Ten Ways To Be A Better Coach - Part # 3

Recognize Deficits And Correct Them

Building on these two different forms of coaching, we need to help those who participate in coaching to understanding that coaching is a structured dialogue, often covering such topics as mission and core values, strategy, operational choices, and relationships. It involves questions, analysis, action planning, and follow through. It is something that  happens with people, not to people. In short, we as coaches may not always be able to solve all the problems that surface during a coaching session, but we can explore the pros and cons of various choices. 

As we do this work, we, as coaches, need to understand the difference between a knowledge deficit and a connection deficit. Both are present during every coaching session and both are impacting performance. 

Using a medical example, a connection deficit happens when a doctor can see all the symptoms, and to a degree can describe the problem. However, they are not able to connect the problem to the knowledge they already have received in medical school about how to solve the problem. This happens in part because they are siloing up the knowledge and separating it from the problem and the symptoms. Therefore, there is a connection deficit.

For example, a patient comes into the clinic in a northern city suffering from high fever, headache, vomiting, joint pain and a skin rash. The young doctor notes all the symptoms, but can not diagnose the cause. The person coaching the doctor asks them if the patient has traveled in the southern hemisphere recently. The doctor says “yes.” The coach then explains that the patient is suffering from dengue fever, a mosquito-borne disease that is common in tropical and subtropical areas. The young doctor missed the connection, but now can proceed with an effective treatment plan. 

On the other hand, a knowledge deficit happens when a doctor is missing critical knowledge. Thus, they are unable to solve the problem. Referencing the previous example, the actual problem is that the young doctor never had any classes on tropical and subtropical diseases in medical school. Therefore, the missing piece is not the connection between the symptoms and the cause. The missing piece is the actual core knowledge about this particular disease. 

Coaching people routinely involves the discovery of knowledge deficits and connection deficits. And the role of the coach is to help people to overcome these normal challenges. It is not to judge them because they have these challenges. Instead, the role of the coach is to support them so that they can gain the knowledge and make the connections, and thus become more competent and effective as an employee over time. 

To be continued next Monday. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change

Ten Ways To Be A Better Coach - Part #2

Understand That There Are Two Kinds of Coaching

Once we grasp the differences and the importance of the core three actives, we now need to turn our attention to coaching. First, there are two kinds of coaching, namely transactive coaching and transformational coaching. Transactive coaching is focused on the transferring of competencies, skills, and/or techniques from the coach to the person who is being coached. Transformational coaching, on the other hand, focuses on shifting an individual's perspective on a problem or issue. When done by an experienced coach, the shift between these two forms of coaching is seamless and effective. However, for those who want to improve their coaching, this level of work takes tremendous thought, concentration, and very attentive listening to what is and what is not being shared by the person who is receiving the coaching. 

For example, I recently coached a department leader who was struggling with three problems at the exact same time. First, their team was not functioning well as a team. Second, systems based changes were not being implemented successfully. Third, her one on one sessions were mostly dumping sessions with her, as the supervisor, solving everyone’s problems. 

In the beginning of our time together, we needed to define the difference between teams and single leader work groups. She was calling her team a “team” but in reality she was leading them like a single leader work group. (See the difference between the two in the following article: “Firing Up the Front Line” by Jon R. Katsenbach and Jason A. Santamaria in the May-June 1999 issue of the Harvard Business Review). Once I explained the difference, she completely understood the problem and how she needed to change her leadership style to create a real team, rather than just a team in name only. It was a transactive coaching moment. I knew something she did not know and once she did know this information, successful change could start to take place. 

Next, we talked about systems based changes that were not taking place in her department. Through dialogue, it became clear that she was focused on what needed to happen by when. Her people on the other hand did not understand the why behind the changes. She, on the other hand, knew the why but had not communicated it clearly to her team. Thus, there was no ownership and understanding to commit to the heavy lifting of changing core systems within the department. Once she grasped this problem, she decided to spend more time on the why and to build ownership around the changes that needed to take place. It was a moment of transformational coaching, i.e. she needed to look at the problem from the perspective of the employees rather just her perspective as the supervisor. 

Finally, we talked about her one on one coaching sessions. What became clear over time is that she was using these one on one sessions to do supervision, coaching and a check-in with the result being that not one of the core three activities were being done well or effectively. Here, I needed to teach her the difference between the three core activities and to explain their role in leadership, i.e. a transactive coaching moment. Next, I pointed out that by solving all their problems for them, she was not building capacity, but instead dependency. She also was perpetuating a single leader work group perspective rather than a team perspective, i.e. a transformational coaching moment. It was a combination of the two forms of coaching that resulted in sustainable changes over time. When a coach can do both forms of coaching in a conscious and attentive manner, they create the foundation for better coaching and better performance.

