Effective Executive April '11

Effective Executive
April '11

COACHING AND MENTORING

Reclaim Your Life :A Choice

-- Mark Susnow, JD

Discovering what your values and priorities are is the first step to reclaiming your life. Very few of us take the time to explore what these values and priorities are. Creating balance in your life is a process of letting go of old beliefs and habits. When your life is out of balance you won't notice the signs or signals that let you know that something isn't right.

Reclaiming your life is a choice. It's a choice about priorities. It's a choice about being aligned with what really matters to you. It's a choice about saying "Yes" to life.

Discovering what your values and priorities are is the first step to reclaiming your life. Very few of us take the time to explore what these values and priorities are. That's what I do as a life coach. I help others discover what is important to them and live their life in harmony with these values. The exploration begins with taking a look at our lives and examining what some of the "defining moments" have been up to this point in our lives. Prior to becoming a life coach and author, I was a trial attorney for 30 years. We would all agree that our professional lives affect our personal lives and sometimes take a toll on our health and relationships. Let me take you back in time.

Although I didn't realize it at the time, those "defining moments" that I experienced in the 1970s enabled me to define what my values were and to begin to live a life in harmony with them. Part of my challenge, as it is with many of us, was to balance the demands of my professional life with the need to find meaning and purpose.

In stressful times it's more difficult to maintain that balance. When you're out of balance, your choices as to what's possible seem limited which creates more stress.

Finding Time for What's Important

There is no question that we lead busy lives. We are consumed by our to do lists and responsibilities. Most people feel as if they don't have enough time. In their minds, time is like a commodity that is becoming scarce. The truth is, that not having enough time is a form of scarcity much like not having enough money.

If you are working most of the time you probably won't have enough time for yourself. You definitely won't have time for quality conversations. You might find yourself saying, "I don't have time to get together with you. Later in the month I'll have some breathing room." Or perhaps you're feeling overwhelmed at work and tired most of the time. The pattern of thinking "you don't have enough time" is familiar to you. It's what you know. Many people live in a constant state of anxiety because they believe that they can't get it all done. To compensate, they develop the habit of working longer and harder. This only intensifies the problem, because now they don't have enough time for the things that bring them joy and happiness.

The good news is that you can change this pattern, but it takes courage. Courage because making this change involves leaving what you know, to enter the world of the unknown. The fear of exploring the vast unknown keeps many of us trapped in unfulfilling careers or relationships, and keeps us from exploring new opportunities. We cling to what we know. In order to avoid conflict, we censor what we say and how we show up in the world. In a personal relationship, we fear that if we say what's on our mind things will become uncomfortable. In the workplace, we are afraid that if we say what's on our mind we'll end up being let go or making less money. So we say "Yes" to working late and "No" to our deepest longings. It is this fear that keeps hidden some of our deepest needs, feelings and insights. It's only when we fully express ourselves that we are our most authentic. Being less than authentic deprives others of our gifts and contributions. It takes courage to live an authentic life and to be true to our core values.

Finding Balance in Your Life

Creating balance in your life is a process of letting go of old beliefs and habits. When your life is out of balance you won't notice the signs or signals that let you know that something isn't right. That's the way it was with George when I first started working with him. He was overworked and stressed about his business, which was on the verge of bankruptcy. He blamed himself for not being able to see the trends sooner. Since so much of George's identity was wrapped up with being a successful business owner, he considered himself a failure. There were other telltale signs that George didn't notice. He ignored the fact that he and his wife were drifting apart and that he had constant back pain.

I encouraged George to begin meditating and exercising. When George was a younger man, he was an accomplished sculptor. At my urging George began sculpting again and soon his work became part of a group exhibit. Gradually, George became enthused about life again. As he felt better about himself his business began to turn around. He then had the courage to face the difficulties in his marriage.

Saying "No" is the Key to Honoring Your Personal Boundaries

What George and many others, including myself, have discovered is that developing clear personal boundaries is the bridge to living a balanced life. It requires you to say "No," which for many of us is difficult because it stirs up that big fear of confrontation. The truth is, you are always saying "No" in some way. If you say "Yes" to working late, you might be saying "No" to what really matters to you. Many busy clients I work with want to have a relationship, but forget to ask themselves if they are willing to devote the time necessary to have one. If they really want the relationship, then they have to say "No" to other things. It might be saying "No" to working late and possible career advancements. How many people do you know who are workaholics? I've known more than a few who have sacrificed their relationships and their health for their careers.

I remember Joe, one of my former clients, who worked late into the evenings and on weekends, even though his wife often complained about it. I suggested Joe that he has take his wife's complaints more seriously. Joe wasn't willing to change his tendencies. Finally, I asked Joe what he would do if his wife left him and he responded by telling me that it would never happen. Well, Joe was wrong. She left and Joe did everything he could think of to try to salvage the marriage, but it was too late.

Many people are fearful of the repercussions if they say"No" or are reluctant to disappoint another person. But think of the alternative: you end up agreeing to live someone else's life and resenting it because you are saying "No" to yourself. Betty, a brilliant and dedicated social worker, is an example of someone who knows what her values and priorities are and lives her life in harmony with them. For Betty, leisure time and flexibility, so that she could spend more time with her family, were more important than career advancements and more money. She honored what was most important to her by saying "No" to more responsibility at work.

Reclaiming Your Life and Your Power

Your boundaries will continue to get tested and it's easy to give in. Most of us are great at keeping agreements with other people, such as keeping an appointment or doing something we agreed to do, because we're responsible people. Being accountable to someone else helps keep us "on purpose". However, when it comes to keeping agreements with ourselves, such as exercising, eating healthy foods, or engaging in a spiritual practice, we don't have the same commitment. There's a simple reason why this is so. We have not made keeping agreements with ourselves as important as keeping agreements with others. What we don't realize is that keeping agreements with ourselves is the key to staying on purposeand living a life in balance. When you keep your word to yourself, you seldom have a boundary problem.

Beginning your day with a morning practice, such as meditation or quiet time for reflection, reinforces the practice of keeping your agreements with yourself. Many people tell me that they don't have time to meditate in the morning. They are the same people who find that their to do lists and responsibilities are running their lives. When they start sharing their to do lists with me, it's very compelling. I almost believe them, except I know that it's a matter of priorities. I was like them at one period of time. I had a busy law practice, a family with its inherent responsibilities (carpooling was a big part of this) and a quest for self-discovery. My priorities were clear. To make it all work, I had to honor them. Instead of having coffee and reading the paper in the morning, I meditated. When I got to my office, I had a clear sense of purpose. When my kids had a game or an event, once I made the commitment to be there, I was there. It didn't matter if there was a new client who wanted to see me. We were always able to work around it. When I had to be in court early in the morning, I got up earlier to meditate. When I had a musical event, I made time to practice. Reclaiming your life is a choice. It's a choice about priorities. It's a choice about being aligned with what really matters to you.

Expanding Your Personal Code of Ethics

As we have just discussed, keeping agreements with yourself is more challenging than keeping agreements with other people. Most likely if you are reading this article you don't have a problem keeping your appointments and agreements with other people because that would be a violation of your personal code of ethics. What if you made a paradigm shift? What if not keeping your word to yourself was also a violation of your personal code of ethics? Imagine how powerful a shift in perspective this would be. There would be a greater likelihood that whenever you said you were going to do something you would do it. If you said that you were going to exercise three times a week, there would be no question that you would exercise. If you said that you were going to eliminate pastries from your diet, they would be gone. If you made a vow to eliminate caffeine, you would keep that vow. It would be a rare occasion when you didn't keep your word to yourself.

Reflections

What could you accomplish both on a personal and professional level, if not keeping your word to yourself was a breach of your personal code of ethics? Imagine how much better you would feel about yourself. Think about all of the ways that your life would be different if you kept your agreements with yourself. Reflect on your relationships and careers. Think about your inner confidence and sense of well-being.

The Value of Commitment and Discipline

When you make a commitment to a practice or discipline, it is your commitment with yourself that keeps you going during those times when you feel like stopping or taking a break. When I was in college and in law school I developed the habit of smoking cigarettes. I didn't like myself whenever I picked up a cigarette, so I set up a personal challenge. I decided to quit smoking the night before I took the bar exam.

It was my agreement with myself that kept me going, even after I failed the exam the first time. It didn't matter what my mind was telling me, or what I felt like doing. It was the same with meditation. It was my agreement with myself that kept me going even when I was tired in the morning or felt that I didn't have enough time to meditate. Without discipline you can't really excel. You'll only scratch the surface of what is possible. You can reach levels of excellence occasionally without it, but it takes practice and commitment to be consistently good at something. Many persons who I work with, initially have an aversion to discipline and think of it as a form of rigidity. This is the furthest thing from the truth. It is the discipline that enables you to experience real freedom.

The Deep Embrace of Mastery

I'm sure you have witnessed that magical moment when musicians and dancers are in total sync with each other. It seems as if they have been playing and dancing together forever. In many ways they have. They have shared the same passion and dedication to their art— many years of practicing scales, techniques and movement that has given them that sense of freedom. It is the discipline that ultimately leads to that feeling of freedom. I'm sure that along the way, life presented them with many reasons not to practice, or to skip their workout. At some point they reached a plateau when their enthusiasm waned and they started to question their original commitment. When developing a personal practice or new habit, we have the same challenge. We are full of good intentions and enthusiasm, but we reach a plateau in the learning cycle when it's no longer fun. It's only a matter of time before we abandon our commitment to our endeavor. We repeat the cycle with the next new thing. The late George Leonard, the well-known author and teacher, in his book, Mastery, postulates that the key to mastery is learning to love the plateau. Once we embrace the concept that the plateau is just a phase in the learning cycle rather than the end, we can take the next step forward in achieving mastery. Achieving mastery in one area of our life has the potential to impact our entire life. Shortly after I finished reading Mastery, my girlfriend encouraged me to study the Bansuri, a form of bamboo flute, with the world-renowned master, GS Sachdev. Needless to say, I was excited. Playing music had been a life-long passion of mine and I had already been playing the silver flute. Sachdev was accepting new students. This opportunity, which lasted over a year, turned out to be one of the most transformative experiences of my life. I learned about the dedication and passion that it took to truly become a master. Being around Sachdev inspired me the desire to become a better musician, which had an impact on my life that transcended music. I was given a gift. As I tuned into what was possible in music, I also tuned into what was possible in the rest of my life. The gift of listening that was given to me affects every aspect of my being and everything that I do. It's given me an expanded ability to hear what is being said when there is complete silence and an ability to feel the rhythm of life when everything is still.

The Path of Impeccability

When you are true to your life purpose, and in alignment with your code of personal ethics, a shift in consciousness occurs. You are not afraid to embrace your truth and to let others know what that truth is. On the path of impeccability, you walk in freedom. You can no longer pretend. What you tell yourself and others has no change. You can no longer use as an excuse, "I don't have enough time." You take responsibility as to whether or not you want to do something, or if you want to get together with a particular person.You're no longer able to honestly say, "I can't afford it." Instead you have to decide whether the potential benefit is worth what you have to do, or give, to get it. In the process of embracing this new and expanded consciousness, you reclaim your power and honor yourself.

There Is No Better Time Than Now

You've waited long enough to reclaim your life. The circumstances of your life very rarely are going to be in perfect alignment. Perhaps you're thinking that now isn't the right time.Too many of us suffer from the `only if' syndrome, which is the belief that if the circumstances of our life were different, we would be happier. I am sure you have suffered from this syndrome at times. I know I have. I remember how anxious I was to get out of high school, get away from home, and begin college. I believed college would be the answer to my problems. For a brief period of time it was, but soon my focus shifted to the future, which was getting into law school. Of course once in law school my new focus was graduating and passing the bar so that what I called real life could begin. And then it did. I was out of school, making my own money and involved in an intense love affair. But after awhile, I struggled with financial realities. I believed that when business picked up and I met the one, I could resume walking on the path and enjoying life again. I was repeating the familiar pattern of making an unknown future better than my life at the time. For many of us this is a never-ending pattern. It was for me until I had an experience that broke this pattern. I'm a firm believer in synchronicity - those chance encounters that change your life, those remarkable meetings. When I was a young lawyer a friend told me of a magical swimming hole along a river in Humboldt County. Off I went with my guitar, my dog, and sleeping bag and drove north, arriving at the river just as the sun was setting. In the morning I awoke at the crack of dawn in search of the swimming hole. I knew that if I hiked upstream I would get there. I continued on my way until a camper offered me some food and coffee. Although I found myself getting hungry and a little bit tired, I said, "No thanks" to the kind invitation, "It's hot and I just want to get to the swimming hole." After another twenty yards I turned around and said, "That coffee sounds good." I enjoyed the breakfast. As it turned out, the camper had a guitar and we played music for quite some time. I was full in more ways than one. After thanking the camper, I was ready to be on my way. It was what the camper said in the next few moments that has perhaps made the greatest impact in my life.

"Hey Mark, the journey you take is probably more important than your destination. Enjoy yourself. Enjoy the journey." I enjoyed the rest of the hike and the swimming hole was fabulous. Since that meeting, I have taken his advice to heart. It has affected every aspect of my life. There's no better time than now to enjoy your life and experience it as an exciting journey of discovery. Instead of waiting for that ideal relationship, enjoy life exactly as it is. Instead of feeling despair about finding meaning and purpose in your life, enjoy the inquiry. Instead of waiting for that big opportunity, enjoy what you're doing.

The Eight Daily Practices

You will be tested repeatedly in some manner. Each day you'll have to renew your commitment, but eventually it becomes a way of life. There are eight daily practices and rituals, some of which you might already be aware of, that will support you on your journey to reclaim your life.

Take time each day for quiet reflection in the morning including expressing gratitude. It sets the tone for the day. You may find journaling to be an effective practice.

While driving in your car, listen to motivational cds or conscious music, rather than listening to the news. It's so easy to get caught up in the busyness and negativity of the day. By listening in your car to inspirational messages that support you on your journey, driving actually becomes an opportunity for you to reduce the stress in your life.

Make sure that on a daily basis you are in contact with people who inspire and support you. Most of us have friends who will be there for us, but we have to take the time to reach out. This might take effort initially, but it's worth the investment. Don't hesitate to take the first step.

Take time to commune in nature. This is another practice that initially might take effort, but by being creative you can integrate spending time in nature into your day.

Eat healthy; drink plenty of water and get exercise. This is a choice that you make over and over again that eventually becomes a healthy habit.

Don't forget to smile and make sure you make someone else smile. At first this might take a conscious effort. But it's a worthwhile investment of time and energy. I love seeing another person, lost in his world of thoughts, crack a big smile.

In the evening, take some time to read a personal growth or spiritual book, even if it's just for a few minutes.

Reflect upon the most special moment of the day as you are falling asleep. This was a practice that I shared with my kids as they were growing up. No matter what happened during the day, you have a choice as to how you think about it. Focusing on what was special as you are falling asleep is a great way to cultivate a peaceful sleep.

Mark Susnow, JD is an executive life coach and author who has lived a unique and varied life involving multiple transitions. After his career of thirty years as a trial attorney in which he was covered by The New York Times, Rolling Stone Magazine, The Boston Globe and The San Francisco Chronicle, he became a life coach. Since then Mark has worked with thousands, including busy CEOs, executives and professionals, helping them find joy and meaning in their life regardless of their circumstances. Mark is the author of Dancing on the River: Navigating Life's Changes. In addition to his work in the world, Mark is an accomplished musician who has played saxophone, clarinet and flute in clubs throughout the SF Bay Area and Hawaii

COACHING AND MENTORING

Lead for Sustained Success : Real Test of Leadership

-- Dan Coughlin

Not every company on the planet has had poor results through the recession. Some have continued to achieve remarkable results and deliver incredible performances. The challenge for leaders of every long-term successful company is to continually remind the employees and suppliers of what got them there.

The real test of leadership is not in the moment, but in the long term. Of course, the decisions you make at any moment can positively or negatively affect the long-term health of the business.

Have you ever seen a leader swoop in and be the hero of the moment only to guide the organization to long-term failure? What good is that?

As the world-wide economy continues to improve, there will be a host of leaders who will be determined to show that they are getting great results right now. You might even be one of them. I'm encouraging you to do your best to focus on long-term success as well as the next quarterly report. Here are five ideas on leading for sustained success.

Carefully Select Your Role Models

It's been my experience that people tend to reflect the leaders they most admire. If they admire someone who is always sarcastic and cynical, then they tend to become more sarcastic and cynical. If they admire a leader who is always down-to-earth and friendly, they tend to be that way. Be very careful about the leaders you choose to be your role models.

My father-in-law, Reverend Arnold Bizer, is a living legend.

I'm serious. He was the Senior Minister of Salem Church in Alhambra, Illinois for 34 years. Alhambra has a population of 700 people. Every time my family and I go back to Alhambra with him, people line up to shake his hand. He retired 18 years ago. To me, he and his wife, Luetta, are absolutely fantastic examples of leading for sustained success. Their impact on that community continues to this day.

They are remarkably consistent with everyone they meet. Their personalities never waver. They treat everyone with respect. I've seen them in countless situations, and they continually amaze me. I never saw them in action at Salem Church because they retired three years before I met my wife, Barb. But I have heard from dozens of people who were impacted by their leadership, and the way their parishioners describe matches up exactly with what I have seen from them in their retirement.

Who is someone you know that has provided leadership for sustained success? What do you admire about that person? How can you use something that they do to become an even more effective leader today?

Be Consistent

The most important factor in building a strong brand is consistency. The same can be said for being a leader who sustains success over the long term. I don't mean you can't ever try new ideas. Innovation is part of regenerating success. However, being consistent with your values and your behaviors is how people can come to trust you. I've seen gruff leaders and loud leaders and gentle leaders and quiet leaders all become very successful. What I have not seen is people who changed their personalities every day be effective in sustaining success over the long term.

I've identified three disastrous leadership styles. They are:

The Mood Ring Leader

Their decisions and behaviors are based on their mood that day.

The Chameleon

they say or does whatever they think the boss of the moment wants.

The Polite Dictator

they tell employees what they want to hear, and then does whatever they had already decided to do before meeting with their employees.

The one thing these three types of leaders have in common is they are all very inconsistent. If you want to lead for sustained success, write down the values and beliefs you are going to stick to, no matter who is in the room or what mood you are in or what your results were last quarter. People need to know that they can count on you. If you change every day, they won't know who you are and what you stand for.

Pause, Think, Act

Neil Diamond had a song out a few years ago called, "Slow It Down." Here are some of the lyrics: Pick it up. Hurry up son. Eat on the run if you wanna get done.

Greed, speed, where does it lead you?

Wanna succeed? You thinking you need to?

But are you really sure?

It's a lot to endure, but I got me a cure.

Slow it down! Slow it down, yea.

Slow it down.

Take your time and you'll find your time has a meaning.

Easy now.

Catch those sounds of your heartbeat before it's leaving.

The funny thing about that song is the first time I heard it I was eating a hamburger while driving down the highway. Maybe that's why it got stuck in my head.

There is a constant world-wide drumbeat that says, "The world is moving faster than ever before. You have to make faster decisions in order to survive." It sounds like we're on a rat race with steroids. Don't believe it. To be a great leader, you have to have the courage to slow down and make really good decisions. Once you believe in your decision, move into action. Don't feel compelled to meet someone else's stopwatch.

