All posts by Dorothy Nesbit

“Executive” and “Life” Coaching: A matter of prejudice?

Coaching,

Let’s be clear, the terms “Executive” and “Life” coaching can become laden with prejudice, amongst coaches as well as amongst their clients. In this posting I take a moment to identify some of the prejudices that exist and some of the reasons for their existence.

It’s easy to spot that the term “life coaching” has acquired negative connotations. In recent discussions, some of my coaching colleagues pointed to the fact that “life coaching” features in the media both in areas and in ways which define the way they are seen. Whilst Executive Coaching is the matter of discussion in the business press, Life Coaching features in women’s magazines and daytime TV so that coaching in turn becomes the object of any associations and even prejudices that go with their media host. In addition, the kind of “coaching” that is featured on TV is often several steps wide of any accepted definition of coaching. In the words of one colleague, this can give the impression that life coaches are “superficial and/or flaky”.

In the workplace, the term “executive coaching” can tend to benefit from positive associations. This can be a reflection of the way it is sold to potential coaching clients: as a sign of their importance and seniority. At one level this assertion is spot on: organisations tend to invest in people in senior posts where the return on investment in coaching can be significant across the organisation. At the same time, this assertion may reflect the need (as perceived by sponsors of coaching) to entice some of an organisation’s most wayward executives into the net of coaching in order to address areas in which some kind of adjustment is needed. It can be a paradox of coaching in organisations that whilst the people for whom coaching is made available are usually amongst the most talented in the organisation they may include both the highest performers and some whose performance is in some way problematic: the two are not mutually exclusive.

Amongst my colleagues in the coaching profession, some were honest enough to recognise that it’s easy to take shelter under the term “Executive Coach” and its associations. In situations in which they do not feel sure of themselves it can be used to try to project a certain image with potential clients and – yes – to justify the fees. I would add that I have seen some former Executives retire one day and adopt this label the next. Whilst this is far from universal I would counsel buyers to know what they want to buy and to lift up the label and look underneath before buying.

I wonder if the term “coaching” (and especially “life coaching”) suffers from prejudice because of a fear that is widely held and rarely acknowledged: the fear that one might be fundamentally flawed. Identified by Gay Hendricks in his book The Big Leap, this fear is familiar to many who have gone on to embrace their full potential and to achieve great success. For those who say no to coaching and other forms of learning, seeing coaching as something negative is a way to hold this fear at bay. For some of coaching’s most dedicated and most successful clients, facing this fear was a step they took before signing up to coaching.

“Executive Coach” and “Life Coach”: What do these terms mean to you?

Coaching

Currently, as I reflect on the niche I occupy (and want to occupy) as a coach I am pausing to reflect on the terms “Executive Coach” and “Life Coach”. Recently I took time to open up debate on a number of forums with the posting below and this week I am taking time to write about some of the issues that came up amongst the responses.

From time to time I am asked: “Are you an Executive Coach or a Life Coach?” It seems to me that this question implies that the two are mutually exclusive. At times I am told or infer that the term “Executive Coach “ commands more respect – maybe even a lot more respect amongst people asking this question, including fellow coaches. And because I do most of my coaching work with executives it could be easy for me to buy into this idea of “more than/less than” as part of my sales pitch.

At the same time, no matter how senior my clients, once we start to work together in coaching partnership I am working with a person and with the whole person. I work with them on issues that are central to their work progress, effectiveness and satisfaction. I work with them on some of their most intimate issues from their home lives. In this sense I could call myself a “Life Coach for Executives”. I have had some feedback that I am an “ontological coach”, coaching my clients in their chosen way of being in the world. I wonder, is this “Life Coaching for Executives” any less taxing than anything I might call “Executive Coaching”? I don’t think so: in working in this way I draw on everything that I am and all that I bring, if you like at all the “logical levels” identified by Robert Dilts.

As I work through all the questions (marketing and otherwise) that this brings up for me I would welcome your views, thoughts and insights. To start the ball rolling here are my top three questions:

· What do you see as the similarities and differences between “Life” and “Executive” coaching?
· What connotations do these terms have for you? And for your clients?
· What language do you use to do justice to “Life Coaching for Executives”?

One question that was in my mind was this: is the use of these terms subject to prejudice in the eyes of others? If you’re interested to know what I found you might want to read my next posting: “Executive” and “Life” Coaching: A Matter of Prejudice?

