturn in sales could also be linked to a better database or a wider media platform. At its most basic it’s about a helpful relationship.”

Some believe that “bad” coaching can even prolong poor performance by not challenging it.

Characteristics of an effective coach include professional accreditation, and a willingness to undergo supervision. They should be positive yet challenging and link their work with the priorities of the organisation and any other stakeholder concerns, such as those of shareholders.

Critically, there needs to be a strong “working alliance” with the employee. The 2011 Ridler Report, compiled by Ridler, a senior level coaching practice, revealed that for buyers of coaching, personal chemistry is the highest rated characteristic (74 per cent from a sample of 64 companies).

Effectiveness can be measured, for example, by psychometric testing, 360 degree appraisals, key performance indicators, employee surveys, HR data on talent management and financial data such as levels of profitability.

The latest debate is about how best to integrate coaching to ensure longevity of effective interventions and a “trickle down” impact.

Dr McGurk suggests good coaching skills can be learned by a line manager, for example. This move towards “insourcing” has seen some large companies hire professional internal coaches.

Ian Paterson, coach and managing director of the European Mentoring and Coaching Council, thinks the top 10 per cent of UK coaches are external but recognises internal coaches have the benefits of greater flexibility and organisational sensitivity and understanding, which makes them able to find a solution quickly. He believes some sectors, such as law, prefer external coaching for reasons of perceived expertise.

Indeed, for some, the detachment of an outside coach is very powerful. Mr McCambridge says: “Who can challenge the unchallengeable internally? An executive coach gives you a perspective which is not conditioned by the environment in which you work. They have complete independence and can help you appraise the fundamentals.

“As they have worked with a range of global executive teams they have gleaned a wealth of good practice and an ability to assess the different dynamics of boards and the psychology of chief executives. This professional currency can be invaluable.”

Mark Schlageter, managing director at Thomson Reuters, adds: “An external coach is a valuable independent adviser who can bring out the vital ‘softer skills’ of running a business. They can bring more global advice based on their own experience.

“Often in business, you don’t have the benefit of a natural peer group. As you rise up the career ladder, the peer group shrinks. So a coach provides a useful sounding board.

“A good coach is usually an independent thinker with some industry sector knowledge. They should be well-matched in terms of personality and offer a broader perspective within an impartial context.”

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2013. You may share using our article tools. 

What Is Executive Presence?

An important factor for us Executive Coaches to keep in mind, and for professionals to stay on top of, in any interaction... Scott Eblin, Leadership Coach, offers his take on lessons in the news and his advice on your pressing leadership questions.

• 
  
• 
  

By Scott Eblin

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
During the past couple of months, I’ve been in four or five conversations with leadership development professionals who are looking for a way to build executive presence in their organization’s high potential managers. Most of them have tried different programs and approaches and they’re not happy with the results they’ve gotten.

I have a theory about why that’s the case. Executive presence is one of those terms that’s often used but rarely clearly defined. If you do a Google search on the term you’ll find articles that talk about confidence, communications, personal appearance, body language and other factors that don’t get a lot more specific than that. It’s a great case of what the French would call je ne sais quoi – something that can’t be adequately described.

That, of course, makes executive presence hard to teach to people. If you can’t describe it, you can’t teach it.

Based on the research I did for my book, The Next Level, and more than a decade of coaching senior executives and high potential managers, I’d like to offer a two part definition of executive presence. First, it’s about your ability to get results, especially when the expectations around results are continually changing. Second, it’s about the behaviors you exhibit at the personal, team and organizational levels. When your behaviors align with the expected results, you have executive presence.

Let me break it down in a little more detail.

In today’s world, the results that were good enough last year aren’t good enough this year. This year’s results won’t be good enough next year. For leaders, then, it’s a continual state of getting different results. As Einstein would likely tell us, different results require different actions. That means that leaders need to be aware of when they need to pick up and let go of skills, behaviors and mindsets even if they’ve worked for them in the past.

A leader’s executive presence, then, changes over time. In working with my clients, I break the behaviors of executive presence down into three categories and nine distinctions about what leaders need to pick up and let go of get different results.

Here’s the breakdown:

Personal Presence

• Pick up confidence in your presence; Let go of doubt in how you contribute
• Pick up regular renewal of your energy and perspective; Let go of running flat out until you crash
• Pick up custom-fit communications; Let go of one size fits all communications

Team Presence

• Pick up team reliance; Let go of self reliance
• Pick up defining what to do; Let go of telling how to do it
• Pick up accountability for many results; Let go of responsibility for a few results

Organizational Presence

• Pick up looking left, right and diagonally as you lead; Let go of primarily looking up and down as you lead
• Pick up an outside-in view of the entire organization; Let go of an inside-out view of your function
• Pick up a big footprint view of your role; Let go of a small footprint view of your role

As President Obama's Executive Coach...

Had posted another post on what an Executive Coach will advise President Obama. Here's another good one - contentious, but interesting....

John MattonePresident, JohnMattonePartners, Inc.

As I travel the globe, meeting with senior executive teams, coaching CEOs and senior executives, and speaking to various management groups, it is clear to me that the world of business has very few outstanding leaders. Sadly, as I have observed President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner go "back and forth" in an apparent attempt to avoid the "fiscal cliff," I am left with the inescapable conclusion that the U.S. government likewise has fewoutstanding leaders.