Ask Yourself the Big Question of Business

The big question of business is, "Will this decision be good for our business today and in the future?"

Notice the question doesn't say, "Will this decision be good for my career?" I think over the last decade we saw enough examples of people who made decisions that were good for their careers, at least in the short term, and bad for their businesses, in the long term.

Jim Collins wrote an iconic book called Good to Great. I liked the book very much, but I disagreed with his emphasis on humility. At least, I felt he needed to clarify better what that word means. If humility means always putting the good of the organization ahead of your own personal good, then I agree. Humility in that sense is critically important to being a leader for sustained success. On the other hand, if humility means putting yourself down and always saying that it was other people who produced the results and that you were just plain lucky, then I think it is the wrong word to use in describing a successful leader over the long term. You should believe in your worth and acknowledge that you do bring value to the organization that helps it to succeed today and tomorrow. Just don't put what's good for you ahead of what's best for the organization.

Remember What Got You Here

Not every company on the planet has had poor results through the recession. Some have continued to achieve remarkable results and deliver incredible performances. The challenge for leaders of every long-term successful company is to continually remind the employees and suppliers of what got them there.

Leaders who sustain success have great memories and are great historians. They know the values and decisions that guided their organization for many years, and they continually remind the current group of employees of those values.

Don't lead for today's headlines. Lead in a way that 52 years after your arrival your impact is still being felt every day.

Dan Coughlin teaches practical ideas on how to improve business performance in a sustainable way. He is a business keynote speaker, management consultant, executive coach, and author of four books on leadership, sales, branding, and innovation. His books include Accelerate, Corporate Catalysts, The Management 500, and Find a Way to Win. His clients include GE Capital, Prudential, McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Marriott, Boeing, Abbott, Toyota, Subway, Kiewit, Denny's, and the St. Louis Cardinals. Sign up for Dan Coughlin's free, monthly e-newsletter, The Business Acceleration, and watch his Free Business Acceleration Video Library, and read his complete archive of articles on business acceleration at www.thecoughlincompany.com.

COACHING AND MENTORING

Lead for Sustained Success : Real Test of Leadership

-- Dan Coughlin

Not every company on the planet has had poor results through the recession. Some have continued to achieve remarkable results and deliver incredible performances. The challenge for leaders of every long-term successful company is to continually remind the employees and suppliers of what got them there.

The real test of leadership is not in the moment, but in the long term. Of course, the decisions you make at any moment can positively or negatively affect the long-term health of the business.

Have you ever seen a leader swoop in and be the hero of the moment only to guide the organization to long-term failure? What good is that?

As the world-wide economy continues to improve, there will be a host of leaders who will be determined to show that they are getting great results right now. You might even be one of them. I'm encouraging you to do your best to focus on long-term success as well as the next quarterly report. Here are five ideas on leading for sustained success.

Carefully Select Your Role Models

It's been my experience that people tend to reflect the leaders they most admire. If they admire someone who is always sarcastic and cynical, then they tend to become more sarcastic and cynical. If they admire a leader who is always down-to-earth and friendly, they tend to be that way. Be very careful about the leaders you choose to be your role models.

My father-in-law, Reverend Arnold Bizer, is a living legend.

I'm serious. He was the Senior Minister of Salem Church in Alhambra, Illinois for 34 years. Alhambra has a population of 700 people. Every time my family and I go back to Alhambra with him, people line up to shake his hand. He retired 18 years ago. To me, he and his wife, Luetta, are absolutely fantastic examples of leading for sustained success. Their impact on that community continues to this day.

They are remarkably consistent with everyone they meet. Their personalities never waver. They treat everyone with respect. I've seen them in countless situations, and they continually amaze me. I never saw them in action at Salem Church because they retired three years before I met my wife, Barb. But I have heard from dozens of people who were impacted by their leadership, and the way their parishioners describe matches up exactly with what I have seen from them in their retirement.

Who is someone you know that has provided leadership for sustained success? What do you admire about that person? How can you use something that they do to become an even more effective leader today?

Be Consistent

The most important factor in building a strong brand is consistency. The same can be said for being a leader who sustains success over the long term. I don't mean you can't ever try new ideas. Innovation is part of regenerating success. However, being consistent with your values and your behaviors is how people can come to trust you. I've seen gruff leaders and loud leaders and gentle leaders and quiet leaders all become very successful. What I have not seen is people who changed their personalities every day be effective in sustaining success over the long term.

I've identified three disastrous leadership styles. They are:

The Mood Ring Leader

Their decisions and behaviors are based on their mood that day.

The Chameleon

they say or does whatever they think the boss of the moment wants.

The Polite Dictator

they tell employees what they want to hear, and then does whatever they had already decided to do before meeting with their employees.

The one thing these three types of leaders have in common is they are all very inconsistent. If you want to lead for sustained success, write down the values and beliefs you are going to stick to, no matter who is in the room or what mood you are in or what your results were last quarter. People need to know that they can count on you. If you change every day, they won't know who you are and what you stand for.

Pause, Think, Act

Neil Diamond had a song out a few years ago called, "Slow It Down." Here are some of the lyrics: Pick it up. Hurry up son. Eat on the run if you wanna get done.

Greed, speed, where does it lead you?

Wanna succeed? You thinking you need to?

But are you really sure?

It's a lot to endure, but I got me a cure.

Slow it down! Slow it down, yea.

Slow it down.

Take your time and you'll find your time has a meaning.

Easy now.

Catch those sounds of your heartbeat before it's leaving.

The funny thing about that song is the first time I heard it I was eating a hamburger while driving down the highway. Maybe that's why it got stuck in my head.

There is a constant world-wide drumbeat that says, "The world is moving faster than ever before. You have to make faster decisions in order to survive." It sounds like we're on a rat race with steroids. Don't believe it. To be a great leader, you have to have the courage to slow down and make really good decisions. Once you believe in your decision, move into action. Don't feel compelled to meet someone else's stopwatch.

Ask Yourself the Big Question of Business

The big question of business is, "Will this decision be good for our business today and in the future?"

Notice the question doesn't say, "Will this decision be good for my career?" I think over the last decade we saw enough examples of people who made decisions that were good for their careers, at least in the short term, and bad for their businesses, in the long term.

Jim Collins wrote an iconic book called Good to Great. I liked the book very much, but I disagreed with his emphasis on humility. At least, I felt he needed to clarify better what that word means. If humility means always putting the good of the organization ahead of your own personal good, then I agree. Humility in that sense is critically important to being a leader for sustained success. On the other hand, if humility means putting yourself down and always saying that it was other people who produced the results and that you were just plain lucky, then I think it is the wrong word to use in describing a successful leader over the long term. You should believe in your worth and acknowledge that you do bring value to the organization that helps it to succeed today and tomorrow. Just don't put what's good for you ahead of what's best for the organization.

Remember What Got You Here

Not every company on the planet has had poor results through the recession. Some have continued to achieve remarkable results and deliver incredible performances. The challenge for leaders of every long-term successful company is to continually remind the employees and suppliers of what got them there.

Leaders who sustain success have great memories and are great historians. They know the values and decisions that guided their organization for many years, and they continually remind the current group of employees of those values.

Don't lead for today's headlines. Lead in a way that 52 years after your arrival your impact is still being felt every day.

Dan Coughlin teaches practical ideas on how to improve business performance in a sustainable way. He is a business keynote speaker, management consultant, executive coach, and author of four books on leadership, sales, branding, and innovation. His books include Accelerate, Corporate Catalysts, The Management 500, and Find a Way to Win. His clients include GE Capital, Prudential, McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Marriott, Boeing, Abbott, Toyota, Subway, Kiewit, Denny's, and the St. Louis Cardinals. Sign up for Dan Coughlin's free, monthly e-newsletter, The Business Acceleration, and watch his Free Business Acceleration Video Library, and read his complete archive of articles on business acceleration at www.thecoughlincompany.com.

COACHING AND MENTORING

Inside the Head of a Head Coach : Researching Into Elite Performance

Talent and developing talent comes at a price. If that's what your organization needs, aspires to and if that's what you want, then learning from the experience of effective Head Coaches will add significant value to an organization passionate about performance. The provison is that you have to be prepared to pay the entry ticket and stay the course. Head Coaches are outstanding people, great human beings and living with and learning from these individuals is mutually challenging and enriching.

While you're winning today, you're planning how to win tomorrow.

-- National Coach & CEO

The minute a player threatens my control I have to take it seriously. If he's affecting results or morale, he has to go. My strength has to be obvious for all to see.

-- Sir Alex Ferguson, Manchester United Head Coach

In our job, you need to be an animal, in that you need a certain physical power to convince a group of players that they can win. When that strength has gone, you have a handicap, but you can make up for it with experience. I never have days when I think I can live without football.

-- Arsène Wenger,
Arsenal Head Coach

Researching into elite performance over 25 coaches and Head Coaches have been psychologically profiled and interviewed, including significant national and international figures and compared to CEOs and sales directors. The challenge is how elite performance is embedded in the culture of a club or country, so that it can move seamlessly from one group of outstanding players to another and how this can be applied to business. Part of the answer lies in appointing the right coach or coaches and in developing systemic elite performance. This is the secret of longevity, and initial findings suggest the learning can be transposed to business so that organizational health and market `domination' is not the whim of a few outstanding individuals or `killer products' but rather something that is embedded in the very soul of the organization, making it truly part of its industry's landscape. The answer is, the latent and real talent of the people at all levels in such an organization as they seek to turn dreams into reality.

Talent matters more than ever at this level in sports. And not just as a player. Make the wrong decision and select the inappropriate high profile figure as Head Coach and it can become a national or local saga and soap opera. International and national sports can be brutal; make no mistake winning counts and unlike most businesses there is a clarity concerning results. There is no hiding place.

In this article which outlines interim findings, there is an examination of what it takes to be a Head Coach. Much of the research outlined has been concerned with the field of professional rugby with the forthcoming 2011 World Cup on the horizon in New Zealand. That said, Head Coaches in Rugby have been compared to those in Cricket, Motor Sports, Rowing, Soccer, Skiing, and Swimming. Experience so far is that at elite level these are a breed apart. Sports may be different, but challenges are the same. Above all, they have to deliver results from people under pressure through processes that deliver the basics brilliantly, finding the innovative, tactical or psychological edge over their opposition, leading teams and change. In the short term success is defined by victory, in the long term by their legacy.

The Psychological Make-Up of the Head Coach

Let's start by saying that Head Coaches "want it more" than their colleagues -this is one of the most defining features of a Head Coach -almost 24-hours a day commitment to the role. Jake White, South Africa's 2007 World Cup Winning Coach once admitted, he still thinks about rugby just before he drops off to sleep at night and he's no longer in the job! You've seen it in some CEOs -a never-ending consuming interest in their business, which can wear out even the most dedicated subordinate. Testing through the Saville Consulting Wave®, has shown a driving ambition and an enterprising dynamism that places them in the top 1-2% of the population in these characteristics. Accompanying this drive, there is less than average empathy. These men, in what is a male-dominated world are not soft-hearted. They are not particularly attentive or receptive to others' ideas and feedback; they are not that tolerant of those who don't match up to their standards.

Winning

They have a `win-at-all-costs' mentality. In the industrial age, we would have called them `task-focused' rather than `people-focused'. They tend to want to win even more than the most competitive player; and it is only the most competitive players who go on to become the top coaches. This inner strength enables them to manage highly focused Rugby players (not a conforming group at all with a William Webb Ellis fine disregard for the rules) who as a pack would devour weaker people as well as from time to time mutiny against a regime they see as adding no value. And, winning at all costs means like top entrepreneurs in business that they sail close to the wind. They have to test rules to the limit in search of that extra margin. If they don't, their competitors will! When it comes to rules -like those they coach they are not the most compliant people you'll ever meet, our testing places them in the bottom 20% of compliance. They have in this respect more in common with entrepreneurs than conventional CEOs.

However, they are meticulous in certain areas -more so than most CEOs we've tested, and certainly more than players. One rider, the limited empathy shown should not be mistaken for lack of emotional intelligence. It's as much a question of priority for them. Top coaches are highly persuasive, inspirational and convincing (even if they are not the most articulate). They really do create an environment in which people want to work hard, both for themselves and for their team. They are also challenging, and expect to be challenged -they are prepared to ruffle feathers and don't mind having theirs ruffled in return. A few are prepared to be like the late Carwyn James `Prophets in their own Land'. What complements the drive, ambition, and preparedness to challenge is a desire and expectation to be held accountable. The buck stops with the head coach. Accountability separates the head coach from the players and also from the specialist coaching staff -there is no way a head coach can be "one of the lads" -they have to maintain distance in order to make the tough decisions, enforce standards and maintain the integrity of the environment that supports elite performance.

Having a Vision balanced by being streetwise and pragmatic

In our testing of coaches, we have found them like many Olympians to be highly `strategic' -more so even than the CEOs. The difference with other sports stars is, they set the direction for their organizations and drive everyone towards it. This direction becomes shared and underpins all the operations. More so than coaches, Head Coaches can capture and hold onto the bigger picture and the long-term perspective while managing to focus on the tactics to win a particular game. They can set the direction but not at the expense of forcing the pace. The research also reveals that Head Coaches are more analytical and rational than either coaches or players, preferring to base their decisions on facts rather than just feeling. Even so, they are less fact-based than either the CEOs or Senior Sales Managers tested. Eddie Jones, the former Australian Coach, expresses it well when he says, "We definitely have a plan in place but, as you know, rugby is an emotional game and sometimes the plan….you don't stick to the plan."

It would be fair to say that sometimes the plans we make in business are not all based on the facts, but have variable amounts of wishful thinking baked into them…this is not always a bad thing. David Kirk (ex-All Black captain, once a Coach and a Captain of industry CEO in Australia) says, "From time to time, the level of self-belief the Springboks have flies in the face of the facts, but that's what makes it such a valuable attribute. If you believe, regardless of the evidence, that you are good enough to win, then you will win."

Managing Change and Uncertainty

Living with change and uncertainty is part and parcel of winning at rugby -the odd shape of the ball, its unpredictable bounce, constant rule changes and the variable rule interpretations of referees elevates rugby over other sports in the level of uncertainty. Having said that other sports are subject to change in weather conditions and by its nature many sports have an unpredictable element. Not surprisingly, Head Coaches go beyond coaches and players in their ability to deal with change. Here the testing has shown they still lag behind CEOs and Senior Sales Managers in this respect. As with others who "carry the can", Head Coaches have a capacity to deal with uncertainty and change without passing it onto their players. They see opportunity where others see problems (even if they see the problems, too) so a losing streak can be turned to advantage. It becomes an opportunity to strengthen the squad, the change tactics, and to renegotiate a budget.

As one of the youngest and highly successful head coaches explained, "Unless you're King of the Castle there's going to be uncertainty. If you are in a job that requires you to get results, if you are in a job that requires you to win, if you let that bother you, you're not going to be able to win. An attribute of an effective coach is not transmitting uncertainty to the players. You don't want to. I don't think the players can perform under that uncertainty. They need to know why it's happened and that's going to happen for that reason. No problem, the boss says that's where we're going to go with it. You might have individuals that can cope with it, as a team you might have a strong group but there's always going to be a few that deviate away and it's your job to absorb that pressure and uncertainty as the leader."

To systematize elite performance means that a club (or country) cannot stand still -others will catch up -it has to evolve. And, to do this, it has to learn and to set itself on a path of continuous improvement. Just like the best organizations -they harness change in the environment to set themselves new standards of excellence which they then strive to achieve. It's a journey with no end in sight -once excellence has been achieved, the goalposts move and a new standard is set. Players come and players go, but the head coach remains accountable to the long-term success of the club (or country). They place an emphasis on staying on track through continuous improvement…and unlike the experience from mission statements of quality they have no choice but to live up to them. (See Exhibit II)

Absorbing Pressure

Time is at a premium in any professional sport as well as Rugby. The down-time between games to remedy tactical weaknesses, to build skills in players and to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the opponents is incredibly tight. It is akin to a crisis in business, only one that goes on week after week. The short term can become the master of the strategic and whoever said that the long term is only a number of short terms added together looks more and more insightful than ever. It falls to the head coach to build an organization for the future while managing the pressure to achieve results in the short term.

And, in Rugby, results are very black and white. With few games drawn, the team either wins or loses -so the gong or gun barrel of success and failure stare the head coach in the eyes. It explains why, in interviews, every head coach looks for something to build on from even the most humiliating defeat. The pressure of the media adds to the already highly charged atmosphere -it must be like living your whole life in a goldfish bowl or as the star in the Truman Show. Few businesses or celebrities suffer this sort of public pressure from week to week. No businessman runs the risk of having performance analyzed by the public, pundits or friends in such a critical fashion. The advent of social networking has added to this -with players and fans all having a platform and a voice about the ins and outs of the regime in any particular club or country set-up.

Successful Head Coaches must manage the pressure of today's game, and do so without passing it onto the players. Whilst some players might need to be kept on their toes, if players feel uncertain then the confidence they require to use their capabilities (competencies) drains away, and even simple actions feel nigh on impossible to perform. To deal with this, Head Coaches, by and large, are highly self-assured and self-determined. They are their own people. Many of them work like Fabio Capello, current England Soccer Manager with a strong right hand man, a trusted colleague whom they use to manage the stress. As an example 2007 Rugby World Cup Winning Coach, Jake White, is open about using former Wallabies Head Coach Eddie Jones. He says, "I knew what my limitations were and went and asked Eddie Jones to assist me. His experience played a vital role in our success." In other words smart Head Coaches do not purport to be (even though they might be made out to be) messiahs who can single-handedly transform the fortune of the organization. One of the best examples here is unassuming Irish Coach, Declan Kidney, of whom it has been said "he has a fantastic ­ability to surround himself with people he knows can do the job and in whom he has implicit faith and gets the best out of the talent available."

Trust and loyalty are important, though they are not all trusting. Head Coaches cannot open up to a press question -something indiscrete said to the press can be the beginning of the end of your career. They are often only as good as their own immediate back-up staff as well as the full backing of their bosses who must have realistic expectations about the time required to implement performance change and (re) build a performance culture. Arguably a coach does two jobs. One as a player and top-team focused -that's the visible side. Then there is the back-room staff and coaching team. And some coaches go further; they see their role as not only winning with the first team, but also building a recruitment, training and squad hierarchy that permeates the club or country and ensures future success. This is much more akin to running a business and being a CEO. These (a personal perspective in terms of learning from them) are the best coaches, but the club, a country may not always want them to do it -which is why you get `Directors of Rugby or Football' and a complex web of accountabilities and conventional bureaucratic blamestorming when performance hits a nadir or poor patch.

Personal Improvement Orientation

The Learning Individual

Coaches never stop learning, coaches are thieves. They steal from each other and from other sports, knowing that to stand still is to go backwards. A coach in the comfort zone will quickly find things fall apart and has to innovate or stagnate.  Coaches have to develop at a faster rate than their players.  -Better coaches -better Players - better team is an old mantra of mine.

-Former Head Coach & CEO of a National Sport

At a personal level Head Coaches are improvement oriented for themselves and their team. Sports is coach driven, there is no room for a coach who believes they know it all or have seen it all before, Top coaches are driven to look for answers that point their team upwards as far as expectations of excellence are concerned. As individuals they are always reviewing what they are doing because they are always trying to figure out ways of improving themselves, the team or the organization. For some coaches characterize this as a quest. Even if things are going well there are still things you need to learn about. This shouldn't come as a surprise. There is no room for complacency.