To be continued on Wednesday. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change

Ten Ways To Be A Better Coach - Part #1

Introduction

This past summer, during multiple coaching sessions with different people from various industries, I was asked the same question over and over: “How do we help our people become better coaches?” Most people were looking for a simple solution that would result in better coaching, and create transformational results. While I wish a simple quick fix was possible, I do not believe there is a magic wand, a crystal ball, or a secret sauce that can generate the desired outcome. 

Instead, I have a more in-depth perspective that can help people become better coaches over time. The critical thing is that people have to do the work, and be persistent in the midst of the work. They also have to be willing and ready to commit to the work. And with time, lots of grace, and a healthy dose of humility, they can become a better coach. But, again, the first step is to learn and understand this in-depth perspective, and then to practice using it over and over in a variety of situations.  

Differentiate Between The Three Core Activities

In the beginning, we need to differentiate between supervision, coaching, and check-ins. Most people, who struggle in their coaching, believe that coaching is supervision and that checking in with someone is coaching. And this confusion is the root of so many problems.

First, supervision is the ability to observe, direct, and/or oversee the execution of a task, project, or activity in order to achieve a successful outcome. This level of work can include the organizing and/or prioritizing of work, supporting, participating or collaborating with others, and the delegation of work and the validation and appreciation of work well done. It also is critical that both the supervisor and the employee know and agree about what is a successful outcome. Often, this is the root of many supervision problems. 

Second, coaching, on the other hand, is a structured dialogue and development process to improve the professional competence of an individual in order that they can execute the aforementioned task, project, or activity in order to achieve a successful outcome. Coaching also helps an individual as they participate in team activities, and as they collaborate with others at the department or division level work. The critical element to coaching is that the dialogue and development process is organized in such a manner as to improve confidence, clarity, and competency to achieve the expectations that are placed on them as an employee. 

Third, I like Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall’s definition of a check-in as defined in their book, Nine Lies About Work: A Freethinking Leader’s Guide to the Real World (Harvard Business Review Press, 2019). As they write, a check-in is “a frequent, one to one conversation about near-term future work between a team leader and a team member.” This work is based on “two simple questions: What are your priorities this week? How can I help?” 

From my perspective, the success of these check-ins is based on a clear understanding of what an individual’s goals and priorities are at any given time period. When this is not present, it tells me that the person in a supervisory, management, or leadership position is not clear about the difference between supervision, coaching, and check-ins. And that they are not engaging with their direct reports in a productive and helpful manner. 

In short, we need all three of these core activities to be done well in order for an improvement in coaching to take place. While coaching is important, it is not the only element to successful leadership, and performance improvement. 

To be continued on Tuesday. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change

Planning During Difficult Times

The challenge during difficult times is to define the problems before us, and then to work the problems rather than to react to  them. The complexity happens when we realize that we may not be focused on the right problems or we may be experiencing a convergence of multiple problems, some of which are technical, and others are adaptive. And the result of this convergence is that everything can get confusing. 

So what should we do when this happens?

First, we need to step back from action mode and engage in thoughtful reflection and contemplation. As Einstein shared, “It’s not that I am so smart. It’s that I stay with a problem longer.” Staying with the problem longer means taking the time to better define the problem or problems, and then to think about them from a place of clarity instead of a place of reactivity. 

When I have worked with different leaders and teams in these kinds of situations, I always encouraged them to remember that no problem can be fixed or solved by the same consciousness that created it, a reference to Einstein’s work. Thus, in order to “stay with a problem longer”, we need to comprehend our current consciousness or mind set, and then to reflect on what kind of new consciousness or mind set needs to be in place. As part of this new line of thinking, I often talk with leaders about some thing called Shifting Baseline Syndrome. 

First, discovered two decades ago in the fisheries industry, and then wonderfully explained in David Attenborough’s book, A Life on Our Planet: My Witness Statement and A Vision for the Future, Shifting Baseline Syndrome points out that over time, knowledge is lost about the state of the natural world, because people don’t perceive changes that are actually taking place within it. This loss of knowledge, or as I like to say perspective, is perpetuated when each new generation perceives the environmental conditions in which they grew up as normal. It also describes how people’s standards for acceptable environmental conditions are steadily declining.

Translating this into the world of leadership and business, Shifting Baseline Syndrome explains how each new generation defines normal by what it experiences while not knowing what normal once was. It is perpetuated when each new generation perceives the work environment in which they grew up in as normal. It also describes how people’s standards for acceptable work conditions are steadily declining or changing over time. Note: this is an incremental lowering of standards or incremental redefining of standards. For example, think about the change in expectations over time about working from home vs working within the office. The outcome of this shifting results in each new generation lacking the knowledge of previous conditions within which people worked.

Therefore, in the beginning of planning during difficult times, I have urged numerous leaders this past summer to explain the strategic history of the company. They need to help people at multiple levels of the company to understand that past historical contexts, markets and environments strongly influenced past strategic choices. Furthermore, these choices created current operational relationships and networks, plus and current problem solving choices and current operational systems. Once we have historical clarity, then all involved need to understand the current context and current strategy, which again is influencing current relationships, networks, and systems. 

