Tag: consulting

Posted on

Our need for team building is high, the risk may be higher.

When individuals need special attention is not a good time for team building
I been in the right place but it musta been the wrong time - Dr. John

People are social animals with a fundamental need to gather and socialize. For many, their primary social environment is at work. When the pandemic sent people away from the workplace, it sent away with them the opportunity to socialize and use their social skills. Teams are likely to have lost strength and solidarity. Individuals will be less socially confident and competent. Leaders will reasonably -- and rightfully -- decide that the need for team building is high, if for no reason other than to simply come together. It’s obvious. Or is it?

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, …”

This opening line from Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities captures the paradox of team building. Just when the need for team building is greatest, it may also be the worst time to do it. The potential for gain is great. Team building can do wonders to give people the time and opportunity to share their personal experiences and gain the insight of the team. But the same conditions raise the risk of two unwanted outcomes:

    • Crop dusting. Individuals have been away from each other so long they may be shy and literally have little to give the session the energy expected. and may hold back on their true selves resulting in "meh" team building.
    • Complete disaster. It will be especially difficult to predict where things may go. Some participants may be experiencing pent up aggression, others, compromised resilience (or even mild depression). The mix can be explosive.

So, what’s at the root of this paradox?

Read More

Posted on

How to tell if someone should NOT be your coach

Unhappy male coachee listening to an executive coach give advice. Frustrated client holding a hand to his face.

Coaching has become very popular as organizations face an increasing need for individuals (or groups) to learn and grow more substantially and quickly than ever. Based on favorable if scarce evidence supporting the effectiveness of coaching not presented here, coaching should be given serious consideration as a key component of any organization’s talent management strategy. But, as is the case with anything powerful, you have to be careful with coaching engagements, or you can get hurt – badly. Because there is no "one best way" to coaching, there’s considerable risk of engaging the wrong person as a coach. And I'll be the first to say you can’t judge a coach by their title (or solely based on published credentials). The best of well-intended sponsors/buyers/users of coaching services are at risk of making a mistake before the coach even gets started. Here, I share some of the key ways for you to know when someone should NOT be your coach.

  1. They overlook ethical matters. This may seem obvious, but it’s much more complicated -- and risky -- than most think. Ethical issues abound in any situation where personal assessments are made, but they’re especially prevalent in coaching. Key questions must be addressed: What’s in-bounds/out-of-bounds? How will data be collected and shared? What happens next?

Coaching is extraordinarily powerful with rightfully high expectations since it isn’t cheap. There’s a lot of pressure that can lead to shortcuts or, kindly put, bad judgment. But individual and organizational “lives” are at stake. You need to engage someone well-versed in the substantial ethical issues that are a part of all coaching engagements – however formal.

  1. They get the role wrong. An executive coach is NOT;

a. Colleague – Your coach (by “your coach,” I mean the coach you engage) may be someone from within your organization, but they shouldn’t work directly with the coachee. It’s hard for a coachee to confide in someone that’s already close enough to have preconceptions or may affect the coachee’s fate “back on the job.” Using a colleague as coach has its place, but I advise against it for the majority of situations. A number of bad outcomes can occur for both coach and coachee when the two already work together.

b. Vendor – Assessment tools, for example, are a big part of coaching. Your coach shouldn’t be indefensibly partial about what assessments or other “coachware” they use. There’s more than one personality test, believe me. Check twice if the coach markets their tools exclusively. You want someone who knows a range of tools and how they work (i.e., their psychometrics).

c. Trainer – Corporate trainers are specifically skilled at building and transferring new skills. While this may be a part of what an effective coach does, it’s rarely the “main course.” The coaching context simply isn’t right for a blog-standard training approach. For example, coaches build closer (i.e., deeper trusting) relationships based on coachee-centered discourse and need. (But note mistake 2d, immediately below)

d. Friend – Your coach isn’t meant to be or become the coachee’s friend, but this is a significant risk in with considerable “gray area.” A coach is expected to be friendly (i.e., “nice”), in fact this is key to building a trusting relationship, but boundaries MUST BE established and maintained between the two. Beyond the professional conflict that can arise when coach and coachee become close friends, the potential exists for much more serious ethical conflicts with life-changing psychological and legal consequences. Because of the highly sensitive interpersonal dynamic that emerges when self-disclosure to an authority figure is involved, the stage is set for transference. This is a catastrophic – about as bad as it gets. Any inappropriate relations must be managed swiftly and surely. If there’s any suspicion that an inappropriate relationship is forming, you should end the coaching engagement. Immediately! Full stop. This is no time to be bashful. {Respecting all caution, it is okay, even expected, for your coach to use friendly behavior. But they must not cross ethical boundaries that are much more critical for a coach than they are for others, e.g., a colleague (but they are important here, too.}

e. Boss – Again, bosses (possibly, you) aren’t excluded from coaching, they’re actually expected to coach. But bosses need to “stay in their lane.” In all likelihood the boss has had a role in the calling for the need of a coach in the first place. Boss’ never get the same story that an outsider can. I hope the reasons are obvious.