Meticulous when it Matters

As for Head Coaches having obsessional attention to detail, some are hailed as scientific in approach and many but not all appear to be technocrats. The best (well certainly those who last the longest) have amazing talent to deal with uncertainty. What they seem to have in common is a systematic management process that is to coin an expression `meticulous when it matters'. Most Head Coaches catch the right detail, rather than get caught up in detail and don't appear to run on high octane micro-management. In search of winning, they pay attention to detail others don't consider. In summary, they think and act strategically but build it on the basics. They make sure the basics are drilled in brilliantly as a starting point for success. They have what used to be called helicopter vision. When it's important they can and will zero in on the detail. Some of them do this with zeal. It's not that they want to apportion blame; they want to learn and change. Intriguingly, a number of Head Coaches relied extensively on probing questions as a way of creating change in players. This wasn't universal. What was noted was that many could vary their style according to the situation. Most would agree with the wisdom of one coach that you give yourself a much better chance if you have an inclusive approach, if you ask more than you tell. If you're just telling all the time, you are driving people into decline or submission and you get less from them when it really matters. And most would walk this talk -except at half time when some would be as explicit and measured as celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay…or delegate that role to the forwards coach.

To summarize Head Coaches are a rare breed. They come as a package deal -with extraordinary talent, motivation and attitude, as well as in some cases with their own entourage. They are switched on seven days a week. They rarely take a break. Before and after a big tournament or match they are not "balanced"; they are always thinking about their team, the players in the team, tactics, strategies, opposition, and the other stakeholders they have to manage. It is all-consuming. While their drive and ambition knows no bounds, their social skills may not be totally polished although some of them can be smooth sound by the operators. At times, they can switch on an abrasive quality. Occasionally, when the pressure gets to them they can be volatile and vocal. With some of course who are psychologically minded one can never be certain whether this intimidating air is part of the armoury of their act. Above all many can be multidimensional in pursuit of change, convincing and persuasive in their force of personality and passion for winning. Combine these assets with visionary and streetwise skills they can overcome any resistance within their team and as they gain experience have no problems challenging authority directly as well as subtly. They expect and even welcome uncertainty - it provides an opportunity for a supposedly weaker team to beat a stronger one. They live with the pressure -the "terror of the instant" as Arsenal Manager, Wenger calls it. They count winning above courting popularity. And as mentioned earlier the effective one's absorb pressure and don't pass it onto their players or self-destruct.

What can and can't be learned from Head Coaches?

More than a Metaphor

Sports as a metaphor for business might be potentially misleading if taken to the extreme. Some drawbacks have to be acknowledged. The world of sports at elite level is a distinctly passionate people business that runs on talent. Bureaucracies don't; they run on rules and status. More so than any other business, in sport you are only your front line players and pipeline or as the analogy they use `conveyor belt' of talent. Every sports team is an outcome of processes that delivers unequivocal results, every week. The scoreboard is out there in real time for all to see. Given that sport is just another business this doesn't mean that organizations in other areas cannot learn from the sports industry. The same way, the sports industry can learn from other sectors to avoid fad-based approaches and instant high performance. Let's look at some of the differences at a more fundamental level.

Complexity, Numbers and Culture

First one immediate difference is that the CEO of a multinational may have to deal with the inherent complexity of a billion dollar company employing over 100,000 people worldwide. In such organizations, the more things change, the more they stay the same. There's also the issue of diverse backgrounds, differing cultures and a range of motivations as well as gender and the male domination of most sports. That's some difference. Business is arguably more complex than sport in its management of people too and the generations at work. With his/her team, the coach has to manage individuals who are more or less in his mould -competitive, driven, ambitious. Selection in your own image isn't necessarily a negative if they too are 'winners'. In business a CEO will have some of these; the sales and operational people, but will also have to manage (and listen to) finance people, strategists, research staff -all of whom may be something completely different. What happens when intense Head Coaches manage ordinary `non-sports people'? It's often not pretty. Then again behind the scenes before the politically correct days some CEOs were known to `foam at the mouth' and suffer from periodic desk rage.

A question of Incentives and Perspective

Not to mention pay incentives. Well let's mention them. There are some big differences here. Through stock options a CEO has the opportunity to make serious personal wealth. And if you get the incentives wrong you can encourage the wrong behavior. A coach's situation just seems simpler -good money but less in the way of bonus, performance-related benefits and stock. Also in some sports, particularly football, less so in rugby the coach actively recruits players who earn considerably more than he does. A number of sports stars are effective brands, as big as mid-size businesses. This sometimes causes severe challenges for some. In tempestuous and twice fired football manager, Roy Keane's words "More about the Bentley's and the blondes than their profession."

At another level not everyone has the phenomenal drive, or will ever have the drive of an elite athlete. Much as we like to believe it, entrepreneurial skills are not in abundance. In the workplace we can't think ourselves as Director's. Furthermore large organizations with many people working there are risk averse. Most of us could only cope with the pressure levels of sports stars, obscene in the cases of National Coaches, in our dreams. To paraphrase F Scott Fitgerald, their resilience is of a different kind.

Another fundamental difference has to be that in sport, the feedback from decisions is both unambiguous and immediate. There is an integrity about performance and redemption a match away. But for most industries at top levels this is not the case. People's decision making does not get tested effectively for long periods of time. No matter how hard you try to simplify them other industries operate in a turbulent, complex, and chaotic world as opposed to choreographed world. You can't spin performance on the pitch, you can in the boardroom. Make a selection mistake (often a cultural misfit rather than incompetent) and it's only clear much later. In sports, mistakes rapidly haunt the Head Coach, the player and the team. They might be learning organizations but not of the type envisaged by Senge et al. Also top athletes are different. As one HeadCoach explained, "Unlike other young people they listen to advice they respect." It helps them win. Relative to learning, mistakes provide ammunition for critics. The Dogs of War have nothing on the hounds of the press. Related to this a Head Coach of England with business experience emphasized, "If I made a bad decision while running my company no one knew about it apart from me and my team. But in this job, if you make a bad decision or have a bad day it's major media news."

Competing or Complementary Objectives

There is another associated complexity. Where results are concerned in business there are often multiple objectives concerned with customers, employees, market share, as well as financial goals, shareholders etc. These interests are not always aligned. In sport, by contrast the fans, players, owners and governing bodies all have the same passionate, almost to a religious intensity, interest - winning! Many bloated businesses operating on the military model have lost the art and ethos of winning. In their quest for survival, adversity doesn't always pull teams together in business as self-preservation and the inner circle takes over. This is often termed politics. Here Michael Atherton, England Cricket Captain, once defined leadership as the art of setting aside differences. Does that always apply to top teams in business? Is there always a common goal? The jury is out.

There is an issue too in businesses faced by disruptive technology, the value of IP, patents, short-term and long-term results, and creative bonus schemes that arguably doesn't apply to sport in the same way. It is evident that the highest levels of leadership responsibilities in business present tasks and intellectual challenges that are massive, complex and conflicting. They are political in terms of Lasswell's famous definition, "who gets what, when, and how". The playing field of sports, the boundaries and the rules are less certain and political in a different way where `national interest' can intervene. In business, it is the leader's job to shape strategic choices and the reality is, the more senior you get, the more you have to hold a lot of things in balance, live with ambiguity and trade-offs. In sport, by contrast the competition and rules are much more clearly defined -who you play, what the rules are, what equipment is permitted, and so on. There is, of course, a lot of tactical innovation within those constraints, but it's still within the same overall framework. Furthermore, sport is physical. You can see what happened and the consequences of actions from three dimensions in freeze frame. Business, on the other hand, can be physical, virtual as well as global and real time, all the time a 24/7 activity. Competitors also are not so clearly defined. Some customers you may be both competing against and collaborating with. And in some multinationals you get to compete against yourself too! It's also to a degree true that customers are your competitors, because they are competing for your margins.

What's also clear is a lot of business is not transacted in direct competition (customers often don't shop around) but even where competition is important, it is not observable in the full frontal attack so apparent on the rugby field or sports stadiums. In rugby and other sports, coaches are not only developing the skills and knowledge required by players to play the game competently, but also trying to pick holes in the opponent's set-up and players, while hiding any weaknesses of their own team. Pressure is intense -it is one thing catching a rugby ball that has been hoisted into the air, but it's quite another to catch it when there's a marauding pack of players bearing down on you. That's not to say that there are not head to head competitions in business. Sales and Marketing is all about the competitive edge but a complex bid and tender or consultancy is won by the art and science of persuasion, points scoring, and political or trusted adviser selling of a different kind. Competitive benchmarking has been around since the early days of TQM but it rarely gets as personal and psychological as the World of Sports. Perhaps it should! -business would be more fun.

There's a harsh reality in the sports business worth bearing in mind. If you take over a club or country eventually the demand will come that you have to win the championship tier you are in. In businesses, there's rarely the same reason to excel. Many CEOs, for example, do well even if the business doesn't. It's also true that in some businesses (not usually sales driven) if things are going well and you are hitting plan people are content. There's not necessarily the imperative, even though there might be the invocation to be the best in the world. In sport it's very clear that survival is not enough. If your high performance program doesn't win the gold medals, the Premiership or the Cups, it's not seen as being successful. You'll get fired or funding will be withdrawn. True the same might apply in the sales world where previous research and experience has shown that sport seems to activate entrepreneurial talents but it actually costs more to fire many CEOs than it does to replace them according to recent work at Wharton Business School. In any event CEO stability is considerably higher than Head Coaches (around 20 months in Rugby). Here sports vary. In football, clubs rarely have the patience to see a manager/coach through a lean spell (although of course Manchester United did with Sir Alex Ferguson when he joined) and average tenure is about 16 months. Other sports, put up with mediocrity for far too long. Businesses on the other hand tends to damage itself in ways that are sometimes from a sociological standpoint `open secrets'-we've all seen the effects of (admittedly not-yet-CEO) fast-track managers being moved from job to job at 18 month intervals, without ever being given the opportunity to find out if what they've done has actually been of benefit. One high potential set of managers in one company deliberately avoid working in an area where inevitable failure is the kiss of death to their careers. Another group in the Attention Economy spend more time in self-promotion of their performance than actually performing a.k.a., managing upwards.

To the Bottom Line

Which leads us to the bottom line; assessing what can be learned from Head Coaches. Whilst as pointed out there are some differences and limitations, the research is confirming that these are outweighed by much more than the seductive nature of the metaphor. The real strength from learning about Head Coaches and those that work for them is the inspirational nature of their leadership, and how raw passion and talents are harnessed so that people fulfil their dreams and potential. This environment has very strong parallels to the business world of the future characterized by fellow Xerox alumni, John Seely Brown and former Mckinsey Consultant, John Hagel as one based on productive friction and dynamic specialization where people make their passions their professions.

In practice, having profiled elite athletes, not just in Rugby and their Head coaches, the research tends to support their thesis that ` the people that continue to achieve new levels of performance within a particular domain demonstrate a remarkable ability.' Admittedly they note another slightly different context about extreme athletes, "They are constantly probing beyond current levels of performance but they deeply understand existing limits for themselves and those they collaborate with. It is precisely this careful balancing act that enables them to take appropriate risk, the benefit of low compliance and successfully discover new approaches that define new levels of performance." As they say, "By making the most of what they have, they are constantly striving to find ways to reach new levels of performance." And as they highlight, "Isn't this precisely the definition of success in a world of mounting performance pressure -making the fullest possible use of the resources available to us while never accepting the limits imposed by those resources." In effect this is a summary of an effective Head Coach in action.

Businesses might be digitally different and technologically driven but they run on people. And to get the best out of a business you have to get the best out of people and their passions. Courage of a different sort, not necessarily physical but fundamental is required. It's no accident we have encountered many Head Coaches who go on to be successful CEOs. Indeed, renaissance man, Dr. David Kirk, uniquely positioned to comment as a former medical doctor, Mckinsey consultant and top CEO as well as former Coach captures the essence of the issue on how sports develops talent. Kirk believes that as you go through your life whether it's a sporting or business life, the capacity to learn and develop is critical. Things that you thought were important, things that worked for you in the past might not work in the future. He experienced this in the media business as it went digital with huge changes in technology. For Kirk, "everyone says you have to have the courage of your convictions and that is absolutely true but sometimes it's more important to have the courage to change convictions, to understand that things are changing and you have got to change with them." This is what effective Head Coaches personify. They move with the rules, the interpretation of the rules adapt to the margins of the times or become footnotes in Rugby history.

In the case of the Head Coach what you see unfold is how they reinvent themselves in the public eye. You can see how they learn experientially in the main and surmise why they `fail' in action. This prompts of course another avenue of discussion to explore different leadership styles for coaches -from the dossier and briefing -intensive technocratic style to the flamboyant and charismatic approach. Both work.

In summary, learning from Head Coaches may not be a panacea to all the problems of business but their perspective is an energizing breath of fresh air. Key areas for example, sales divisions have direct parallels with rugby, and other team sports cricket for that matter -with salespeople (players), sales managers (coaches) and senior sales managers (Head Coaches). In these circumstances, the learning achieved from studying elite performance in sports is swiftly transposable from one environment into the other. Businesses and individuals can achieve breakthrough performance by learning from selection, development, coaching, strategy, tactics, team building, analyzing the competition, from reviewing what makes a Head Coach and effective coaching infrastructures. That said as in learning from TQM an organization has to be ready for this type of cultural change. Learning from the elite sports world or the Head of a Head Coach might sound less daunting than learning from the shop floor of Japanese organizations during the halcyon days of total quality. It sounds more practical than what you learn at Harvard Business School. Whilst this may be true, implementation requires total commitment and passion. Without that the sports metaphor is simply an attention-grabbing and short-lived fad with the lifespan and utility of a weight loss diet or ubiquitous and de-energizing manufacturing oriented Six Sigma Program.

If individuals and organizations want to really learn from getting inside the Head of a Head Coach there are three core issues. Do you have the necessary ambition, passion and desire to invest for today and tomorrow?

Ambition

How ambitious are you for an organization, sales or sales management team in your control or yourself to develop world-class performance?

Passion: Do you personally have what it takes to compete against Head Coach types, manage other managers and do you really want to push yourself to the limit?

Investment

What are you personally willing to sacrifice to attain personal leadership and organizational productivity at the highest level you can? Will your organization invest in a high value talent development and coaching infrast-ructure? Will your organization support this investment over time or do they like many "listen with tin ears to their best people's development needs?"

There should be no illusions. Talent and developing talent comes at a price. If that's what your organization needs, aspires to and if that's what you want, then learning from the experience of effective Head Coaches will add significant value to an organization passionate about perform-ance. The provison is that you have to be prepared to pay the entry ticket and stay the course. Head Coaches are outstanding people, great human beings and living with and learning from these individuals is mutually challenging and enriching. As one Head Coach, an international celebrity in his sport and national hero highlighted the issue: To become a winner in high performance sport, it takes an all-consuming relentless effort, the real task being - to be the best we can be.

Richard Cross is a "behavioral scientist", with practical experience in the research and psychometrics area. In his early career at Xerox he worked with Professor Peter Saville, the leader in the field, pioneering the use of psychometrics to support selection decisions in the UK company and also in Africa, the Communist bloc of Eastern Europe, India and Pakistan. In India he was closely involved with the early days of Modi Xerox, one of the pioneering Joint Ventures in the late 1980s. During his career with Xerox, Richard developed and ran Assessment Centres, researched and implemented best practices and launched quality management initiatives throughout Europe, China and Asia. Xerox won the Malcolm Baldridge Quality Award and European Quality Award during this time. Having contributed to Saville and Hopson's book Talent, he is currently researching in the field of elite sports to understand what makes these great performers so effective and how they compare the talent in the business arena. Richard is director of Second Wave Solutions and a member of the Inside Knowledge editorial advisory board. He can be contacted at richard@secondwavesolutions.co.uk

COACHING AND MENTORING

The Internal Coach : Developing a Winning Team

Effective internal coaching requires appropriate systemic elements coupled with individual skills and attributes. In addition to a skilled coach, a successful program requires appropriate coachees, an engaged boss, and organizational support and recognition.

Carol, an excellent technical designer, who was identified as having high management potential, was promoted to head up a new office. Unenthusiastic about the practical benefits of evening classes in management, her boss decided to have one of the group's Human Resources people work with Carol as an internal coach. With substantial experience in and knowledge about the company's culture and politics, the coach was able to guide Carol through her initial months, greatly accelerating her transition to being a first-time manager and helping her navigate the potential pitfalls inherent in most organizations. She continued to work with Carol as she built her group, and the high-impact, low-cost intervention attracted significant attention. Within a year, people were lined up requesting similar internal coaching, which now had gained a reputation as a desirable developmental opportunity.

Internal Coaching Function

The use of executive coaches has been a staple of executive development for decades in corporate America. Historically, such coaches have been external professional consultants, hired by HR departments, who "parachute in" for assignments with defined objectives and/or set timetables, and, all too-often, with a focus on remedial action to fix someone who is "broken". While there is considerable evidence of the effectiveness of external executive coaching, there has also been growing interest in the use of internal "expert" coaches - typically, trained employees functioning part-time as coaches, who are able to expand the beneficial dimensions of developmental coaching to a broader set of an organization's workforce.

In any organization, internal coaching may begin modestly, driven by the interest or motivation of one or a few individuals who acquire the skills to start coaching. If the fledgling initiative is successful in developing momentum and organizational support, it can evolve into a more formal internal coaching function, defined as a planful, purposeful and intentional program for delivering developmental coaching to managers using internal resources who have requisite organizational knowledge and coaching skills. Although internal coaches are often members of the Human Resources or Organizational Development groups, they may come from any line or staff function. Deep knowledge, experience and awareness about an organization's strategy, its culture and its political realities, enable internal coaches to accelerate the development and learning of managers when they are faced with expanded responsibilities, promoted to new areas or asked to take on new duties. By using the developmental coaching model we espouse, which emphasizes individual growth aligned with organizational goals, a good coach can minimize the ambiguity often inherent in such situations and can quickly move an individual up the learning curve toward success more rapidly than might otherwise be possible.

Effective internal coaching, however, requires more than long tenure and good interpersonal skills. Use of the appropriate coaching model, the relevant body of knowledge and a particular skill set are all essential to capture and leverage experience and intuitive ability into effective coaching results. Additionally, purposeful coaching requires an articulated agreement to define its intended goals and parameters. Often this takes the form of a three-way contract between the coach, coachee and the coachee's manager. One important element of this contract is the nature of the "limited confidentiality" that typically pertains to such coaching. The coachee needs to understand clearly upfront what information is confidential and what may be subject to disclosure.

Business Case for Internal Coaching

The business case for developing an internal coaching function rests largely on those characteristics that substantially differentiate internal from external coaching. Although such differences may argue for the substitution of one for the other in some cases, often the two can be viewed as complementary activities which are appropriate for different target groups and somewhat different goals. The key components of the internal coaching business case include:

Return on Investment (ROI - Benefits/Cost)

• Cost

Although there is insufficient empirical data about the comparative costs of internal versus external coaching to make a definitive case, logic and our anecdotal evidence suggest that a well-managed internal coaching program has the potential to be cost-effective. Most external coaching costs are explicit: the fees - often on a par with other high-priced consultants - paid to professional coaches. Additional costs include those related to outsourcing: identifying, qualifying, selecting and managing vendors. Internal costs, in contrast, are primarily comprised of the time that coaches spend training and coaching, and therefore such costs tend to be hidden. Unless the internal coaching role is full time, coaching consumes relatively a small amount of time (usually less than 10%) for the majority of internal coaches, and it is not expected to interfere with day job responsibilities. This arrangement can create the appearance of making internal coaching seem cost-free, but that seductive reasoning can lead to an underestimation of the real costs of an internal program. More concretely, the hourly cost of a professional coach is likely to be significantly higher than that of the time an employee spends on coaching duties.