As a meta of fact

All articles, ,

Sometimes, the words and phrases which are so well understood in one sphere require translation in another. I was reminded of this last week when I shared with a coaching client the idea of taking a meta-position and was asked to explain this term. It seemed like a good opportunity to write a posting.

The prefix “meta-” from the Greek seems to refer to a change e.g. of position or form. Various definitions point to something that refers to itself or something that is one step removed. In the world of neurolinguistic programming (or NLP) this prefix has been used in a variety of ways and it is from this use in NLP that I borrow the term. One powerful process in NLP is called the “meta-mirror”, a process by which the individual steps fully into his or her emotions and the script that accompanies these emotions about another person (“first position”), then steps into the metaphorical shoes of the person about whom he or she is talking (“second position”), then steps into the position of observer of self and other (“third position”) before stepping into a “fourth” position to observe the initial self (in “first position”) and the second self (in “third position”) and to decide which version of the “self” is more resourceful in responding to the original stimulus.

In nonviolent communication (or NVC) the metaphor “jackal” is used to refer to the kind of things we say when we are in first position and without awareness of our self-talk and the term “giraffe” is used to describe the thoughts and speech that come when we have stepped back to observe our feelings and to connect with the needs that underpin our feelings. The point about our “jackals” (or gremlins as they are often called in wider circles) is that they guide our lives in certain directions whether we want them to or not. At the same time, when we develop the ability to stand back and observe them – well, frankly, they often don’t stand up to close inspection.

So why is the NLP “meta-mirror” process so powerful? Precisely because the ability to step out of one’s shoes and observe oneself at one step removed opens up choices and possibilities which are not there without this ability to self-reflect. In our own shoes for example, we might say “John is so irritating. He always arrives late at meetings and he is never prepared”. In saying this, our attention is on John and John alone. The minute we are able to take a meta-position and to become an observer of the self we add all sorts of information to the picture. We can learn for example, that we feel angry. And we can examine whether John’s behaviour is the cause of our emotion or simply a stimulus, recognising that the cause of our anger is actually the thoughts we have about John’s habitual lateness. With this comes the ability to reflect on our response to John’s lateness and to adopt a different approach – if we want to.

So much for the jargon, what does this mean in practice? The “jackal” or “gremlin” has an inbuilt belief (which he does not recognise as such) that his belief is the truth. If you like, in the absence of being able to step back and observe himself, the jackal can hold the most questionable beliefs and maintain a story as if it were a truth. This means that he acts as if his belief or story were true. This could be beneficial or not depending on the nature of the belief or story. Everyday examples include the person who believes he will never get far because he didn’t do well at school versus the person who believes anything is possible. Good stories or bad? You decide.

British politics and collaboration

All articles

Far from having any claim to insight into the British political system I consider myself an ordinary punter trying to make a responsible choice as I cast my vote in these extraordinary times. And having cast my vote on Thursday I am on tenterhooks (as, it seems, are the markets) as talks between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties take place to see if they can reach some kind of power-sharing agreement following our election.

It seems to me that there are two major questions on the agenda. One of these is the question of reform of the UK electoral system, a key aspiration of the Liberal Democrat Party – Britain’s third main party. Last time the Liberal Democrats had the chance to enter into a power-sharing arrangement (back in the 70s) they gave away the possibility of electoral reform in order to form a coalition government. Some commentators are suggesting that they are unlikely to let such a rare opportunity go past again. No matter what the outcome is from these post-electoral negotiations the government of the day will have to address another key question and decide how to manage Britain’s ailing economy.

I do wonder how these two questions are related. George Osborne, for example, Shadow Chancellor for the Conservative Party, made a speech in October 2009 in which he asked the electorate to accept the need for austerity. Michael Portillo, writing yesterday for the Daily Telegraph newspaper, suggested that this speech clearly frightened voters. It strikes me that the need to nurture the British economy back to good health was the unspoken “elephant in the room” in the recent televised debates between the three main party leaders. I wonder whether, under a representative system, it might have been more likely that all three leaders would have named this economic need. Is it possible that, under some kind of representative system (rather than our current “first past the post”) the question up for discussion amongst our politicians would not be whether or not we need to manage the economy right now but how?