f. Short-order cook – Your coach shouldn’t be overly concerned with accommodating the coachee’s every need. Here again, the temptation of the coach is to give what is asked for, after all, that’s service, right? Wrong. What a coachee wants isn’t always what they need, in fact it’s exceptional when it is. A good coach knows when to accommodate, when to resist and when to suggest otherwise. They must maintain control of the relationship.

g. Subject matter expert (SME) – A coach is not an expert in the specific, technical/functional aspects of the coachee’s current or future job. That’s what a mentor is, and the skillsets are very different. Mentors impart organizational wisdom and job-related instruction. Coaches work with the coachee to evoke more general insights and lay plans for action and follow-up.

h. Messenger – This is a BIG one. (and shouldn't be 'h') It’s imperative that the coach not only be able to make an accurate assessment, they must be permitted to do so. Using a coach to provide feedback is cowardly and ineffective. On a personally relevant note, coaching as a profession and trade is tainted by this unsavory tactic. Don’t do this. At minimum, it will destroy trust.

  1. They didn’t adequately address objectivity.

A common challenge when engaging a coach is insuring objectivity. A good coach can’t be influenced by demands, information or circumstances. Being objective isn’t necessarily about having unrelated, or no prior involvement with the coaching party (i.e., coachee, sponsor, others involved) – it’s about being able to set aside circumstantial information when necessary for the good of a professional engagement. It’s being a trusted expert.

Beyond being objective, the coach must be perceived as objective. As I’ve mentioned, it isn’t impossible, but it is rare, to find a coach- and role-appropriate level of objectivity when considering internal coaches. But internal coaches frequently have too much history with the coachee for to be adequately insulated from the organization’s dynamics. The type of relationship an internal coach builds is almost always different from that of an external coach; the reason is objectivity.

When I have worked as an internal consultant, I’ve never taken on the role of executive coach – with one exception. That was a job in which I practically worked as an outside consultant and had no exposure to the coachee. The likelihood of a conflict of interest jeopardizing objectivity is especially risky for folks in HR. You can’t expect a coachee to share their deepest work-related concerns when they know, or think, that their “confidante” is about to run off and determine their pay. Even though conflicts are a risk for external coaches, handling deeply sensitive and personal discussions is one of the main tasks of the coach and vital to building trust.

{Oftentimes a coach does have a say in the coachee’s fate. In these cases, it’s imperative to respect boundaries and to have a comprehensive coaching agreement in place. The coachee needs to know and formally agree what they’re getting into.}

  1. They didn’t engage an expert in coaching. Coaching requires a plethora of specialized skills. SOME of these include:

This is just a partial list and doctoral degrees are conferred for each of these requirements. Every coaching engagement is unique and requires the coach to adapt in ways that optimize the engagement. True experts are more than a “one horse show” and can adjust seamlessly and effectively.

All of these mistakes need to be avoided in order for a professional and trusted coach-coachee engagement to exist. Without any one of these, it may be more than a professional lapse of judgment - you could have a real crisis on your hands.

...Thought you should know…

Psychways is owned and produced by Talentlift, LLC.

Posted on

Using Best Practices in Different Organizations

Best Practices Stamp

Very early in any engagement, or discussion I have with individuals representing an organization, I hear the same declaration:

We’re different.

True. Anyone who’s been associated with more than one organization (which means you’ve been working more than five years) can testify that no organization is like another. In fact, if you think of two organizations typically considered close competitors, you’re probably thinking that they’re not only different, they’re complete opposites. (We have a tendency to accentuate differences and diminish similarities – but that’s for another time.)

Based on the fact that all organizations are different, the logic of implementing a “carbon copy” (for you Millennials and late era Boomers, “mirror image”) practice that was done in another organization is flawed.

If no two organizations are alike, then why does it make any sense to pursue “best practices”?

There are a few reasons why organizations frequently seek best practices:

  1. As social organizations we continuously compare ourselves to others.
  2. As social organizations we continuously seek to exceed others.
  3. As commercial organizations we continuously seek maximum effectiveness at minimum effort.

Quite simply, we want to know how we compare, compete and function relative to others. The same motivations drive individuals.

Despite the self-evident reality that all organizations are different, “best practices” are alluring because they feed our needs for comparing, competing and functioning at optimal levels.

Beyond allure, there are legitimate reasons why a quest for best practices makes sense.

Best practices can legitimately inform similar efforts in other organizations.

Note especially the terms, “inform” and “similar.”

The key to making best practices work across organizations is to extract the key principles, actions and lessons and then adapt them to fit in other organizations.

Implications for Best Practices:

  1. Replication is not the goal. It has to work in the new organization.
  2. HOW is more important than WHAT. It’s all about execution.

When pursuing “best practices” be sure to take time to consider HOW a given practice can be, or is implemented in a different organization. It’s much more important to know how (or why) a given practice adds value than to precisely replicate said practice step-by-step.