• Benefit

The benefit side of the ratio is similarly complex. External coaching has a well-earned reputation as an effective executive intervention model, while internal coaching would appear to have greater potential benefit risk, depending on the expertise and experience of those managing and coaching in the program. The upside potential of internal coaching, however, is arguably much greater. For one, it's a double bonus: coaches frequently report that they learn as much from the coaching experience as do their clients, generating improved work effectiveness and job performance. Coaches have repeatedly told us that they often learn more about the running of the business itself and the current issues managers face, and thus they become more valuable members of the organization. Second: that coaching expertise remains in the organization and has the opportunity to spread through informal engagements as well as formalize coaching sessions. The result is greater organizational learning among an increasing pool of employees.

Broader target client group

Because of its reduced cost, internal coaching can be delivered to a broader and deeper cross-section of an organization than is typically possible using external coaches. Historically, external coaching has been most often used with senior executives due to expense and also due to the challenge of having an internal person coach someone at a significantly higher level in the organization. There are, however, notable examples of the successful use of internal coaches to work with senior executives. One client of the authors, a large global financial services firm, has run a carefully-crafted internal coaching program for its top leaders for several years with very positive feedback. However, the use of internal coaches at middle management level seems to be where the function has had its greatest benefit, particularly with managers new to the organization or recently promoted to new positions or functions where they have had little or no prior background.

Enhanced effectiveness

Internal coaches are often able to accelerate managers' development and learning at a faster pace than feasible with external coaches because they know the landscape - the political, cultural, organizational structures that can provide support as well as the potholes that can cause derailment. As "native guides," internal coaches are able to "show the way" because they are embedded in the same organizational system and they understand the context of need and issues with which client managers have to deal. That understanding enables internal coaches to frame questions in ways that foster insight even as they walk the tightrope of objectivity. In contrast, external coaches, even if they become well-acquainted with a firm through multiple engagements, remain outsiders who have to rely on limited personal experience combined with the perspective of the coachee as principal inputs to understand the landscape and situation-specific context.

Keys to Effective Internal Coaching

Effective internal coaching requires appropriate systemic elements coupled with individual skills and attributes. In addition to a skilled coach, a successful program requires appropriate coachees, an engaged boss, and organizational support and recognition. Ideally, the coachee fits into the good-to-best performance category and possesses the willingness and openness to be coached - to be "coachable," in coaching parlance. Internal coaching focused solely on remedial use is best avoided. In addition to the obvious need for organizational competence in selecting and training coaches and managing the function, organizational - and senior leadership - support is crucial to ensure that bosses respect and see as worthwhile the time that coaches and coachees devote to the coaching effort. This is especially true in larger organizations when someone may be spending time coaching an individual in another department and the benefit needs to be seen as accruing to the entire organization. Such organizational recognition helps ensure the engagement of the coachee's boss in the coaching process, which is optimized at certain junctures with three-way (coach, coachee, boss) interaction. When the direct manager wants the coachee to succeed and is willing to participate in ways that may not have done independent of coaching, the impact of the coaching can be magnified and broadened. Through our work over the last five years at Babson Executive Education creating and delivering a certification program for developing internal coaches in a number of organizations, we have had the opportunity to study internal coaches and to delineate the requisite skills, attributes and qualities required for success, as follows:

Credibility

Credibility is the sine qua non of coaching; it is the first, second and third most important qualities. An external coach often brings credibility simply by virtue of being hired from outside the organization. (Interestingly there are examples of individuals who have lost some of that expert credibility when switching after years of work from outside consultant to inside employee.) For an internal coach, credibility typically is conferred on someone who has demonstrated functional, organizational and/or business knowledge, coupled with high job performance. Acting from a position of competence and knowledge, a credible coach has the authority to ask questions and offer advice that is perceived as valid and valuable. Credibility accrues with tenure and coaching experience, which build a coach's reputation for seasoned judgment and walking the talk. As such it can be a challenge to get started - especially for junior people. A key coaching management role is to ensure that new coaches ease into their role, allowing them to gain confidence and build credibility by starting with junior, "coachable" clients. Although there are no shortcuts to building credibility, a new coach can benefit from reflected credibility derived from the established reputation of the leaders of the coaching function, especially if the function has requisite organizational support and executive sponsorship.

Integrity

The internal coach must be viewed as trustworthy: imparting a strong sense that the best interests of both the client and the organization are a clear priority. Trust is the foundation on which an enduring coaching relationship is built, and it is essential for the articulation of the "limited confidentiality" imperative to a successful engagement. A coachee must trust that a coach will not divulge information to undermine his position, derail promotion opportunities or embarrass him. (There are some exceptions inherent in "limited confidentiality" as discussed later.) As with credibility, a reputation for integrity often takes time to earn through demonstration of actions, decisions and words that convey high ethical standards.

Conceptual knowledge

Coaches must possess basic knowledge about human and organizational behavior and development as well as a thorough understanding of coaching theory and its appropriate application. They need to know what it takes to make people change and how adults to learn. Such knowledge is not intuitive; it is often acquired through a course of study typical of that undertaken by Human Resources professionals. Line managers who want to become coaches usually have some content and process gaps to fill, though HR staff may also need a framing of business issues in order to be conversant in core strategic issues to optimize coaching line executives.

Engagement

While reputation for credibility and integrity is, to a large degree, established "a priori" and confirmed as a coaching relationship develops, engagement is a quality that even a novice coach can achieve by virtue of attention and caring - showing commitment to the client in words, tone, actions and follow-up. Engagement requires making an emotional and psychological connection that is manifested in empathy for the challenges a client confronts and an understanding of and appreciation for what a client is thinking, feeling and experiencing.

Presence

Presence is the ability to command attention and convey confidence that the coach can help: to possess the experience, competence and understanding to produce a positive outcome for the coachee. Confidence is one of the key qualities that helps to support credibility and integrity and allow the coach to connect authentically with the hearts and minds of clients.

Insight

Internal coaches are not likely to be psychologists or therapists and are not expected to attempt to discern the intentions or motivations of clients; they focus on behavior. Nevertheless, coaches do need to possess a measure of insight into the underpinnings of human behavior in order to help nurture self-reflection and change. Insight shows where developmental focus is most likely to attain results and allows a coach to make connections between seemingly disparate pieces of information gleaned from coachee input. Such "sense-making" can reveal the bigger picture and its impact on the client's situation.

Political Savvy

Understanding the political landscape is a critical quality and is one of the key benefits and requirements of an internal coaching function. Its importance is magnified by the fact that political savviness is often a weakness of many coachees. In fact, it may be a core coaching need by virtue of short tenure in the organization, lack of an innate political "ear," or because the client is moving or expanding her sphere to a different or larger political arena. Political savviness is where a coach's role as a "native guide" is most valuable: helping the client understand the implications of the behaviors in a given context, and understand how to "tune in" to the political realities of the organization, including which battles are worth fighting and which are to better avoid.

Objectivity

A coach must be able to see and discuss issues with the client in an unbiased way, being careful to observe the distinction between observation of behavior and inference. Without an objective perspective, a coach risks becoming sucked into a client's view of the world and losing the capacity to offer direction and advice uncolored by the client's personal biases. While a coach can be empathic to a coachee's difficult situation, then, must always be able to step back and make a dispassionate assessment. More than simply having and projecting objectivity, a coach should attempt to lead a client to see situations and events through an objective lens. The organizational knowledge that makes an internal coach a valuable native guide can also make it more challenging, but not impossible, to remain objective.

Coaching Skills

In addition to the qualities described above, specific coaching skills include an array of listening, questioning, restating, assessing and facilitating. These skills (see Appendix) are the foundation of our internal coach certificate program.

Challenges for Internal Coaches and the Coaching Organization

The major challenges or roadblocks for internal coaches often derive from political pressures, which manifest sometimes as well-intentioned but misguided notions on the part of executives about the appropriate role of a coach. Such pressure can take a variety of forms: from insistence on using internal coaches for remedial purposes only (perhaps as justification/support for termination) to asking a coach to provide input related to a proposed promotion or firing decision. It can be difficult for an internal coach to turn down an opportunity that ends up being remedial, and one can get stuck between the "rock" of the uncoachable poor performer and the "hard place" of the organization's need to "do something" with that employee. It may be useful in such cases to have a process, such as using a personality inventory, 360 days feedback results, or other data to establish lack of coachability and use that as suppport in turning down the assignment. Given the potential risks to the coach and to the reputation of the coaching function, (i.e., it deals with losers), this challenge speaks to the importance of the appropriate marketing of the internal coaching program. It needs to maintain the appeal of a true developmental opportunity and not be seen as a program to "fix" people. Coaching is not the current day equivalent of charm school; rather, it is a vehicle to give good performers the time and attention they deserve in their development.

Executives request that coaches supply information or opinions about their coachees for personnel decisions is a nuanced and potentially divisive issue. Ideally, such requests would be covered under the limited confidential component of the coaching contract discussed above. If that is not the case, then the reputation of the confidentiality and credibility of the coach (and perhaps the coaching function) may have to be weighed against the legimate needs of the organization. For example, if a manager is slated for promotion and a coach has gained insight that he thinks would provide valueable input to the decision, the internal coach needs to have the political savvy to recognize when the input does not violate the confidentiality contract set up at the outset of the engagement. It is these types of situations that highlight the importance of developing a contract between coach, coachee, boss and HR to establish credibility for the function.

The political power inherent in most hierarchical organizations poses a challenge to internal coaches, faced with, the need to give tough news to senior level people. The ability to speak truth to power comes from confidence and experience. The ability to deliver feedback requires courage and a clear understanding within the organization about what internal coaching is truly about. Clear expectations about the role are critical for success of the internal coaching function and the coach.

An additional challenge that can be difficult to deal with but is also a positive sign is that of a coaching taking up more time than expected for the internal coach. The authors have experienced occasions where internal coaches have become so accomplished and earned a reputation for such successful development that employees clamor for their coaching, as we described in the opening case. As the adage goes: Be careful what you wish for. Success can bring an overflow of coaching clients - which could become a burden on your coaching resources if you are not prepared for that success. The internal coaching potential has been largely untapped in most organizations. Our experience has shown that formalizing and building the internal coaching function can be a powerful, cost-effective strategy to develop your top talent.

Joseph Weintraub is a faculty director for Babson Executive Education where he directs the "Coaching Inside the Organization" Program, a certification program for educating internal executive coaches. He is also the founder and director of the Coaching for Leadership and Teamwork Program at Babson College. He is the co-author of the books, The Coaching Manager: Developing Top Talent in Business and The Coaching Organization: A Strategy for Developing Leaders. He can be contacted at weintraub@babson.edu Elaine Eisenman is Dean, Babson Executiveand enterprise Education and responsible for the growth of her division, currently ranked No. 11 for global executive education programs by the Financial Times.  An Organizational Psychologist, she has also been a business leader, general manager and HR executive, as well as an executive coach. She currently serves on a number of private and public company boards. Her areas of expertise include coaching and executive selection, transition, and succession, and the alignment of strategy, selection, compensation, and performance during periods of growth and transformation. She is co-author of I Didn't See It Coming: The Only Book You'll Ever Need to Avoid Being Blindsided in Business. She can be contacted at eeisenman@babson.edu Sam Perkins is Senior Research and Case Writer, Babson College. He develops case studies for use in MBA and custom executive education programs. Over the past 15 years, he has written more than 150 cases on topics ranging from entrepreneurial start-ups to corporate strategy in Fortune 100 companies. Sam is an integral member of coaching simulation experiences at Babson Executive Education. He can be contacted at sperkins@babson.edu

COACHING AND MENTORING

Avoiding Conflict is Not The Goal : Manage the Conflict

Being able to engage naturally, easily, respectfully, and constructively in the midst of a conflict is something we all can learn - and is something that can serve us all well, once learned. That we can then help others improve their own conflict competencies raises everyone's game, and makes conflict something far less daunting and distressing for everyone, as well.

For many, the mere thought of conflict triggers a deep, visceral, and automatic fight/flight reaction. But what is conflict? Why do people cope with conflict in such different ways and why do so many of those ways seem to only make things worse? Is it possible to become more competent with conflict, and if so, how? What if we could ENGAGE with conflict naturally, easily, respectfully, constructively? What if we could help others do the same? How would that improve your ability to get things done at work - and in life?

In the book, Becoming a Conflict Competent Leader: How You and Your Organization Can Manage Conflict Effectively, authors Craig Runde and Tim Flanagan define conflict as: "Any situation in which people have apparently incompatible goals, interests, principles, or feelings."

Based on that definition, conflict is inevitable; it cannot (and should not) be completely avoided. A better goal is to work on to reduce a conflict's HARMFUL effects (hurt feelings, anger, frustration, score-keeping, passive-aggressive - or openly aggressive - retaliation/retribution, etc.) and maximize its BENEFICIAL effects (better brainstorming, more creative/effective problem solving, deeper/more meaningful interactions, increased respect and regard for each other, a greater willingness to tackle more difficult challenges and opportunities, improved team camaraderie and success, etc.) - ideally, simultaneously.

Impossible? Hardly. But to do so, we must learn to better respond - not react, but respond - to conflict. Then, and only then, can we naturally focus LESS on how DIFFICULT conflict-based conversations might be, and focus MORE on how IMPORTANT they are to meaningfully address the issues that are causing the conflicts in the first place.

Understanding Different Conflict Styles

In becoming more conflict capable, it's helpful to understand the different ways that people naturally react to conflict. As part of their work, Runde and Flanagan have identified five distinct conflict styles:

The Competing Style

People who prefer or naturally gravitate to this style demonstrate "high levels of interest in satisfying one's own interests and low concern about the other person's needs." These people are often recognizable by their "in your face" win/lose affect.

The Avoiding Style

People who prefer or naturally gravitate to this style have a "low level of interest in meeting the needs of either person." These people will go to extraordinary lengths to steer clear of anything that even resembles a conflict.

The Accommodating Style

People who prefer or naturally gravitate to this style have a "low level of concern about meeting one's own needs and a high level of interest in meeting the other's needs." For them, they'd rather lose just to be through with it.

The Compromising Style

People who prefer or naturally gravitate to this style demonstrate a "mid-level interest in the needs of both parties." These are the people who suggest that "splitting the difference" is a reasonable strategy - whether it really is or not.

The Collaborating Style

People who prefer or naturally gravitate to this style demonstrate a "high level of interest in meeting both parties' needs." These are the true win/win or "both-gain" solution seekers and are typically the most conflict competent in the group.

It's important to realize that the collaborative style is not always the best choice, though. Working collaboratively with an untrustworthy opponent, for example, all can be easily result in them by manipulating you. Similarly, when someone's physical safety is an issue, avoiding a conflict may actually serve everyone better.

"Knowing more about the different styles and how others perceive them," assert Runde and Flanagan, "can help you maintain your balance when dealing with someone who has a different style. It can also keep these differences from exacerbating the underlying conflict."

There are other ways to assess one's conflict style, as well. Mitchell R Hammer, PhD, as example, developed the Intercultural Conflict Style (ICS) model for "effectively managing and resolving disagreements and conflicts across cultural boundaries." The ICS is a two-factor model that compares and contrasts how direct/indirect and the level of emotional restraint/expressiveness one demonstrates in communicating with others during conflict.

From this, four styles emerge: (See Exhibit I)

The Discussion Style

This style is more direct and emotionally restrained than the others. According to Dr. Hammer in his article titled, "The Intercultural Conflict Style Model", the discussion style "emphasizes precision in language use and generally follows the maxim, say what you mean and mean what you say." Discussions are usually based on objective facts and all parties are disciplined about keeping their personal feelings to themselves. Research shows that the US White American and Northern European cultures prefer this style for resolving conflicts.

The Engagement Style

This style is verbally direct and emotionally expressive, and can get quite confrontational, at times. But these "more intense, verbal and nonverbal expressions of emotion," are just how they show their true interest in finding a positive outcome. Research shows that the Russian and Greek cultures prefer this style for resolving conflicts.

The Accommodation Style

This style "emphasizes a more indirect approach for dealing with areas of disagreement and a more emotionally restrained or controlled manner for dealing with each party's emotional response to conflict." Their intention is to keep a conflict from getting out of control and maintaining interpersonal harmony. As a result, they discourage any intense expression of emotion, considering them counterproductive in nature. Research shows that the Japanese and Southeast Asian cultures prefer this style for resolving conflicts.

The Dynamic Style

This style "involves the use of more indirect strategies for dealing with substantive disagreements coupled with more emotionally intense expression." Linguistic devices such as hyperbole, dramatic storytelling and an effusive repetition of key points and positions are common. Research shows that many Arab cultures prefer this style for resolving conflicts.

The broader point is that any conflict style has its own set of pros and cons and contexts, and the more you understand what conflict styles you, and others around you, default to, the better your chances of responding in an increasingly conflict competent manner.

Hot Buttons and Triggers

Knowing that different people react to conflict in different ways is helpful. But what pushes us into conflict? Why is it that, in one instance, we feel imminently threatened, or triggered, by someone having "apparently incompatible goals, interests, principles, or feelings," but in another instance, we do not? Why is it that the same person can trigger us in one situation, but not in another? Why is it that some people (or types of people) can trigger us regardless of circumstance?

The answer to all of these questions has a lot to do with something called Hot Buttons, a central component of the Conflict Dynamics Profile (CDP) assessment, created by Runde and Flanagan:

"Hot Buttons are those situations or behaviors that can upset individuals enough to cause them to overreact in destructive ways."

In other words, Hot Buttons are what activate our fight/flight instincts; they are what cause us to act (and react) as if we already were embroiled in conflict - even when we are not.

Have you ever said something to someone who took it the "wrong way" and surprised you with how defensive they suddenly became? Without intending to, you likely triggered one of their Hot Buttons. Without intending to, they reacted defensively, as if threatened. (It's important to realize that whenever someone's Hot Button gets pushed, it more than likely happens unintentionally. Nevertheless, the person's [over]reaction is strong and immediate.)

The CDP assessment identifies the power that certain attitudes and behaviors of others have to frustrate, frighten, irritate, and/or automatically trigger us into conflict. The nine most common descriptors of people who push our Hot Buttons are:

Unreliable

that is, when we have to deal with people who "miss deadlines and cannot be counted on."

Overly Analytical

that is, when we have to deal with people who "are perfectionists, overanalyze things, and focus too much on minor issues."

Unappreciative

that is, when we have to deal with people who "fail to give credit to others and seldom praise good performance."

Aloof

that is, when we have to deal with people who "isolate themselves, do not seek input from others, or are hard to approach."

Micro-Managing

that is, when we have to deal with people who "constantly monitor and check up on the work being done."

Self-Centered

That is, when we have to deal with people who "believe they are always correct."

Abrasive

that is, when we have to deal with people who "are arrogant, sarcastic, and generally rude."