It’s interesting to note that commentators (including Tim Montgomerie, writing for the ConservativeHome website and Lord Tebbit, former Conservative Party Chairman) have highlighted the need for a more collaborative approach within the Conservative Party. There is a mood of discontent amongst Conservative politicians that the party failed to win an overall majority in the election and some are pointing to Cameron’s failure to collaborate with colleagues in the party except for his tight inner circle. If nothing else, this lack of collaboration means that party members can easily point at Cameron and say “it’s your fault”. Gordon Brown has also been highlighted as someone who lacks skills in collaboration. Right now his hold on the leadership of the Labour Party is looking increasingly tenuous.

At the same time, there are concerns about the implications of power sharing. One immediate concern is that the time it is likely to take to form some kind of collaborative government may have significant effects on the markets. Commentators have also been voicing wider concerns, pointing to especially Germany’s system in which it can take months to form a government and Italy’s system in which corruption is put down to the governmental system. And that’s before you pick up the current edition of the New Scientist, the cover of which focuses on the maths, claiming: The Maths of Democracy: Why Fairness is Impossible.

So, as we await the outcome of last week’s election, I find myself pondering the potential benefits of far greater collaboration right the way across our political system. At the same time, I am acutely aware that successful collaboration takes a mindset that is not commonly visible in our Houses of Parliament. And I recognise that this in turn raises questions about the culture of our political system and about the wider culture it reflects. Perhaps this is an idea to explore on another day.

Shaping your leadership competencies

Developing as a leader, Developing leadership across your organisation, ,

What are the key issues that face organisations when they seek to put together competency models or frameworks in their organisations? This is a question that came up recently on the Training Journal Daily Digest.

I have masses of experience of shaping, implementing and using competency frameworks from the supplier side of the fence – anything from limited budget to £4bn research projects, anything from shaping the competencies based on research to using them to assess candidates for senior leadership roles. I took a moment to think about my top three issues and I thought I’d share them here:

  • The mother of all issues for me is this: if the behaviours described in your competency model do not predict the performance you require then why have one? Having a competency model which is not rooted in robust research could divert energy away from the behaviours that predict performance and even undermine performance;
  • In practice, a key issue for clients is about balancing their investment between shaping robust competency frameworks and implementing them. The best frameworks in the world are only of value when they are implemented effectively and a well-implemented framework is only of value if it predicts the performance you require (see first bullet). It helps to get clear up front about your reasons for creating a competency model or framework and also to think ahead to ways in which it might be used which are not currently on the agenda. This helps clients to shape an approach which best meets their current – and possible future – needs;
  • Practical experience also suggests that a key issue for clients is gaining buy-in. Whatever the size of a client’s investment in preparing a competency framework, it always helps to involve people who will ultimately be the end users in shaping the behaviours described. Buy-in also depends on the trust staff have in the accuracy and relevancy of the behaviours described (yes, back to bullet one) and in the ways they are used in practice (bullet two).

Of course, these bullets all imply the need to choose carefully the partner(s) with whom you work to research, design and implement your competency model or framework.

But then, I would say that, wouldn’t I.

Searching for my coaching “genius”

Coaching

Working with Kathy Mallary to explore my target market as a coach I am grappling with a number of questions including the question: what is my genius? This comes up, too, in my work with my coach, Lynne Fairchild. These are some of the thoughts arising following a conversation with Lynne:



Perhaps my genius lies in the area of alignment:

  • When my clients are at odds with themselves, in inner conflict, trying to reconcile needs that seem at odds;
  • When clients at work are in some way out of alignment: when they experience the expectations placed on them as out of alignment with some aspect of themselves – their values, sense of self etc.; when they are successful in their work and yet yearning for more joy or noticing something calling them in another direction; when their self image is two steps behind their latest promotion; when “what is” and “what should be” seem worlds apart…
  • When something is out of alignment at home: when the dream of happy-ever-after romance is out of synch with the reality of daily life with their partner; when the cost of spending time with old friends, family or, or, or… seems too high; when the dream home comes with a nightmare mortgage payment…

These are areas in which I am perceptive and engaged.

This is not about career coaching in the traditional sense but about clients’ alignment to and embodiment of their inner wisdom. It is an “inside out” coaching which takes in all of Robert Dilts’ “logical levels” – clients’ “who am I?” (identity), values and beliefs, capabilities, behaviour, environment – in the wider context of family and organisation.