Things always start with the chief executive. And, in this case, it starts with President Obama. In the world of politics and business, there are many very good leaders, as well as a vast supply of good leaders. The distribution of outstanding leadership, like anything else, follows the shape of a bell-shaped curve. I have always known this. Everyone has always known this. But, few of us really cared because being a good leader generally has been accepted as "sufficient" to keep a position -- or win reelection. Things are changing quickly, however -- very quickly. The bell-shaped curve representing the even distribution of leadership talent in any organization no longer can be accepted as "sufficient." It is mandatory that we -- as voters, employees, stakeholders, customers -- expect nothing short of consistent leadership greatness from our elected officials, including the President of the United States, CEOs and all leaders.

I had suspected the need for this critical distribution shift for a couple of years, but it became very clear in 2011 as I was interviewing CEOs as part of our Trends in Executive Development Research Study (Pearson, 2011). Beyond the actual research, an interesting qualitative note emerged. When I asked executives to identify a great leader in their lives -- someone who had a positive impact on them and helped shape their values and character -- roughly nine times out of 10, they mentioned a former teacher, coach, parent, grandparent, or friend, as opposed to a political or business leader. Unfortunately, the fact is that most of us whether we work in government or business, can identify the poor managers we have had much more quickly than we can the great ones. Why is this?

There is no clear answer; however, it is pretty clear that many people are promoted or elected into leadership roles before they are ready. They lack the experience or they have not been adequately coached, mentored or trained. More than anything else, I believe the speed and pace of change in business and the world, mounting financial pressure, rising debt, technology shifts, demographic shifts, and a more demanding operating environment -- not the least of which includes working successfully with a variety of constituent groups -- represent daunting challenges for most leaders, including President Obama. Frankly, only the very, very "best of the best" leaders in the world of politics or business possess the Leadership Intelligence (LI) required to drive true sustained greatness in their organizations. Leaders who possess a strong LI:

• Possess a strong "inner-core" capability (i.e., character, values, empowering thoughts and beliefs, emotions, maturity, and learning agility to adapt and adjust to an ever increasing complexity and variety of people and situations);
• Possess a strong "outer-core" capability (i.e., critical thinking, strategic thinking, decision-making, emotional intelligence, communication skills, team leadership, talent leadership, change leadership and drive for results; and
• They continuously execute their "inner-core" and "outer-core" capabilities while being vigilant to the impact they have on individuals, constituent groups, and their organizations; they also possess a passionate and diligent focus on continuous improvement through course correction.

Identifying CEOs and Executives who Possess Leadership Intelligence

Boards often ask me what they should look for in identifying their next CEO. My answer is always clear: They need to look for people who possess both a strong "inner-core" and "outer-core" capability. They need to identify people with strong Leadership Intelligence. The most critical thing to look for and measure, however, is character.

The essence of character is undoubtedly multifaceted and complex. When working with organizations to help them identify their next CEO, I look for evidence that they are, at a minimum, courageous. I look for leaders who have the guts to make the tough but ethical decision. I look for their willingness to sometimes stand alone, in the teeth of pressure (possibly even from their own managers) from others who may want to go in a counter, sometimes less ethical direction. I look for leaders who also have the guts to collaborate, concede, compromise, and who possess the humility to submit at times if it is in the best interest of the whole. This is one area that President Obama and I would explore in depth as it appears to be an area he needs to strengthen. When coaching CEOs, I explain that saying no to the easiest and most rewarding route, when that decision doesn't align with what you know is the correct one, may seem difficult. However, as soon as you begin flirting with such a decision -- that may yield better operating results, greater revenue, greater profits, greater support from constituents but clearly compromises the very essence of your ethical and moral identity -- you enter a world of agony and stress. Making such choices will lead you into a world of painful long-term consequences, not the least of which is an increased probability you will say yes to more insidious acts in time. This is exactly what happened to Dennis Kozlowski, years ago as CEO of TYCO. Great leaders -- truly great leaders -- have the courage to make the right decision every time.

Great leaders also possess the character elements of diligence, gratitude, honesty, modesty, and loyalty.

Now, with this background, as President's Obama's executive coach, this is what I would have done at the beginning of his first term:

• I would have assessed the strength and vibrancy of his "inner-core" and "outer-core" capabilities. I would have used a combination of in-depth interviews and objective assessments, including my own executive maturity assessment.
• I would have supplemented these assessments with 360-degree interviews involving key stakeholders and constituents. We would have identified from these assessments, President Obama's leadership strengths and development needs.
• We would have then prepared an initial leadership development plan and I would have encouraged President Obama to then get input from his stakeholder and constituent groups to help him finalize his leadership development plan.
• I would have then had President Obama meet with his stakeholders and constituent groups individually and collectively to share his drive and passion to become the best leader he can be and that he cannot achieve this goal without the input, support and guidance from them (this step is often the most challenging for CEOs).
• We would have then started executing this plan and I would have his stakeholders and constituents provide quarterly feedback to President Obama on the progress he is making on his leadership development plan.
• I would have worked with President Obama on implementing powerful change strategies that would have leveraged his considerable leadership capability while also strengthening his considerable leadership development opportunities--coaching him on first strengthening his "inner-core" as a foundation to strengthening his "outer-core" leadership skills.

You get the picture, right? If President Obama had been coached years ago using these steps and strategies, I am confident we would have avoided the "fiscal cliff" and been much further along as a nation. This is not a political comment; rather this is a comment on President's Obama's need, as our nation's CEO, to strengthen his Leadership Intelligence (LI).