Untrustworthy

that is, when we have to deal with people who "exploit others, take undeserved credit, or cannot be trusted." 

Hostile

that is, when we have to deal with people who "lose their temper, become angry, or yell at others."

As you read through this list, some items likely didn't bother you much at all. But some, if you're being honest with yourself, likely created a definite emotional twinge in you.

Having your Hot Buttons pushed starts innocently enough:

Someone wants to talk with you about something.

But they raise, or discuss, the issue in a way that unintentionally triggers one of your Hot Buttons.

That it was unintentional matters not; you overreact, and in doing so, unintentionally trigger one of the other person's Hot Buttons.

You both now are triggered, but it doesn't stop there because the other person just (over) reacted in a way that triggered you all over again.

You, now, triggered and re-triggered in a matter of just moments, (over) react in a way that re-triggers the trigger-er.

Tensions (and exasperations) peak for you both, individually, and collectively.

And any ability for either of you to engage in a meaningful or constructive conversation about … what was it about, again? … is long gone.

Or maybe it works the other way round:

You want to talk with someone about something.

But you raise, or discuss, the issue in a way that unintentionally triggers one of their Hot Buttons.

That it was unintentional matters not; they overreact, and in doing so, unintentionally triggers one of your Hot Buttons.

You both now are triggered, but it doesn't stop there because you just (over) reacted in a way that triggered the other person all over again.

The other person, now, triggered and re-triggered in a matter of just moments, (over) react in a way that re-triggers the trigger-er.

Tensions (and exasperations) peak for you both, individually, and collectively.

And any ability for either of you to engage in a meaningful or constructive conversation about … what was it about, again? … is long gone.

Interestingly, neither you, nor the other person, had any intention of, or interest in, causing a conflict of this magnitude. Yet the mayhem that ensued created a definite conflict.

Is there no way out? Actually, there is. By getting more "consciously aware" of your own (and other people's) Hot Buttons, you can far more competently avoid this whole triggers-triggering-triggers thing and work, in true partnership on the more substantive issues at hand.

Becoming More Conflict Competent

Once engaged in conflict, regardless of what got you there, or the style you're using to respond to it, our conflict competence gets put to the test.

The key is to maximize our Constructive Responses to Conflict (a specific set of behaviors known to keep conflict to a minimum) and minimize our Destructive Responses to Conflict (a specific set of different behaviors that are known to escalate, or prolong conflict), across both Active and Passive dimensions.

Let's take a quick look at each of these CDP dimensions: (See Exhibit II)

Active-Constructive Responses

With these responses, individuals take some sort of "overt response to the conflict or provocation and as a result there is a beneficial effect on the course of the conflict."

• Perspective Taking

Responding to conflict by putting yourself in the other person's position and trying to understand that person's point of view.

• Creating Solutions

Responding to conflict by brainstorming with the other person, asking questions, and trying to create solutions to the problem.

• Reaching Out

Responding to conflict by reaching out to the other person, making the first move, and trying to make amends.

• Expressing Emotions

Responding to conflict by talking honestly with the other person and expressing your thoughts and feelings.

Passive-Constructive Responses

These responses "consist largely of the decision to refrain from some act [or to consider possible actions privately, instead] - and as a result there is a beneficial effect on the course of the conflict. The use of such responses make it less likely that the episode will develop into an emotional conflict."

• Reflective Thinking

Responding to conflict by analyzing the situation, weighing the pros and cons, and thinking about the best response.

• Delay Responding

Responding to conflict by waiting things out, letting matters settle down, or taking a "time out" when emotions are running high.

• Adapting

Responding to conflict by staying flexible, and trying to make the best of the situation.

Active-Destructive Responses

These responses, involve individuals taking some sort of "overt response to the conflict or provocation but doing so has a negative, destructive effect on the course of conflict. The use of such responses make it more likely that the episode will take the form of an emotional conflict."

• Winning at All Costs

Responding to conflict by arguing vigorously for your own position and trying to win at all costs.

• Displaying Anger

Responding to conflict by expressing anger, raising your voice, and using harsh, angry words.

• Demeaning Others

Responding to conflict by laughing at the other person, ridiculing the other's ideas, and using sarcasm.

• Retaliating

Responding to conflict by obstructing the other person, retaliating against the other, and trying to get revenge.

Passive-Destructive Responses

These responses are those in which "the individual responds to the precipitating event in a less active way, or fails to act in some way. As a result, the conflict is not resolved, or is resolved in an unsatisfactory manner."

• Avoiding

Responding to conflict by avoiding or ignoring the other person, and acting distant and aloof.

• Yielding

Responding to conflict by giving in to the other person in order to avoid further conflict.

• Hiding Emotions

Responding to conflict by concealing your true emotions even though feeling upset.

• Self-Criticizing

Responding to conflict by replaying the incident over in your mind, and criticizing yourself for not handling it better.

Again, the more capable we are at maximizing our Constructive Responses to conflict and minimizing our Destructive Responses to conflict, across both Active and Passive dimensions, the more conflict competent we will be.

Increased Conflict Competency is the Goal

Being able to engage naturally, easily, respectfully, and constructively in the midst of a conflict is something we all can learn - and is something that can serve us all well, once learned.

That we can then help others improve their own conflict competencies raises everyone's game, and makes conflict something far less daunting and distressing for everyone, as well.

Barry Zweibel is president of GottaGettaCoach!, Inc. As a noted executive coach, leadership consultant, and master certified life coach, he engages smart, capable, people in meaningful conversations about their personal growth and professional development. Barry's customized, coaching, mentoring, and consulting are particularly well-suited for executives and upper-level managers interested in increasing their organizational impact and influence. Those looking to improve their confidence, creativity, charisma and work/life balance, benefit from his life coach and life coaching-related services, as well. He is also a fully-trained and certified administrator of the Conflict Dynamics Profile Assessment. He can be reached at bz@ggci.com; www.ggci.com.

COACHING AND MENTORING

Why a Good Leader Must Be a Good Coach : What Leadership is All About

In the organizational sphere there are many theories about how a leader should behave. These are encapsulated in phrases such as `transactional leadership,' `transformational leadership,' `laissez-faire leadership,' `servant leadership,' `charismatic leadership,' `bureaucratic leadership,' `democratic leadership,' and so on. Each one implies a different relationship between the leader and those he or she leads.

Not long ago I sat in the office of Dwight as the CEO of a multinational corporation. He, my partner Dr. Alicia Fortinberry, and I were discussing a culture change program which we had been running for the company's senior and mid-level management.

"I've learned something from this exercise," he said, gazing out over Lower Manhattan. "I'm not really here to tell people what to do. For the most part they know. I'm here to be a guide and coach and to make them feel safe enough to do it. To encourage them to relate to each other in ways that makes doing the right thing possible." It was a very profound remark and has implications that go to the very heart of what leadership is all about. Every kind of human leadership involves either guiding or directing people. A good corporate leader both guides and, when necessary, directs. This may seem a statement of the obvious: a kind of "Of course. So?" The point is that, in my experience of 20 years of training leaders and as an executive coach, I have found many leaders who are good at `directing'; far fewer who are experts at `guiding.'

In the organizational sphere there are many theories about how a leader should behave. These are encapsulated in phrases such as `transactional leadership,' `transformational leadership,' `laissez-faire leadership,' `servant leadership,' `charismatic leadership,' `bureaucratic leadership,' `democratic leadership,' and so on. Each one implies a different relationship between the leader and those he or she leads.

Relationship Drivers

In the final analysis each party to any relationship, freely entered into, need to get his or her needs met.In a work relationship these needs arise from the basic motivators which make people go to work in the first place. According to Harvard professors Paul Lawrence and NitinNohria there are four main reasons why people go to work.

To Relate - bonding with others is probably the most fundamental driver.

To Acquire - principally money or status (which are frequently the same).

To Learn and develop - the human brain is a learning machine.

To Defend - initially things outside the firm, their families, their standard of living, etc. But a human will only feel fulfilled if he feels that he is working for or towards something worth defending. In a well-run company this can be the organization's values, the team, the department he works in, or simply his closest work relationships - his work `tribe.'

In reality these universal work needs -for relationship, for status, for development and for something worth defending - are not so very different from the needs a bride and groom have when they marry. In a sense, joining a company is rather like entering into a marriage. That, too, is a mutual satisfaction of needs. Like many modern marriages, at least in the Western world, the marriage of employee and employer is becoming progressively shorter. Marriage used to be for life and so was the work relationship. A key job of modern corporate leader is to retain his staff, reduce attrition, and by his leadership style create the conditions under which he can keep the employer/employee marriage intact for as long as possible.

Humans are relationship forming animals. Most of our genetics and nearly all of our neurobiology is geared towards one goal - surrounding ourselves with mutually supportive relationships. A good leader, then, is one who enables the mutual satisfaction of need to take place and creates an environment within which mutually supportive relationships are possible.

Part of this is, as Dwight said, guiding through mentoring and coaching. And a good leader realizes that coaching is not just for improving technical skills or performance (though that is obviously important) but to facilitate self-development, career fulfilment and better relationships. Coaching requires expert communication, relationship and motivating skills - the oft-denigrated soft skills!

Increasingly employers are realizing that it is these skills that make the difference to the organization's long-term sustainability and profitability. A study by MIT reported in Science showed that the highest performing teams (HPTs) were not composed necessarily of the most skilled or of people with the loftiest IQs. Rather these HPTs consisted of those with the highest level of social skills - people who were good at relating together. A recent study by Professor Diane C Davis of Southern Illinois University found that even among technology-focused graduates, those with the highest level of soft skills, particularly relationship skills, were the most sought after and rewarded. Employers found them to be the most productive and the most valuable.

Human-centric Leadership

Despite the obvious benefits, many leaders are reluctant to devote time to coaching, citing excuses such as:

"It takes too much of my time."

"This kind of training (in coaching skills) is a waste of money."

"Soft skills don't really matter."

"Coaching is HR's job."

"All I am paid to care about is the bottom line."

What all these statements demons-trate can be summed up in two words: poor leadership. Leaders who focus solely on the way an organization `runs' - putting more emphasis on its org charts, cash-flow, productivity and profitability rather than its people - tend to see it in much the same way a mechanic sees a motor. There are parts to be replaced, parts to be fixed and prescribed ways in which the motor's performance can be enhanced. It is what I call the `Henry Ford management style.' Perhaps if you are running a relatively simple production line it is appropriate. Henry Ford had only one model - the Model T - and only one color - black. There was little need for innovation and flexibility.

Most modern businesses don't have the luxury of a competitor-free trading environment and a tame, accepting customer base. They need an agile, responsive, engaged workforce. To achieve this, leaders have to adopt a leadership style which elicits and meets the needs and drives the humans they lead.

If the relationship between employee and manager is mutually supportive then the employee will have the trust and confidence to become more innovative and productive.

In coaching and mentoring, a leader gives his or her reports the kind of direct, one-on-one attention that cements the relationship in the most human way. Coaching is therefore not a job that should simply be delegated to HR. Rather it is a function of leadership - the role of everyone in the organization who has a managerial function. Ideally all managers must learn how and when to use a coaching style of leadership.

What is a Coaching Style of Leadership?

When we first started to work with Dwight's firm they had very low engagement scores (only 20% of all their employees were actively engaged and over 30% were classed as `disengaged'). Unsurprisingly their attrition rate was similarly poor. They were bedeviled by absenteeism and presenteeism which, combined with unwanted attrition, were costing them on average $28,000 per employee per year. Since they had 3000 employees, this amounted to $84 mn loss each year! Dwight admitted this was largely because of their directive, transactional management style.

"OK, I realize we need to change," Dwight had said at our third meeting. "You say that I and my senior management team need to adopt a more `coaching style' of management. What is that?"

There's a lot of debate about what exactly is a `coaching style of leadership?" Daniel Goleman popularized the phrase when he classed it as one of the six major management styles. In a Harvard Business Review article in 2000, he characterized it thus:

"Coaching leaders help employees identify their unique strengths and weaknesses and tie them to their personal and career aspirations. They encourage employees to establish long-term development goals and help them conceptualize a plan for attaining them. They make agreements with their employees about their role and responsibilities in enacting development plans, and they give plentiful instruction and feedback."

More recent research shows that focussing on giving `plentiful instruction' is an ineffective management style, at least for established employees. Far more effective is guiding people to generate their own solutions to the problems that they face.

Facilitating Solutions

Lee Iacocca, the hugely successful CEO of Chrysler, said that the job of managers was not to tell people what to do, but by skilful questioning allow them to arrive at the answers themselves. In his "Five Cs of Leadership," he says leaders must begin by:

"…acknowledging that they don't have all the answers and that the answers will come through dialogue and listening to people in the organization. The best leaders make a habit of face-to-face involvement and active listening with those on their team and with their customers. They ask open-ended questions and stir peoples' imagination to address challenges. In addition to getting a clear picture of how employees are seeing their world and generating potential fixes, this visibility and dialogue also forms a bond between the leader and those on the work team."

If an employee comes to a manager with a problem, and that manager either by using his intuition or experience, gives a quick solution, several unintended consequences occur:

The employee is less likely to follow the advice

Since not all the facts will be surfaced, the solution may well be inappro-priate or wrong

The employee will not `own' the solution and therefore won't be committed to it

The employee will begin to feel disengaged and, if this pattern is repeated, will be more likely to underperform or leave

The employee will not learn valuable problem-solving skills.

Listening to the Whole Person

A coaching style of management also involves, as Goleman indicates, getting to know the employee as a person with individual drivers, needs, motivations, career aspirations and so forth. In my experience, most managers, and CEOs, assume that other people have the same drivers and motivations as they do. This assumption is not only very often untrue, it is dangerous. It prevents managers from really taking the time to get to know and understand their reports. People want to feel listened to, understood and appreciated as an individual.They want to feel supported, motivated and engaged in relationships with their organizational superiors. After all, that's a large part of why they come to work in the first place.

When a person of higher rank takes the time to listen to and to coach the staff, increases the self-esteem and sense of status of the reports. Most studies have shown that having a good (though not exaggerated) sense of self-esteem is one of the main factors in happiness. And many studies have shown that a happy workplace is a more productive and more profitable one.

Building on Strengths

Affirming people's strengths and allowing them the opportunity to apply them in their work also raises their sense of happiness and engagement. Recent research from MIT shows that we do not learn from our mistakes, rather we learn from repeating what we have done right. Yet managers and leaders often tend to look for what has gone wrong and emphasize failings while giving feedback or discussing performance. Often it is this negative feedback that passes for `coaching.' In reality, an important part of coaching is a process of discovering a person's strengths.

A constant focus on what has gone wrong leads to disengagement, poor performance, stress, depression, and attrition of good people. Specific and frequent communication about what a person has been doing well and encouragement to leverage strengths has the opposite effect.

The Coaching Dialogue

I was sitting with a group of executives at one of Australia's largest banks not long ago, discussing how their company might adopt a coaching style of management. Andrew, the CFO, asked me what was different between having a normal conversation with someone and a specifically coaching dialogue. To demonstrate, I asked him to imagine that I was one of his reports, an ineffective delegate or whose performance was dropping, and to coach me.

The first thing Andrew did was to robustly criticize my performance and my delegating style. Having made me feel fairly worthless, he then got down to telling me how he had delegated when he held my job. I called a halt and asked him what he thought on what he was doing.

"Telling it like this. Doing away with the b******t." He looked around for the expected nods from his colleagues who seemed unsure about how they should respond.

"What you did," I began, "was to put your report on the defensive. Effectively you've ended the conversation as a two-way dialogue and you're showing that you're more interested in criticizing him and praising yourself than to genuinely helping him."

What could Andrew have done better? First, he might have shown the person that he valued him by offering thoughtful, specific praise (ideally based on Andrew's own observation). He might have made a `relationship statement' to indicate his interest and desire for an ongoing relationship (e.g. "I really enjoy working with you" or "Together we've achieved a lot over the past year"). He might then have paused to let the person acknowledge the praise or accept the relationship. Then, without criticism, he could have pointed out the specific actions that Andrew needed the report to do differently in future. The rest of the discussion might then have consisted of Andrew questioning the person to find out what was standing in the way of high performance and effective delegation for this person. He might have found out, for example, that the report assumed that none of the people working directly under him had sufficient knowledge to carry out certain tasks, or that he was shy about asking people to do things.

By allowing the person to articulate his own self-observations and build upon those insights, Andrew could have guided him to identify and commit to specific actions that he could take to be a more effective delegator. By the end of the discussion, an agreement might have been reached as well as a timeline for behavioral change. By `owning' his solution, the person would have felt it was `right' for him.

At no point would Andrew have made any suggestions or offered solutions.

Saving Time by Good Coaching

Would this dialogue have taken more time than Andrew's "cut to the chase?" Yes, obviously. But Andrew would've achieved a number of things which will save a great deal of time in the long run:

Cemented the relationship and raised the person's performance level

Increased the likelihood that the solution will be actioned and adhered to

Enabled the person to think through solutions for himself

Challenged the person to think outside his own cognitive box

Ensured that the person put into practice mutually agreed solutions.

When Alicia or I have given coaching demonstrations at workshops for executives around the world, the one thing that our audiences have been surprized at is how little time really good coaching takes. It is truly amazing how just a few open-ended, non-judgemental but challenging questions can lead to a really profound "Ah Ha!". From that, it is but a short step to the coachee coming up with solutions that he or she wouldn't have thought of before.

Often leaders find that the process of getting a report to come to his / her own solution is challenging, and people don't like to be challenged. He /she will often state a preference for just being told what to do. Some managers also find the process frustrating - they don't find the process of exploring options and solutions different to their preferred ones comfortable, and they feel that time is being wasted. The truth, of course, is that more time will be wasted through lack of engagement, attrition or bad advice.

The idea that good coaching takes time is a myth, it actually saves a bundle.

Coaching New People

There is a difference between coaching new recruits, and more settled individuals. With new people a part of coaching is actually telling them how things are done within the organization and also the basic how-to of their job. There is no point in asking questions to elicit answers about things that they could not possibly know. Coaching new or inexperienced employees is different in other ways too.

With relatively new recruits the object, besides telling them how the job is to be done, is two-fold: to make them feel at home in the organization - part of the tribe - and to find out about them, their life and career goals, their strengths and limitations.

I saw this beautifully done at a large hospital in the San Francisco Bay area. The Chief Medical Officer, Martin Thomas, is a friend of mine from years back. In fact, we worked in the same hospital when he was an intern physician and I was an intern clinical psychologist. As CMO it was part of his job description to coach junior medical staff, including interns. This is true of most CMOs, but quite a few don't bother and don't see it as part of their core competencies. Martin does. I sat in on a coaching session he had with a relatively new, and somewhat disgruntled, intern. Martin sat in a very relaxed way and asked the young woman about herself: why was she in medicine, what did she hope to achieve, what were her goals. His voice was calm and unhurried. At first she was somewhat perplexed and more than a bit nervous, but she gradually relaxed and opened up. She volunteered that it was her father who wanted her to be a doctor whereas she wanted to be a musician. Martin gave a wave of his hand as if encouraging her to go on. His silence was masterful.

"I'm not sure I'll make a very good practitioner," she confessed. Martin said nothing. "I'm not sure my heart is in it."

"Heart?" He asked.

"Yes. I'm an artist, not a scientist or a technician."