One way to create an effective planning environment is to engage in regular, intelligence gathering and analysis. The goal of this exercise is to create a shared mindset about planning and subsequent execution of the plan. Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall in their book, Nine Lies About Work: A Freethinking Leader’s Guide to the Real World (Harvard Business Review Press, 2019) write, “When we understand the characteristics of an intelligence system, as distinct from a planning system - accurate, real-time data, distributed broadly and quickly, and presented in detail so that team members can see and react to patterns in deciding for themselves what to do - we begin to see them everywhere. … the best intelligence wins.”

Now, there are three major intelligence systems that leaders can activate during difficult times. The first is a Warning Intelligence System, which seeks to answer the questions: What is coming at us? What will attack us? This is to prevent another Pearl Harbor, 911, global pandemic, etc. The focus here is on close and present danger. The second is an Emerging Trends Intelligence System, which seeks to answer the question: What trends 5-10 years from now will impact our business? The focus here is to create foresight of what could happen. The third is a Strategic Intelligence System, which seeks to answer the question: What are the factors that will could come together and create a situation that will impact our future? The focus here is to look for an accelerated convergence of which you may or may not understand, or even be prepared for at this time period. The goal is to determine of these three intelligence systems is to determine if the current plan we have needs to be changed, abandoned, or be executed faster. 

Buckingham and Goodall encourage us to “First, liberate as much information as you possibly can…. Second, watch carefully to see which data your people find useful…. Third, trust your people to make sense of the data.” I think these three points are useful as long as we have provided people with the tools and the knowledge to work with the information and the data. Otherwise, referencing a popular metaphor, we are giving bicycles to fish, and snorkels to squirrels. While these are great inventions, they are not compatible with each species’s capacity. 

Therefore, we, as leaders, need to spend more time understanding the difference between discernment and judgement. A while ago, I visited with my Kitchen Table Cabinet, my circle of advisors and mentors, about this subject, and the conversations were deep, rich, and helpful. One of my mentors defined discernment as the ability to sort the wheat from the chafe and the goats from the sheep. I just smiled when he shared this definition. Later, he pointed out that discernment is the ability to organize your thoughts after participating in a series of listening post experiences.

Another advisor told me that judgement is your conclusion after the conversation, and that it is binary in nature, i.e. right or wrong, bad or good, up or down, etc.  Discernment, on the other hand, is about exploring a range of questions and perspectives. It begins by asking the question, “What else could it be happening here?”. It also requires reflection. As he pointed out, the main problem is that they judge or decide something without having all of the facts.  As a result, they rush to conclusions or reach unwarranted conclusions. 

Now, the dictionary defines discernment as “the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure” and “the ability to see and understand people, things, or situations clearly and intelligently.” The dictionary also defines judgement as “an opinion or decision that is based on careful thought,” and “the act or process of forming an opinion or making a decision after careful thought.”

I think the problem when planning during difficult times is that there is not enough discernment before decision making. In essence, there is not enough careful thought being put into place before we engage in planning. I believe this is happening because the world is addicted to going faster and faster, resulting in urgency without reflection. And as a result, we feel overwhelmed by everything. 

So, if this is the case, how do we proceed?

First, we need to focus on objectivity, which is the outcome of discernment before decision-making. This will involve a great deal of introspection, contemplation, and dialogue. We need to find structured unstructured time in our life in order to think out loud with people who we can trust to be confidential and clear minded. These individuals are willing to think holistically with us rather than reactively. These people also can look at things from a strategic perspective and an operational perspective while not loosing sight of mission or vision. 

Second, we need to focus on the building of trust. While the future may be unknowable, trust, at the personal and team levels, is critical to responding to multiple challenges. More likely the future will entail many adaptive problems. When there is a high level of trust amongst people and teams, there will be the capacity to ask difficult questions and create unique solutions. The key is to create trust before you need it in order to generate new and effective strategies. 

Third, while some will choose to lead from above and others from below, I believe that during difficult times, we mostly need to lead from within by walking with others through the challenges before us. This will be difficult for many leaders because they will have to no longer control the situation or problems before the company in order that they can create alignment within the company. 

Planning during difficult times is never going to be simple or easy. The complexity of our current environment is mind boggling on so many levels. There are endless scenarios and possibilities that could play out. Still, we can plan and we can prevail. 

This fall, we can focus on what we can influence more than on what we can control. We can build strong healthy relationships based on trust, integrity, and respect. We also can build clarity about the company’s strategic intent. In particular, we can focus on recruitment and retention so we have the right people to handle what is happening and what could happen. Next, we can build the company’s infrastructure so we have greater capacity to adapt to quickly changing market conditions. Finally, we can focus on the customer service experience, making sure our current customers in our current markets are receiving an integrated and optimal experience. In short, we need to manage for the short term and for the long term. And then, when the difficult times have passed, the company will be well positioned to thrive in the aftermath.  

© Geery Howe 2024

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change