I notice I am drawn to work with talented people who want to bring their genius to bear in the world. These are people who recognise and want to respond to some kind of inner calling that takes them beyond their current situation to answer the question: what is it that is calling me? These are people who, in treading this path, have to engage with and move beyond their inner and outer constraints. These include the constraints of culture – “the way we do things round here”. This is a path for the courageous few: what M. Scott Peck describes as the road less travelled.

Travelling this road often takes people beyond the confines of the paradigms in which they are raised or within which they work in order to find their own answers. For these people it is not enough to be successful within the paradigm assigned to them – these are the people who see the limitations of our current cultural norms and who reach out in search of their own path. In this sense alignment comes from within and spreads outward – these are people who begin by finding their inner sense of alignment and move on to seek out and create opportunities to which they are fully aligned – organisations to work with, leadership approaches which match their heartfelt values, a place in the world which reflects their sense of purpose. In this sense my clients are often leaders whether or not they have a recognised “line management” or leadership role. They lead by example. They create culture as much as they sit within a culture – they are the shifters and shapers.


These are people who are able both to live their lives and to step back and examine the lives they are living – to take a meta-perspective in life;

These are the people who, by making choices at a meta-level, can pursue a path with conviction and continue to pursue that path even when the terrain is rough and challenging;

These are the people who chose a way of being in the world and in this way bring greater meaning to their lives;

These are the people who, from their sense of conviction and by pursuing a path, develop a mastery in time of their chosen way of being in the world.

Having worked over the years with many people in leadership positions I wonder if my true clients are leaders who are on this journey, whether leadership is a subset of this area of alignment, if…, if…, if… This question remains open – at least for now.



Coachability at the Bolshoi ballet

Coaching

What does it take to be “coachable“? This is the essential question Seth Godin explores in his blog posting of the same name. Follow the link to find out more, including the role that coachability used to play – maybe still plays – in auditions at the Bolshoi Ballet.

For whom is the answer to this question important? As I ponder I imagine that this is an important question for us all. For the coach, it is a question we need to be able to answer when we meet people who want us to support them, so that we can best serve our clients and ourselves by knowing when to say yes and when to say no. For the people who come to us as potential clients it is a question worth being able to answer, for who would want to pay for coaching if they are not also open to the learning that might come with it?

Godin highlights the many roles and relationships in which coaching takes place and as I write I find myself pondering the family as the “advanced school of human relationships”. For the family highlights one aspect of coaching – perhaps above all other: that it is a mutually consensual relationship. Consent in coaching is given based on perceptions of trust, skill, wisdom, insight – the list goes on. Family relationships also depend on mutual consent. No doubt I am drawn to reflect on this at a time when I am recognising the challenges I find in my relationship with my sister.

What then, if you find that your potential client is not coachable? And what if you find that no amount of dialogue with your sibling or other family member opens up trust and mutual consent? I find it worth remembering that we cannot change the others, we can only change ourselves. If the client is not coachable without radical change, if the relationship with a family member is far from working, then it helps to recognise the limits of our power and influence.

As a coach, this might mean saying “no, I’m not here to ‘sell’ you something you don’t want”. In the family this might mean saying “no, I’m not here to force you relate in ways that don’t work for you”. It might also mean saying, “given I’m offering you something that doesn’t work for you and you want something that doesn’t work for me, I’m choosing to invest my energy elsewhere”. As harsh as this may seem, it can also be the ultimate act of love for self and for other.

Towards outstanding leadership

Developing as a leader,

If you’ve been reading my postings under the heading Leadership: more than skin deep, you may be wondering what to do next. Here are a few suggestions:

Whether you are reflecting on your own leadership or on leadership across your organisation, you may be wondering what it would take to develop the level of leadership that shows up in research as “outstanding”. Below I offer a few suggestions:

Taking stock: Why not take stock of where you are now? I have offered two sets of questions on my blog (http://dorothynesbit.blogspot.com) to help you take stock. One is for individual leaders and one is for readers who are taking a whole organisation view of leadership development. Alternatively, why not call me to arrange a coaching appointment? My contact details are below.

Choosing your leadership approach: Whether you are an individual leader or responsible for leadership across your organisation it’s possible that your leadership approach is shaped by accident and history as much as by conscious and informed choice. If so, why not take time to conduct some research of your own into different approaches to leadership to determine whether the approach you are pursuing will give you the results you want?