"So am I, so is any really good physician."

"How do you practice medicine as an art?" the intern asked.

"That's a good question. Why don't you answer it?"

After some thought she did and in the realization that came with her answer she became, for the first time, really engaged in her profession. She is presently on her way to becoming a really top-flight specialist.

It was the kind of dialogue that demonstrates that Martin is both a good coach and a good leader.

Bob Murray, PhD, MBA is a principal at Fortinberry Murray Consulting. He is a world-wide authority in leadership, change management and positive psychology and co-author of international bestseller Creating Optimism. Dr Murray helps clients in Asia, Australia, Europe and the US, such as PricewaterhouseCoopers, PepsiCo, Ford Motor Co and McDonald's create a positive relationship environment that enhances fulfilment and engagement while increasing sustainable performance. He can be reached at bob.murray@fortinberrymurray.com

COACHING AND MENTORING

Theory and Research in Entrepreneur Coaching : In the Face of Uncertainity

There is growing interest in avenues for entrepreneurship development. In the last 15 years, there has been a considerable growth in the body of knowledge governing entrepreneurship research. However, entrepreneurship development still remains controversy-riddled. Based on extant studies, we argue that within the domain of entrepreneurial development, entrepreneur coaching is comparatively more beneficial to entrepreneurs.

Throughout history, entrepreneurs have been seen as the drivers of economic growth and prosperity. Their contribution to the human capital of nations has been significant. The contribution of entrepreneurs to the growing financial and trade linkages has come to account for somewhere between one-quarter and one-half of global growth over the last five years. In the present day quest to continually innovate and create knowledge, the entrepreneur as a source of human capital emerges as one of the most important resources for a country. In the light of this widespread interest in identifying and nurturing entrepreneurs, the concept of `entrepreneur coaching' has received widespread interest.

At its broadest level, coaching is generally defined as a "process of equipping people with the tools, knowledge, and opportunities they need to develop them and become more effective." (Peterson & Hicks, 1995: 41). This notion of coaching as a developmental activity for effective job performance is well understood in management literature. However, in the entrepreneurial context, it has been argued that given the need to make decisions with little or no historical trends, information or previous levels of performance in the face of great degrees of uncertainty, coaches would be highly beneficial to entrepreneurs. They could help in a number of ways, such as selecting an appropriate business target, securing appropriate technical support, building networks and alliances, and helping to de-link personal failure and organizational failure. While business coaching, specifically for executives, has long been a widely adopted strategy by large corporations to deal with similar issues, entrepreneur coaching has only recently gained recognition.

Entrepreneur Development

Entrepreneurs learn in a way that is principally different from the traditional approaches. They actively create their knowledge by personally engaging in expanding their knowledge, expertise and skills. Apart from the innate opportunity recognition and decision making processes that are required to create organizations, entrepreneurs need to develop competencies to build and grow them. It is important to note that knowledge, skills and expertise do not arrive at their full capacity in entrepreneurs; instead, they are gradually developed through practice in a real-life context. There are four skills required for successful entrepreneurship:

Technical skills: specific to the industry of operation and needed to engage in the entrepreneur's chosen industry;

Managerial skills: required for conducting day-to-day business activities (e.g. Management, finance, administrative, marketing, legal, etc.);

Entrepreneurial skills: the ability to recognize and act on market opportunities and the ability to generate innovative solutions to all business challenges; and

Personal maturity skills: like self-awareness, accountability, emotional coping and creativity skills (Kutzanova, Lyons & Leichenstein, 2009).

All entrepreneurial ventures go through multiple stages of growth. Each growth stage requires a different configuration of skills and competencies. Most entrepreneurs are unlikely to invest in any formal education or training process to build their competencies. Most universities and training institutions will be unable to offer customized programs which personalize the learning content for an entrepreneur. Each entrepreneurial journey is unique and different. It is here that the role of entrepreneurship coaching becomes critical.

The main challenges for most entrepreneurs are not around technical skills but leadership skills: over involvement in routine activities (that they lose focus on important strategic issues and business goals), need to hone skills and capabilities to adapt to the changing size of organization in terms of interpersonal skills, coping with technology upgradation, business expansion, and physical and psychological isolation. (Kutzhnova et al. 2009) observed that regular coaching helps to maintain goal focus, focus on important goals, increase accountability to one's own goals and plans, bring in more strategic thinking in business and business development, understand business processes and help in creating a clear vision for the company. Coaches offer a neutral and nonjudgmental atmosphere in which to discuss the future of the business and how the entrepreneur can achieve personal and professional goals. These interventions tend to be open-ended, and the frequency of contact varies greatly. This is beneficial as entrepreneurs create their knowledge base by actively working on obtaining expertise and skills required for successful business performance. The entrepreneur fulfils many roles within the company and is riddled with problems specific to the context, and the process of entrepreneurship coaching addresses issues that are problematic for the particular entrepreneur. The basic premise of entrepreneur coaching is that the entrepreneurs actively create their knowledge by personally engaging in expanding their expertise and skills and coaching catalyzes this learning.

The process of coaching begins with `self-realization' and `self-awareness' about knowledge disequilibrium and the need for skill building. The coach aids the entrepreneur, who already has the `self-awareness' about the knowledge imbalance, to identify the self- limitations and take cognizance of other perspectives. Coaching assistance helps in identification of sources of knowledge, its interpretation, coalescing of knowledge received from all sources and in making sense out of entrepreneur's own experience. The learning process consists of practice and repetition of new skills till the stage of internalization so that the entrepreneurs can exercise these new skills independently to achieve higher order performance. The new skills acquired add to the present set of skills, and the cycle of self-awareness to expand personal knowledge and skill continues, with the coach playing an instrumental role in the whole process. Thus, entrepreneurial learning can be conceptualized as a dynamic process of awareness, reflection, association, and application (Cope, 2007).

The authors, based on a comprehen-sive review of literature in the field, identified the specific coaching needs at various stages in the entrepreneurial cycle as follows.

Pre-startup Phase

Coaches could help clients to assess their related personality traits, knowledge, skills, values, and preparedness to assume an entrepreneurial role. The social reality in which the entrepreneur is embedded can pose significant challenges. While one's entrepreneurial motivation may be high, the family and social pressures, financial outlays, evolving business plans may deter further progress in the entrepreneurial journey. Through the coaching process, the entrepreneur is made aware of the challenges and also be clear about the stress, responsibilities, and demands of starting a small business. Importantly, entrepre-neurs can also understand the challenges that they are likely to encounter over the life span of an entrepreneurial career.

Information Processing and Search Behavior

The process of search and opportunity recognition is understood to be influenced by the cognitive behaviors of entrepreneurs. Search behavior can be bounded by the decision maker's knowledge of how to process information as well as the ability to gather an appropriate amount of information. The ability of entrepreneurs to learn from previous business ownership experiences can influence the quantity and quality of information subsequently collected, as previous entrepreneurial experience often serves to provide a framework or mental schema for processing information. This entrepreneurial learning goes beyond acquiring new information by connecting and making inferences from various pieces of information that have not previously been connected. These inferences build from individual history and experience and often represent "out-of-the-box" thinking. Experience thus helps in developing heuristics that entrepreneurs use to make decision with little information amidst uncertainty. These heuristics may be crucial to making these new links and interpretations. In this context, Cooper, Folta, and Woo (1995) found that novice entrepreneurs sought more information than entrepreneurs with more entrepreneurial experience, but they searched less in unfamiliar surroundings. Entrepreneurs with limited experience may use simplified decision models to guide their search, while the opposite may be the case with experienced entrepreneurs. Coaches for novices could play an important role at this stage. In the case of habitual entrepreneurs, it should be noted that experience may not strictly enhance opportunity recognition ability. Habitual entrepreneurship is associated with liabilities (e.g., overconfidence, subject to blind spots, illusion of control, etc.), resulting from prior business ownership experience which could in turn lead to limited and narrow information search behavior. Coaches can potentially play a role here as some people habitually activate their mental schema for processing information and can recognize opportunities in the midst of an otherwise overwhelming number of stimuli. This may explain why the pursuit of one set of ideas and opportunities invariably leads entrepreneurs to additional innovative opportunities not recognized previously. Over time, valuable information regarding the real option becomes available or suitable venture opportunities emerge. Coaches could play a critical role in building reflection, introspection and synthesis capabilities which are critical at this stage.

Start-up activities

As an entrepreneur, an individual must be prepared to wear a variety of different functional "hats". Establishment of the business and gaining resources (raw materials, capital, and labor) characterize the early stage of entrepreneurship. The growth stage entrepreneur is much more focused in the areas of strategic planning, problem solving, administration and human resource management. The mature stage entrepreneurs are characterized by planning for succession through the successful incorporation of their business. Large amounts of tension and stress occur throughout the stages of an entrepre-neurial journey and these have a negative impact on the personal life of the entrepreneur. Since the entrepreneurial identity and enterprise identity are so closely intertwined, coaching provides an opportunity for entrepreneurs to engage with this dilemma explicitly.

Ucbasaran et al. (2001) noted that some experienced entrepreneurs may simply have had a fortuitous prior business ownership experience and may subse-quently have little idea about identifying additional profitable projects. There is an identifiable gap here to coach such entrepreneurs in opportunity identi-fication. Ucbasaran et. al. (2001) also found that entrepreneurs having high levels of confidence sought less information. Coaching can help to remove this bias and thus indirectly influence opportunity recog-nition and decision making abilities of young entrepreneurs.

Networking and Social Capital

Ucbasaran et al. (2001) postulate that the extent to which individuals recognize opportunities and search for relevant information can depend on the make-up of the various dimensions of an individual's human capital. An entrepreneur's social skills can be linked to the financial success of an organization and positive effects on organizational members. Networking allows entrepreneurs to enlarge their knowledge of opportunities, to gain access to critical resources, and to deal with business obstacles. Businesses owned by teams of partners generally have wider social and business networks and more diversified skill and competence bases to draw upon. Habitual entrepreneurs are likely to acquire information and contacts over time that provide them with a flow of information relating to opportunities. Previously successful entrepreneurs may receive proposals from financiers, advisers, other entrepreneurs, and business contacts. The creation of formal networks in the form of an innovative milieu, such as a Science Park, can provide a context for entrepreneurs and their firms to acquire knowledge and experience. Literature identifies that networking and alliance formations are critical parts of being a successful entrepreneur. Some entrepreneurs might need assistance in social skill development, social interaction, social perception, persuasion/ influence and means of business networking which can be tailored to individual needs by coaching. Mentoring, social exchange, and networking can also prove valuable to inexperienced entrepreneurs as they develop the skills, knowledge, and abilities to succeed in their new business. Entrepreneurship coaching can help tremendously in this arena. Kutzhnova et al. (2009) found that networking helps to build a social capital that facilitates learning and skill building and ensures genuine support from peers. Such a support assurance boosts the confidence of entrepreneurs who are often overshadowed by a physical and psychological sense of isolation.

While there are a number of other enterprise assistance services available to the entrepreneur at various stages, most of them provide either financial (e.g., venture capital and incubation services) or technical assistance (eg. consultants, incubation services, research agencies, universities, formal training), or both. Mullins (1996) observes that it is competence building that is most crucial for entrepreneurs in order to gain competitive advantage and to prepare themselves for a responsive behavior towards a dynamic environment.  Entrepreneurship coaching programs therefore should target at skill and capability building by active intervention. 

Conclusion

There is growing interest in avenues for entrepreneurship development. In the last 15 years, there has been a considerable growth in the body of knowledge governing entrepreneurship research. However, entrepreneurship development still remains controversy-riddled. The objective of this paper has been to probe into entrepreneur coaching as one possible tool for entrepren-eurship development. Based on extant studies, we argue that within the domain of entrepreneurial development, entrepre-neur coaching is comparatively more bene-ficial to entrepreneurs in the short and middle term, as compared to traditional educational approaches as well as alternatives such as mentoring and training. Unfortu-nately, there is a dearth of substantive theory on entrepreneur coaching.

Vasanthi Srinivasan is an Associate Professor in the area of Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Management and the Chairperson, Centre for Corporate Governance and Citizenship. Her areas of interest are career management, leadership development and workforce diversity. Deepali Sharma is  presently pursuing her Fellow program in Management  in Organization Theory at Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, India. Her research focus is on the institutional context of organizational actions with emphasis on  regulatory and policy design and diffusion of innovations.  Devi Vijay is a Doctoral Candidate in the Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Management area at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore.  Her research interests include collective entrepreneurship, communities of practices, and social movement theories.

COACHING AND MENTORING

Mentoring Critical Workgroups : Impact on the Bottom Line

Many companies initiate grandiose knowledge management initiatives but do little to help staff improve their performance. Putting information on the Intranet is not enough. The expertise to do something better, new or different may require additional skills and tools, as well as access to relevant knowledge. Successful companies take practical steps to enable their people to compete and win.

Within most organizations there are certain critical workgroups who have a direct impact upon bottom line performance and the achievement of key corporate goals. Improving their performance can deliver quick and tangible results. Hence, they might appear an obvious target for mentoring support. However, traditional mentoring can be costly, difficult to organize and might not be appropriate.

Often there are practical problems to address, such as not having enough experienced mentors to go around, or the difficulty of getting people with crowded diaries together in one place at the same time. Some groups require a mix of skills to succeed and someone qualified to mentor in one area might not be applicable in another. Many people are also on the move, and traditional mentoring support might not always be available at the time and location it is required.

Sales and customer support staff often represent a group challenge traditional approaches to training, mentoring and support. Ideally, they should be interacting with customers. Time at an office location can mean lost revenue and/or a frustrated customer. Interacting with prospects can also throw up unfamiliar issues.

Traditional mentoring is often better suited to positioning for future possibilities than addressing current and changing priorities. Where there is a sudden window of opportunity, a quick and authoritative response may be required. New forms of support is needed to accessible twenty four hours a day and seven days a week, wherever one might be working in a variety of locations.

A new generation of performance support tools are addressing this need for more flexible assistance. In effect, because support can be made available through a laptop, palmtop or mobile phone, relevant mentoring, guidance and advice is available on demand. These tools provide benefits for both people and organizations, and they are transforming workgroup productivity and corporate performance.

Let us look at the experiences of early adopters of performance support, some aspects of which could be regarded as a form of e-mentoring. The examples are taken from the authors' continuing investigation of how to boost the performance of key workgroups such as sales and marketing teams. Your marketing plans look good on paper, but are people in the front line equipped to implement them? Sales support tools can help your people to get your message across and win more orders.

Many companies initiate grandiose knowledge management initiatives but do little to help staff improve their performance. Putting information on the Intranet is not enough. The expertise to do something better, new or different may require additional skills and tools, as well as access to relevant knowledge. Successful companies take practical steps to enable their people to compete and win.

Training that is provided is also often general and does not give people the help they need to be effective in particular jobs. Inputs received may be difficult to update. One cannot always arrange additional training, mentoring or coaching every time a significant development occurs. Traditional support also often stops at the boundaries of organizations, and does not extend into channel and business partners.

Engaged customers, improved sales of existing products and more successful new product launches are the ambition of just about every board. Practical knowledge-based performance support tools can help achieve this aim. They can incorporate critical success factors and how high performers operate, capture and spread best practice and improve product and market knowledge.

Salesforce performance and productivity is an issue for many companies. Sales teams are being pressurized to win more orders. With competitors snapping at their heels and customers demanding more bespoke responses, prices and margins may be under threat. No wonder sales staff turnover is sometimes so high.

While superstars achieve their targets, many average performers rely increasingly upon specialist support. When under pressure and short of time, some also ignore regulatory requirements, make errors when pricing, or leave out standard clauses from proposals. They may also struggle to explain what is special and distinctive about their offerings, especially when these are complex and difficult to understand.

Eyretel, whose products recorded and analyzed telephone calls, found its growth limited by the speed with which it could recruit, induct and train new sales representatives and bring existing staff up to speed with new offerings. According to Marketing Director, Nathan George: "We had to find a way to get knowledge about our sophisticated product line to a large number of sales people quickly."

Cotoco, a supplier of bespoke performance support tools, developed a laptop-based toolkit with animations to explain Eyretel's voice recording solution, multimedia tours of its software, slide presentations, price and cost justification calculators, and report generators. Users were able to quickly explain relevant options, enable prospects to select the most appropriate solution, and generate proposals.

A process that could take up to five weeks could now be completed in forty minutes. Users followed the route a high performer would take. With e-mentoring, their superior approaches were effectively available to all on demand.

The impact on increasing sales and reducing sales costs was so rapid that Eyretel achieved a first year return on investment of over 70 times. The company grew rapidly and won an eBusiness Innovation Award. Its performance attracted attention and it became a sought-after acquisition and it is now part of a larger group.

Sales support packages developed for 3Com, Cisco, Dana, ICB and The Innovation Group have included interactive presentations, product demonstrations, decision trees to assist account planning, and tools for developing and pricing solutions. Performance support tools use whatever formats _ from text and graphics to animations, visual images and video and audio material _ best to help understanding.

Sales support tools that can be automatically updated are particularly suited to the launch of new products. A single repository like K-frame can hold all the information and knowledge needed. Technical details can be quickly communicated to groups in various locations around the world. Animations and video footage can be used to show offerings in use, and secrecy can be maintained until the moment of release. The Innovation Group has used performance support tools to launch a new Local Authority operating system and roll out its project management methodology. 3Com has employed a similar tool to introduce network products to both direct and indirect channels. Cisco Systems has used the approach to support the introduction of new offerings to its sales and customer support teams, channel partners and customers.

A sales support package can gather together the critical information, knowledge and tools a sales person need. It can incorporate `best practice' and the approaches used by `superstars' as well as key success factors for winning business identified by the winning companies; winning people investigation led by the author. It can also ensure that salespeople focus on value and benefits to the customer rather than product features.

Even with complex products, tools can be used to assess customer requirements and configure solutions. Multimedia capabilities usually enhance the portrayal of corporate credentials and capabilities, while animations can bring technology to life. As a result, the more complicated aspects might be understood for the first time.

ICB uses its `Navigator' sales support tool to build product knowledge and communicate with customers. According to Marketing Director, Janetta Evans ,"We now rely on the simple but effective tool as the knowledge base for the whole company. Navigator will become an intrinsic part of how ICB works."

Portable performance support tools can automate routine tasks and provide help at every stage of the sales process from prospecting and qualification to negotiation meetings. Commercial, quality and regulatory checks can be built in. A library of background information can help users to answer customers' questions on the spot. Marketing materials can include templates, case studies, testimonials and independent endorsements, competitor analysis, and industry and market knowledge.

Don Fuller of Cotoco emphasizes: "Seamless links can be provided to websites and online applications. Feedback mechanisms can gather information from the field. Tools can help salespeople identify cross-selling and upgrade opportunities."

Support tools can also ensure consistent application of best sales practice and a high standard of proposals. Marked improvements in product and market knowledge can occur. Other benefits include fewer errors, higher win rates, greater customer retention, less support staff, increased order value, and lower salesforce churn.

Refining the sales process and making it easy for people to follow can increase sales. Better prospecting and improved qualification can focus effort on the most productive accounts. New staff can be inducted more quickly. While traditional mentoring may provide restricted access to just one more experienced person, performance support can allow users to benefit from the superior approaches of many superstars.

Customers and prospects excluded from traditional mentoring can use performance support tools to discover new options that better meet their needs. When using them some customers order more than they would with a sales representative present. They feel in control and can explore alternatives in their own time. Automated calculations enable them to quickly assess the consequences of different approaches.

Sales support tools can be used to secure control over an indirect sales process. Consistent messages can be delivered to the market. Training costs can be slashed by ensuring material is easy to learn and use, and instantly accessible. Reliance upon specialist staff can be reduced considerably. Support that used to be available for only a few at certain locations can now be made available throughout a global organization.

Friends Provident, a supplier of financial services and savings products, uses a sales development support toolkit called THE MARKiT to assist staff running local marketing campaigns. Stuart Wilson, the company's Marketing Development Manager explained its adoption: "The business objective was to deliver an interactive toolkit that would help sales managers and their teams respond to requests for mailshots, local ads, posters and other lead generation material." Performance support tools allow managers to let go. They can maintain quality and avoid risks when delegating responsibilities. The automation of routine tasks frees up time for the greater differentiation and tailoring that may enable a price premium to be charged. Sometimes less experienced and qualified staff can be used.

In many organizations there is a desire to integrate working and learning. With traditional approaches to training, coaching and mentoring the two are separated. Those who receive support sometimes find it difficult to relate what is learned to situations they face at the time and place that work challenges arise.

Don Fuller the Managing Director of Cotoco believes: "Learning through doing is particularly effective. Building knowledge tools makes it very easy for people to get complex tasks right the first time and every time." Using them can be a differentiation. A systematic and customer-focused approach enhances a supplier's reputation and helps to build relationships.

Organizations should avoid introducing tools that deskill. According to Don Fuller "Support tools should help people to learn rapidly. They should improve understanding." Cisco's IP Telephony Sales Tool upskills people working in its direct and indirect sales channels. As users work through prospect qualification and other tools, windows open up to explain why certain courses of action are advocated. They learn from each use of the performance support tool.

Ease of use is critical to success. Stuart Wilson describes Friends Provident's requirement: "The toolkit had to be simple to use and capable of processing a large quantity of material in an interactive and user-friendly fashion, whilst also being flexible enough to cater for additional information to be added as required quickly and easily." According to Don Fuller: "To encourage take up and change behavior support tools should provide the easiest way to accomplish desired outcomes."

For Stuart Wilson the impact of THE MARKiT toolkit has been impressive: "We are very pleased with the end result, having achieved and indeed exceeded our original expectations." Janetta Evans of ICB is another satisfied user: "The message, the confidence, the ability to prove what we sell as a deliverable have all been greatly enhanced _ this must lead to a great return on investment."

Users of performance support tools report significant increase in productivity and the ease with which best practice can be spread. Quick paybacks of the cost of developing them can be achieved. Return on investment of 20:1 or more can be obtained within six months to a year. Even high performers who may not excel at everything find they are more effective. Most users find it much easier to do difficult jobs.

The approach one adopts is critical, as according to Ed Thompson of Gartner, sales technology often does not deliver: "Seventy five per cent of sales application projects are perceived by their users to have failed to meet expectations twelve months after deployment." Thompson believes that ill-considered sales technology can be bad for you, but as Eyretel found new and less experienced sales staff can benefit enormously from twenty four hour e-mentoring. The key is not trying to shave a few per cent off administrative time, but in focusing on what happens in front of the customer.

Eyretel's tool helped both its own people and customers to better understand its technology and products. Users felt so confident in the presence of customers that the ratio of support to sales staff was cut by a third. Win rates increased, orders were brought forward and more professional presentations delivered. Eyretel's Founder, Roger Keenan, described the tool as "by far the most professional piece of marketing Eyretel has ever produced."

Gartner's research suggests the key to success is to improve a process before automating it. Don Fuller agrees: "Improvements based upon the insights of superstar sales people are more likely to get outstanding results than automating current practices." Content is critical. During development review existing approaches and incorporate useful short cuts and how high achievers operate.

Traditional mentors can find it difficult to remain current and on top of developments. Friends Provident considered paper-based guides, which could cope with the level of detail required, although costly to update. However Stuart Wilson and his colleagues: "Recognized that these documents could very easily become shelf-fillers, gathering dust and rarely used. The company had a huge library of available materials. The challenge was finding how to present it in the most user-friendly way."

The best results are usually achieved with relatively homogenous groups of people undertaking similar tasks. Organizations should avoid fixed and inflexible tools in areas undergoing rapid change, unless arrangements are made for continuing review and also regular updating which can occur while users are online. Don Fuller insists: "Ongoing maintenance can greatly increase a tool's shelf life."

Gartner's research has found that successful sales support projects need clear goals, management commitment, a sound process and salesforce buy in. Stuart Wilson confirms that in adopting performance support or e-mentoring: "Close liaison between the field, our IT, compliance and design departments has been vital."

Too often sales tools focus on management's needs for reports rather than more effective selling and this approach can be disastrous. Ed Thompson explains: "Many companies never recover the impact of six months disruption while the new technology is being adopted." The focus becomes back office administration rather than performance in front of the customer.

The name performance support reflects an emphasis upon results. "In the sales arena, a performance support tool should focus unashamedly upon helping users land more business," argues Don Fuller. Focus is also important. Fuller believes: "The 80/20 rule is critical. Improve the 20% of the job role that delivers 80% of the business gain."

Once performance support requirements have been agreed upon rapid progress can usually be made. Even complex e-mentoring tools can be developed and tested within two or three months of a go ahead. The introduction of a new tool needs to be carefully planned if people are to obtain the maximum of benefit from it. Putting a CD-Rom disc into the post is not enough. People should understand the significance of what is provided and how it can help them.

Relevant mentoring support and expert guidance can be for the many, and not just for the few. It can be made available at all times, wherever help is required. Stuart Wilson has no doubt the effort of producing The MARKiT was worth it: "We now have a powerful and, within the Financial Services sector, a unique marketing support tool for our sales management team." Mentoring is on the street and in the home.

Colin Coulson-Thomasan international consultant, experienced chairman of award winning companies and process vision holder of complex transformation projects, leads the Winning Companies; Winning People research and best practice program. He is the author of over 40 books and reports, and has helped over 100 companies to improve director, board and/or corporate performance, reviewed the business development processes and practices of over 100 companies, and spoken at over 200 national, international and corporate events in some 40 countries. Currently at the University of Greenwich, Colin has held visiting professorial appointments in Europe, North and South America, the Middle East, India and China. He can be contacted via www.colincoulson-thomas.com

PERSPECTIVE

The Moral of the Moment : Coaching, Mentoring and Their Confusing Place in Management

Coaching, mentoring and management. These words go together like "peas in a pod", like "ducks in a pond", like "peanut and butter" or do they…? When you look at the curious relationship between coaching, mentoring and management you see anything but a match made in heaven. As a matter of fact, you often see a very dangerous, if not toxic relationship.

It looks such a good idea on paper. We have all probably heard the speech. In case you've forgotten, it sounds something like this:

"I want you to do the best you can here, and as your manager I want to be here to help coach and mentor you. That means I'm going to try and help you by giving you all my years of expertise here on the job." Sounds great doesn't it? Too bad it rarely works. Let me list the intent, and the reality…

Intent: To allow someone to open up and share their true feelings.

Reality: It is nearly impossible to open up to a manager or a person you report to. We try and work with a coach or mentor because that's what we are instructed to do.

Intent: To show someone the ropes by sharing years of real-world wisdom.

Reality: It is nearly impossible to show the line between personal style and measureable technique. What happens instead is the coaching of personal style which typically only works well with the person who is coaching.

Intent: Implement what someone has taught you to do.

Reality: The person receiving the coaching and mentoring, having been taught someone else's style, often becomes a poor imitation of the original, or person who is helping him.

This is some article isn't it? All I've done is complain and tell you why coaching, mentoring and management relationships often don't work. Now let me tell you how to try and make them work for you…

Intent: To allow someone to open up and share their true feelings.

Solution: Let's take the manager out of the picture for this one, and have our coach or mentor be another co-worker or even an outside coach. That makes the person who is helping easier to listen to and easier to bond with.

Intent: To show someone the ropes by sharing years of real-world wisdom.

Solution: It is critical that people be managed by repeatable, predictable processes that are measurable, and not a personality. This means we can do away with phrases like, "This is the way I do it" and replace them with phrases like "This is the process we follow."

Intent: Implement what someone has taught you to do.

Solution: Working with a process, and not someone's unique style makes implementation a whole lot easier. As a matter of fact, it makes measuring the results a whole lot easier. Why coach or mentor if what you are teaching isn't implemented?

The moral of the moment is this. There is an intent, a reality, and thank goodness a solution to the most difficult aspects of coaching and mentoring. If you look closely enough, you'll see the real solution is to remove personality from the relationship, and focus on the process. This makes coaching, mentoring, and ultimately succeeding a whole lot easier.

Rob L Jolles is a best-selling author, speaker and president of Jolles Associates Inc., an international training corporation. His bestselling book, The Way of the Road Warrior - Lessons in Business and Life From the Road Most Traveled, provides a collection of stories, and lessons he speaks of in this article. You can also follow Rob Jolles by reading his weekly blog at www.jolles.com/blog

INTERVIEW

Coaching is a function of mentoring. Mentoring and coaching are both processes that may equip participants to adapt to change. Mentoring and coaching provide venues for individuals to develop a more productive and useful set of skills driving into change rather than running away from it.

• Coaching vs Mentoring; there is a significant difference. Can you please elaborate?

There are a number of similarities between the two processes but there are also some very important differences, both in theory and in practice. Theoretically speaking, coaching is one aspect or behavior that a mentor provides to his or her protégé. The germinal research that Kathy Kram did back in the early 1980s clearly identified coaching as a function of mentoring. In more recent times, the process of coaching has taken on a more instrumental pragmatic use. Coaching is seen as the process whereby an individual is formally partnered with a professional for the purpose of achieving a specific personal or professional goal. In contrast, mentoring is a more organic relationship that naturally develops between a mentor and protégé with the overall purpose of sharing wisdom and navigating life, across personal and professional contexts. Coaching relationships generally have a predetermined span of duration (often one year) while mentoring relationships may last for many years as the partners in the relationship grow in their interaction.

• Coaching and Mentoring are tools used by organizations to develop human capital. Please comment.

Both types of relationship are powerful developmental catalysts for the support and advancement of talent. In a world that has moved to work that is increasingly more and more based on relationship management and the strength of interpersonal communication and connection, mentoring and coaching are both tools that enable individuals to strengthen those important skills. Through both mentoring and coaching, individuals have opportunity to identify and hone skills that are critical to effective career development.

• Coaching has received much attention in recent years with companies hiring professional coaches. Research shows that 90% of US Companies offered some form of coaching to top executives for the purpose of leadership development to ensure success after promotion or hire. Will this ensure that Coaching in corporate circles will become ubiquitous?

I agree that the presence and use of coaching is only going to increase. I don't know that I would agree that it will become ubiquitous. After all, only a certain portion of the population is offered access to this type of support. So in the upper echelons of organizations, yes, we will see an increasing reliance on coaching as a way to identify and groom top talent. Those employees who reside below the top third in organizations will probably continue to NOT have access to such developmental processes as a way to drive their career. In this way, it is interesting to note how both the research and practice of mentoring and coaching are both heavily biased towards professionals.

• Research on Coaching and Mentoring has grown popular over the last two decades. Investment, time and effort spent on these two areas is skyrocketing. Is this hype going to stay?

As I already stated, I do think that research and practical efforts to better understand and leverage mentoring and coaching are only going to increase. A corporate human resources officer recently solicited my opinion about why mentoring and coaching are becoming increasingly more common. Why are these processes so popular? I believe that they are becoming expected tools for change because when a mentoring effort or coaching plan is well-executed, the organization stands to benefit tremendously. Some of the benefits that organizations receive are increased loyalty, lower turnover and employees' report greater satisfaction with their careers in general. But just as there is ample opportunity to see the benefits of mentoring across numerous dimensions, there is also plenty of space for errors, that also cost the organizations that are planning and launching mentoring and coaching efforts.

• Many of the world's most admired corporations, from GE to Goldman Sachs invest in Coaching. Annual spending on coaching in the US is estimated at roughly $1 bn. Is this not expensive to companies coming from emerging markets?

This is a great question and one that is very relevant as more and more companies in emerging markets determine that their human talent should have access to the latest thinking and behavioral technology. Coaching is a process that is as important in India as it is in any other part of the world. So I predict that the demand for coaching for talent development is going to increase, leading to a parallel need to develop coaching capacity in emerging nations like India. India is well known for its abundance of smart workers. As the interest in coaching expands in developing nations like India, I expect that we will also see an increase in professionals preparing to offer services in this arena. It will be important to develop capacity to provide coaching from inside of emerging nations; coaches will need to be sensitive to the different dimensions and cultural nuances that may impact coaching relationships in ways that are quite different from what you see in the US. A burgeoning coaching industry in India could lead to another trend. India is also known for its strength in outsourcing. It could be that years from now, coaches trained in India may be globally in demand because they enable organizations in developed nations to access high quality, reasonably priced professional coaching services. Coaching from India may end up driving down the price of coaching in developed nations around the world. We have certainly seen this dynamic happen in other industries.

• In times of crisis and change how can coaching and mentoring help?

Mentoring and coaching are both processes that may equip participants to adapt to change. When crises happen, our innate response is often to burrow in and protect ourselves, to resist the change. Mentoring and coaching provide venues for individuals to develop a more productive and useful set of skills driving into change rather than running away from it. Mentors and coaches offer protégés and clients the opportunity to hone skills related to problem solving, effective communication, analytical ability and enhanced emotional intelligence. All of these skills are going to become increasingly more important in helping individuals navigate change. As Thomas Friedman's book, The World is Flat, suggests, given the "flattener" trends that workers in a global market are going to face, the only thing that we know for sure is constant, is change. All of us are going to be collaborating and competing with people and organizations around the world. To that extent, the role that mentors and coaches play in helping their partners in these relationships develop critical 21^st century competencies cannot be overstated.

• Some of the early research suggested that women had more difficulty finding mentors. What practical steps can we take to reduce this gap?

The early research on mentoring and gender did suggest that women did not get access to mentoring to the same degree that men did. But through a number of changes, in the proportion of women present in the workforce as well as in the ways that we ask questions through research, more nuanced outcomes have been discussed. For example, the research now is on, whether or not women have access to mentors to the same degree as men. It depends. Some studies do find a difference while others suggest that women have as much, and sometime even more, access to mentors. Even when women are found to have equal access to mentoring, the research suggests that what happens in the mentoring relationship may be different for men and women. We are still looking at a case where most of the mentors in these studies are male, reflecting current organizational demographics and representations of power and authority. So the question becomes: do women engaged in mentoring relationships with male mentors get the same results or have the same types of interactions as male protégés engaged with male mentors? Will female mentors offer women a different set of support functions than they would receive from male mentors? These are the questions to which researchers have begun to turn. So as we continue to build the extant knowledge about women and their mentoring relationships, are there any practical steps that can be taken? Certainly, at both the individual and organizational levels. Women can create a network of mentoring support, building relationships with both male and female mentors. There are benefits and challenges to each type of relationship. And organizations can adopt initiatives that support women connecting to partners in high quality relationships, whether through formal mentoring or coaching. A well run formal mentoring or coaching initiative offers considerable benefits to the participants and the organization. A poorly implemented initiative can do more damage than you can imagine.

• Coaching and Mentoring can be formal and informal. Which of them is better for the organization?

It is not that one is better for an organization and one is worse. Formal and informal mentoring and coaching both have their places in the lexicon of tools that organizations can use to support the development and retention of their talent. Research suggests that the outcomes are better for those engaged in informal mentoring than for those in more formal relationships; protégés in informal relationships report greater satisfaction, lower intentions to turnover, more promotions and higher salaries than those in formal mentoring relationships. But we also know that formal mentoring programs, when well developed and implemented, can provide access to developmental support for those who were not informally connecting with the power brokers who typically provide critical guidance and sponsorship in their organizations. Formal mentoring can also be a platform for the development of an informal interaction if partners build a relationship that they want to maintain after the conclusion of the formal program. Organizations that build a mentoring culture, where both formal and informal mentoring thrive, offer the greatest possibility providing access to the critical developmental support that all employees need.

Stacy Blake-Beard is Associate Professor of Management at the Simmons College School of Management where she teaches organizational behavior. She is also Faculty Affiliate at the Center for Gender in Organizations at Simmons. Prior to joining Simmons, she was faculty at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education. She has also worked in sales and marketing at Procter & Gamble and in the corporate human resources department at Xerox. Her research focuses on the challenges and opportunities offered by mentoring relationships, with a focus on how these relationships may be changing as a result of increasing workforce diversity. She has published research on gender, diversity, and mentoring in several publications including Journal of Career Development, Academy of Management Executive, Academy of Management Learning and Education, the Psychology of Women Quarterly, Journal of Management Development, Journal of Business Ethics and The Diversity Factor. Dr. Blake-Beard sits on the advisory board of a number of organizations, including Teen Voices, MentorNet and Jobs for the Future. She has been the recipient of several grants and prestigious fellowships, including awards from Fulbright and the Ford Foundation, and was a member of the Cambridge Review Committee, a national panel of experts convened to identify lessons learned from the Gates-Crowley incident. She has given seminars for and consulted with a number of organizations on issues of diversity, implementing formal mentoring programs, gender and leadership and team-building, including AstraZeneca International, Communidad Mujer, Putnam Investments, the American Bar Association, University of Michigan, Harvard University, Boston Public School District, The PhD Project, New Leaders for New Schools, Point Foundation, Bank of America, Chase Manhattan Bank, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Swissotel, PepsiCo, and Goldman Sachs. She also holds a BS in Psychology from the University of Maryland at College Park and an MA and a PhD in Organizational Psychology from the University of Michigan.

The interview was conducted by Ivaturi Murali Krishna
Research Associate,
Effective Executive
IUP Publications

INTERVIEW

A mentor is an internal colleague (who's often senior to you) who you look up to for informal advice. A coach is someone from the outside who's hired to advise you.

• Coaching vs Mentoring; there's significant difference. Can you please elaborate?

This isn't an academic definition but based on how I've seen the terms practically used in business today. A mentor is an internal colleague (who's often senior to you) who you look up to for informal advice. A coach is someone from the outside who's hired to advise you. The kind of advice they give you might overlap but the mentor is better positioned to give you advice about the informal workings of the company. The coach can give you more general perspectives as an outsider.

• Coaching and Mentoring are tools used by organizations to develop human capital. Please comment.

A lot of these tools reflect the fact that organizations no longer simply view employees as working 9-5, they have complicated lives that can interfere with the organization's technical goals. Further, organizations are acknowledging the complex nature of the employment contract: employees don't simply have the responsibility to make their numbers while employers have the responsibility to pay salaries. Employers also have to deal with the whole person if they want employees who are both productive and happy.

• Coaching has received much attention in recent years with companies hiring professional coaches. Research shows that 90% of US Companies offered some form of coaching to top executives for the purpose of leadership development to ensure success after promotion or hire. Will this ensure that Coaching in corporate circles will become ubiquitous?

Yes, some of these are trendy. A coach is a nice perk for a top executive, and once some companies offer it, the others start to follow too to signal their own status.

• Please identify qualities of a Coach and a Mentor? Do they require same skills, or are they two different specializations?