Get curious! I have offered a range of reading and other resources elsewhere on my blog, at http://dorothynesbit.blogspot.com. I invite you to get reading and to add your own recommendations to the blog using the facility to leave comments.

Share your views: I welcome your views. Please share your views and comments on the blog at http://dorothynesbit.blogspot.com where you’ll also find further information about my work with leaders and my wider interests.

Let’s talk: If you’d like to discuss how Learning for Life (Consulting) can help you and your organisation please contact me directly (via dorothy@learningforlifeconsulting.co.uk) to arrange to talk.

Leadership: more than skin deep (5 of 5)

Developing as a leader

What benefits could justify the level of investment needed?

Measuring the outcomes from your investment in leadership development requires a meticulous approach beginning from the planning stage. This is costly and is rarely done. Nevertheless, it is possible to observe the effects of outstanding leadership on organisations. These include:

Improved business outcomes: By definition, outstanding leadership delivers the holy grail of outcomes: improved business results. The potential is not only for some kind of percentage improvement but for a step difference in performance outcomes. These are the organisations that stand out in their field as unequalled, delivering a standard of excellence that sets the benchmark. What’s more, these are the organisations whose performance levels are sustainable because excellence is built in to what they do.

A culture that supports high performance: Outstanding leaders deliver improved performance outcomes by creating a culture and climate which support high performance. You can expect that improvements in leadership across your organisation will lead to increased staff engagement. Outstanding leaders attract outstanding staff to jobs to which they are well suited. These are staff who are ambitious to deliver and who continue to learn. They may not stay forever – some will move on to more senior jobs elsewhere. Still, whilst they are with you they will make a significant contribution to performance outcomes in your organisation.

Work as play: For the kind of staff I have described working in a culture and climate which supports high performance, work has the potential to become play. In the word of Kahlil Gibran, “work is love made manifest”. In these environments, the prevailing values and beliefs of staff create a highly supportive and trusting environment in which people collaborate willingly and with ease and in which the natural processes of work are filled with fun even whilst “delivering the goods”.

Health and well-being: The language of performance improvement can tend to gloss over the deeply personal experience of the individual at work. Improved leadership leads directly to a greatly improved personal (“human”) experience, including far greater personal fulfilment, health and well-being amongst leaders and their staff.

Leadership: more than skin deep (4 of 5)

Developing as a leader

What does it take to bridge the gap between theory and practice?

Clarify desired outcomes: For organisations in which there is a commitment to bridge the gap between theory and practice, holding a clear intention to understand what differentiates the most outstanding leaders and to develop leadership across your organisation in line with these findings is a common starting point. This implies understanding leadership theory and its implications for your organisation.

Start from where you are: Whether we are talking about individuals or organisations, the kind of leadership described by researchers becomes possible when we go beyond surface behaviours to adopt and practise values, beliefs, thoughts and behaviours that are aligned both with the theory of leadership and with who we are. This takes a clear intention and plenty of time, planning steps which take account of where you’re starting from.

Take action in every area of current practice: At an organisational level, successfully bridging the gap between your current practice and your aspirations for the future permeates every aspect of your current practice, from recruiting people who have the clear potential to develop in line with your chosen leadership approach, through creating a climate which supports leaders in their development to providing the support leaders need for their learning. Looking at developing leadership in this holistic (“whole organisation”) way can make the difference between a temporary shift in leadership style and an ongoing and sustained progression across the organisation.

Take account of the needs of the learner: The initiatives organisations commission need to take account the reality of learning for individual leaders, including their most talented individuals. This learning can stimulate a great deal of emotion for people who may not be well schooled in acknowledging or managing their emotions. At the same time, being present to their emotional and other responses is an important part of the learning journey for men and women in leadership roles. Refusing to be present to the challenges that face them on their learning journey (including the inner voices, often known as “gremlins”, that tell them not to make changes) can keep even the most talented individuals “stuck”.

Choose your partners wisely: If you’re serious about bridging the gap between leadership theory and practice, you will choose your partners wisely. These may include recruitment consultants, leadership trainers, executive coaches and more. Especially when it comes to your partners in learning it is not enough to brief them on your aspirations: your partners (trainers, coaches etc.) need to embody the learning you aspire to for leaders across your organisation. As well as choosing your partners with care, you need to reach clear agreements with each partner. The agreements you reach are in themselves an embodiment of the approach you aspire to as well as providing the foundations for a working partnership which successfully supports you in making progress towards your goals.