They are both dealing with the emotional life of the employee. So, more than technical expertise, they must be supportive and attuned to a person's emotional situation.

• Leaders who have the best coaching skills have better business results. Is this a myth or a fact?

I've not seen the data on this so I can't say for sure. However, a recent Sports Illustrated story profiled Joe Moglia, the former CEO of Ameritrade who left the Fortune 500 world to work his way up the ranks of football coaching. There is significant overlap in both the roles.

• Many of the world's most admired corporations, from GE to Goldman Sachs invest in Coaching. Annual spending on coaching in the US is estimated at roughly $1 bn. Is this not expensive to companies coming from emerging markets?

It is expensive from the stand point of American companies too.

• Coaching and Mentoring lead to a better office environment where success is cultured and failures minimized. Your comments.

it depends on how the coach/mentor operates I suppose. I can imagine a coach/mentor who enables people to perform to their fullest by resolving emotional baggage that might interfere with effective work. I can also imagine a coach who's not got much technical expertise influencing a CEO in areas s/he shouldn't, when they should be getting that information from more informed sources such as colleagues/subordinates.

Generally, there are positives and negatives of this trend as it is with any other.  I do like the fact that companies are spending more time and energy while dealing with employees' full lives, rather than seeing just their 9-5 work personas. However, I worry about some aspects of coaching.  It's an outgrowth of the therapy mentality (pay someone to talk out your problems) which has helped many people but has also proved to be expensive.  Rather it is better to have some smart people within the organization who can give informed technical advice and good emotional support. This will help save the billions of dollars spent on coaching.

• Some of the early research suggested that women had more difficulty finding mentors. What practical steps can we take to reduce this gap?

A lot of companies simply assign mentors. And rather than assign women to other women (who might offer a natural connection based on gender), they assign women to male mentors. This is because these cross-gender contacts might not happen naturally, but young women need access to these largely male dominated networks. An assigned mentor might be able to help in this way. And the diversity of the cross-gender tie might be especially beneficial.

• Can we substitute Coaching and Mentoring in organizations with compensation and incentives? At what cost?

I think so. Many companies realize that if they have happy employees, they are less likely to turnover when another job offer comes along for a few more thousand dollars. There is a financial value on having satisfied workers and these movements are trying to capitalize on the same.

Tanya Menon is a Visiting Associate Professor at Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. She was an Associate Professor of Behavioral Science at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business for ten years. She studies how human relationships matter in organizations, focusing both on cross-cultural differences and organizational learning. Her articles have appeared in Organization Science, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Harvard Business Review, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Management Science, and Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes among others.  She was formerly Associate Editor at Management Science, and her research has been cited in outlets including The Economist Intelligence Unit, The Guardian (UK), The Times of London (UK), London Evening Standard (UK), The Times of India, Fem Business (Netherlands), De Staandard (Belgium), The Straits Times (Singapore), University of Chicago Magazine. Menon was the winner of the 2006 Faculty Excellence Award at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business for exceptional commitment to teaching as voted by students in the Evening MBA and Weekend MBA programs, and the 2007 Phoenix Award, voted by the class of 2007 for enriching the experience of students inside and outside the classroom.  She has also taught in India, England, Italy, France, Singapore, and Spain.

The interview was conducted by Ivaturi Murali Krishna
Research Associate, Effective Executive
IUP Publications

INTERVIEW

Mentoring is making sure that the employee you think most deserving gets a fish; coaching is teaching an employee the fundamentals of fishing and hoping that he or she catches enough fish to sustain their appetite. 

• Coaching vs. Mentoring; there's significant difference. Can you please elaborate?

To put it most simply: On an individual basis, mentoring is short-circuiting the system to open doors for people, and prompting them to make responses that the system values; coaching is teaching people skills for operating more effectively, which includes opening doors for themselves. Mentoring is making sure that the employee you think most deserving gets a fish; coaching is teaching an employee the fundamentals of fishing and hoping that he or she catches enough fish to sustain their appetite. 

Both mentoring and coaching have their places. There's nothing inherently wrong with helping any gifted employee get around the obstacles that plague any large organization. And certainly, companies need coaches who can teach fundamentals overlooked in an employee's experience and education as well as state-of-the-art new practices that may not have been available when an employee was schooled. 

But in practice, conventional, single person mentoring has become a politically laced practice that only adds to internal dissension and dishonesty. How do managers subjectively pick people to mentor? By selecting those who will do best for the company? Usually they proceed the same way they carry out performance reviews: by rewarding people they are most "comfortable" with, or those who they think will be most loyal, do the most to further their own image internally, and will, in turn, help them in the future. The very act of opening doors for the chosen few, based on biased performance review protocols, adds to the dishonesty of the mentoring practice. 

Once the mentor finds his or her pet they are faced with justifying their choice.  And the silliness of the performance review provides a wonderful tool. Everyone knows that the best way to get a good review is to suck up the person doing the evaluating.

Instantly, competitive peer dynamics are set in play.  Part of an organization's effectiveness depends on employees helping one another and filling in gaps created by imperfect people acting imperfectly.  But how can you count on peers helping one another when only so many people can get top grades and only so many people can be "mentored?"  The obvious answer: You can't. Mentors, using bogus and subjective performance reviews, and the absurd metrics that define those reviews, identify people who can do them the most good; they pick the horse they think will win the next race. 

The result is a corrupt sizing up of talent, and a breeding of a group of loyal minions whose positions stem from their personalities rather than their abilities and willingness to do what the company needs to get done.  

What companies should be pursuing is a form of mentoring that is woefully lacking in most corporations. It's what I call "corporate mentoring" - that is, leaders pushing for system-wide changes that encourage all employees to use the "giftedness" they possess to the benefit of company. How can they do that? Simple: By removing corporately imposed obstacles, such as the performance preview, that prevents people from being, and doing, their best. This mentoring would ensure that employees don't fear negative consequences for talking straight, and their bosses aren't afraid of hearing whatever they have to say - and listening.

Corporate mentoring entails scrutinizing work modes,formats, protocols - and most broadly, systems - for how they might be altered to allow people to contribute as only they can, to find the role that they uniquely can play best. Everybody has something to contribute; the key is to recognize that potential, and not ignore it by putting people in boxes they don't belong. This is different than holding personality contests that stimulate within the ranks competition that ultimately reduces the effectiveness of the organization as a whole. Productive competition takes place in the marketplace, not inside the company. It should be about making the company successful, not about teammates vying with one another for artificially constrained rewards and status at the top.

• Coaching and Mentoring are tools used by organizations to develop human capital. Please comment.

Yes, there's no question about it, coaching and mentoring can be used to develop human capital. But giving someone a coach or having a mentor to advance their cause doesn't get you there. It doesn't even get you a little way there. Developing skills or receiving opportunities doesn't mean people will conduct themselves appropriately or even talk openly and honestly and provide the right kind of support to the other human resources the firm counts on for overall effectiveness. If we're talking management tools, then let's talk about the most important management tool that exists and what needs to happen for that to be made available.

There's no question about it, for valuable management tools, there's no rival for trusting relationships. That's the best tool any manager has ever had. With trust, one can talk about what one sees going wrong and speak openly about what they are doing, about self-perceived limitations and actually open one's self to critique and learning. However, instead of removing the obstacles to trusting relationships, too many companies substitute mentoring and coaching in a way that destroys trust. They pretend the mentor or coach has all the answers and wisdom and that talking with them will unleash pent up human resources. That's nonsense. Nobody has all the wisdom and no words can solve relationship problems unless spoken real time by the individuals involved.

If you want to use mentors and coaches to develop human capital, you need to fix the system first or what you're likely to get will be more illusion than the behavior that actually leads to substantive results. To that end, I'd suggest three steps. First, get rid of the fear and intimidation that an all-knowing mentor or coach or boss injects into the system. Get rid of the dangerous protocol that makes irrelevant mentoring and coaching necessary - the performance review. Subtract it and you've instantly taken a huge step forward in diminishing the fear and intimidation preventing employees farom talking honestly about themselves - their weaknesses as well as their strengths. Immediately you've made it possible for employees to admit what they need in the way of supports that they don't see their manager or the system providing them. Now an honest coach can perform needed work.

Second, change the internal politics: Take hierarchy out of relationships - it was never supposed to be there. Hierarchy is intended for establishing authority, jurisdiction and lines of decision-making delegation and accountability. It never did an ounce of good in any work relationship or give and take exchange of viewpoints. Tell managers they are no longer the designated grader and that you're holding them accountable for getting company needed results and that means the successful functioning of each and every employee reporting to him or her.Now you've got "skin in the game" management with managers stakeholders in people being their best.

Third, create formats for managers to do what they've never been able to do very well: Hold honest dialogue with each and every direct report, not just the ones with whom they're colluding. Then charge those people with keeping one another informed with zero tolerance for after the fact surprises. Make bosses and subordinates jointly responsible for bringing in winners with no partial credit given when the other guy drops the ball. We're talking "Performance Previews" to replace after the fact reviews. We're talking about discussing problems and performance difficulties while there's still time to fix them, reviewing tactics and strategies when you first discover they aren't working and,instead of listing the other guys deficiencies, filling in for one another whenever something needs to get done.  Then, after the results are in, the big boss can go back and decide whether or not emergency measures employed require protocol or personnel changes or whether what's needed most is coaching for someone to more competently perform an essential function.  

• Coaching has received much attention in recent years with companies hiring professional coaches. Research shows that 90% of the US Companies offered some form of coaching to top executives for the purpose of leadership development to ensure success after promotion or hire. Will this ensure that Coaching in corporate circles will become ubiquitous?

The story goes that Abraham Lincoln once asked a constituent,"If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" The constituent said: "Five."  Lincoln corrected him, "No it's four." Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. 

If you want to call what most coaches have been doing "coaching," go right ahead. But that doesn't mean all coaching has been doing the company much overall good.Too often, coaching is performed in the sanctum of a client's office, limited to the facts reported by a single individual without the benefit of other participants' eyewitness accounts with the coach buying in to a client-controlled reality that doesn't lead company to improve results. Everyone knows organization life is institutionalized Rashomon (where you stand determines what you see). I get skeptical when I hear accounts of coaches helping someone to upgrade their communication and relationship effectiveness skills without the eventual involvement of real-time work associates there to speak for themselves.

Now for a dirty little secret: Most executives realize that managing is more than simply having rational discussions and making intelligent decisions. Even if they don't admit it, they know that, above all else, management is a psychological assignment that requires counseling, hand-holding and helping people achieve a truer, deeper understanding about what makes them act as they do. So executives use coaches to supplement what managers need accomplished that they are unable to do themselves implicitly recognizing that current protocols (like the performance review) preclude honest about one's self discussions with reports. Admitting to pursuing the self-beneficial, having psychological needs, owning up to personal defensiveness or having blind spots, prejudicial mindsets and emotional biases are not allowed in the present framework. Of course we all know everyone has these and more.

Effective coaching requires a balance to be struck. On one hand, people need a psychologically safe and apolitical environment for conducting the reflection and self-honest critique required for the type of personal learning that can lead to behavioral change. But they also need face-to-face dialog for appreciating the ways the people they are working with, not people in the abstract, uniquely go about their jobs, and, most importantly, the reasons why they do so. One doesn't acquire empathy, sensitivity and understanding required for working around immutable imperfections to provide work associates a supportive attitude in the abstract. So yes, "coaching" may become ubiquitous, because it reinforces the boss's perception that he or she is the source of all wisdom. But, when it comes to essential learning, more hours may lead to less.

• Please identify qualities of a Coach and a Mentor? Do they require same skills, or are they two different specializations?

Very different. A coach is an educator, a consultant, a counselor. Conventional mentoring of individuals is door opening and helping with the political placement that allows an individual to show his/her stuff, get him/herself schooled with guidance that's often more about circumventing political obstacles than acquisition of performance skills. And a "corporate mentor" should be a systems thinker and human systems engineer, somebody who fixes the system on a grand scale.

The problem, as Deming put it, is that the people making it in the system have little incentive to change it. When you knock down political barriers, it does no good for the company if you're only knocking them down for your favored employee. If the goal is the company's success, they have to be knocked down for everybody.

• Leaders who have the best coaching skills get better business results. Is this a myth or a fact?

If you define leaders and coaches as I have, then by definition, those who break down barriers, who promote straight talk, who endorse system revisions such as getting rid of the performance review that make it easier for any employee to speak the truth he or she knows and do his or her best - those people will have the best business results.  

The reason is obvious: Get rid of obstacles to honesty and you get rid of obstacles for people doing their best. If there is a trusting relationship between boss and subordinate, then everybody is reaching for the same corporate goals, rather than just playing political games. Instead of an environment where the boss knows all and can blame the employee for failed results and not emulating some fantasy of what the boss thinks he or she can require. What you want is what I have been calling a Performance Preview environment where all cards are on the table and both boss and subordinate have skin in the game and the only politics that make sense is helping the other guy succeed. And in that environment, results will take off. 

• Research on Coaching and Mentoring has grown popular over the last two decades. Investment, time and effort spent on these two areas is skyrocketing. Is this hype going to stay?

We're back to Abe Lincoln's dog.  There's always a need to learn, adapt and grow, and being coached can be quite valuable.  But by and large the company milieu should make it possible for people to care about one another's well-being inside the company and to receive safe coaching from evaluative consequences, particularly from managers of one's choosing or from peers in a buddy system or even small support groups.

I think outsiders coming in to coach should coach managers how to coach, not do their work for them, and that top tier managers should step up and try some corporate mentoring aimed at making it safe for employees at any level to speak their truths if only to get their flawed thinking heard and set straight. Let's get off this stupid grading kick that compares apples and oranges. It's time for managers to perform their most fundamental assignment: Helping every direct report to be successful. Smart outsiders can be very useful if the guys inside can take the critique. Prize them for their expertise and alternative perspective and then use indigenous resources for application.

Every employee deserves an opportunity to do his or her best and high level managers should be using coaches to help them step forward as corporate mentors realizing that they are the ones responsible for removing corporately imposed obstacles that prevent employees from speaking their truths and having their resources appreciated and utilized. If they've gone on this long tolerating the protocols that allowed them to rise and kept others from being their best they probably need some coaching. Bring in the human systems analysts who can demystify protocols, like the annual performance review, that pose as necessary and needed. Get coaches who understand human systems engineering to teach them how to deconstruct these protocols to view what causes limitations and to reformulate formats so with what's been proven to be deleterious removed, such as operatives put in a situation where they are unable to talk about their own mistakes or what they see going wrong until it's too late to reverse course. Performance needs to be previewed for fixing, not reviewed for faulting. Why isn't this being done universally? Why hasn't it been done by all the "special people" who were coached and mentored?

• Many of the world's most admired corporations, from GE to Goldman Sachs invest in Coaching. Annual spending on coaching in the US is estimated at roughly $1 bn. Is this not expensive to companies coming from emerging markets?

It's expensive if the coaching doesn't do what needs to be done that bears on company results. Too many coaching sessions fail that litmus test. Of course, when coaching is done well, it's usually cheap at twice the price. The error is that coaches, as noted before, have only one perspective: that of the individual they are working with. It can be the equivalent of blind men trying to identify an elephant by just feeling the part right in front of them. As a result, when the issue involves application, in contrast to knowledge acquisition, it's important that coaches observe actual experiences, not just talk about them. That's why it's much better that coaching takes place indigenously. After all, it's the boss' job to provide oversight, give guidance, and insure the company gets the results it needed. So it's expensive for any company that doesn't use coaching as it needs to be used: to teach managers how to be good managers instead of intimidators.

• In times of crisis and change how can coaching and mentoring help?

In a time of crisis and change, honesty is more important than ever. And employees are more scared than ever - scared of change, scared of losing their jobs, scared that if they speak out, they will have their heads chopped. So in a time of change, coaching people to change their mindset from intimidation to openness is crucial.

• Some of the early research suggested that women had more difficulty finding mentors. What practical steps can we take to reduce this gap?

The gap exists because the whole system of mentoring individuals is, in the current economy,either irrelevant or corrupt. Mentoring shouldn't be about finding the person you're most comfortable with (too often, it's men picking men, naturally). It should be about eliminating barriers across the board. Change the politics, hold managers accountable for doing their jobs - which is to understand each employee's strengths and make it possible for him or her to use those strengths to perform assigned functions most competently. Make the manager accountable for knowing when the company is not going to receive the contribution it needs and to get involved immediately, with the goal of making sure the results come in as they should. Most fundamentally: Help the manager to become a team player, not an overlord, and I'm sure the effectiveness of all performances should increase and, I believe this, and other dysfunctional gaps will not take place. 

• Can we substitute Coaching and Mentoring in organizations with compensation and incentives? At what cost?

It isn't about compensation, or incentives in the traditional sense. It's about fixing the system. Get rid of needless internal competition, like that stupidly produced by comparative performance reviews, and you will provide human nature an opportunity to do its thing. People performing well and not hassled by pretentious political concerns will have fewer fears of losing out when they see others enhancing their skills. I find that people naturally want to help one another and will _ once organizationally constructed obstacles are taken away. Don't bribe people to do what makes sense. Compensation is market rate payment for people's expertise and time, not for their working smarter or harder. People do the latter naturally.

As a university professor who consults, I'm often approached by senior managers and executives anticipating retirement inquiring whether I know of teaching positions and students who would welcome their coaching. Listening to what they want to teach I often have mixed feelings. I want to help, but I wonder whether I want to turn them loose on students in whom I've invested. Too many executives want to pass on the tried and proven ways they've discovered for being effective. It contradicts what my students have taught me _ effective teaching begins with inquiry, not a tried and true lecture. I've learned that I don't even know what I've said until I've asked the other person what he or she heard. I believe quality coaching inside the firm comes from people knowing this and not from paying them more.  

• What is the role of Business Schools in Coaching and Mentoring?

I teach a self-development class for MBA students called "People in Organizations" that gets great ratings. Some students consider it sensitivity training, some see it as therapy. The underlying premise is that one can't accurately understand, accept and team up effectively with the imperfect people they encounter at work (the only kind there are) until they come to grips with their own imperfections by realizing the bases and historical roots of their own biases, mindsets and defensiveness. Many other MBA schools have similar courses - notably Stanford, which, as a non-urban university, has the ideal conditions for teaching such a course on a large scale. Taught as an elective at Stanford, I'm told it's much in demand and oversubscribed, with just short two-thirds of students taking it and many more turned away.

Samuel A Culbert is Professor at UCLA's Anderson School of Management, is author (with Lawrence Rout) of Get Rid of the Performance Review!: How Companies Can Stop Intimidating, Start Managing and Focus on What Really Matters. New York: Business Plus, 2010, www.performancepreview.com A muckraking author and winner of several awards, Sam Culbert has spent his career demystifying conventionally accepted organizational protocols that interfere with people being their best at work. His book, Beyond Bullsh*t: Straight-Talk at Work was recently republished in paper by Stanford University Press, 2010. His other books include Don't Kill the Bosses!, Mind-Set Management, Radical Management, The Invisible War and The Organization Trap. Culbert holds a BS in systems engineering from Northwestern University, a PhD in clinical psychology from UCLA, and spent two post-doctoral years at the NTL Institute in Washington DC A researcher, he claims the world of work as his laboratory, where he learns about the phenomena he investigates helping managers on human systems effectiveness projects.

The interview was conducted by Ivaturi Murali Krishna
Research Associate,
Effective Executive
IUP Publications