Continuing our series looking at coaching tools and techniques, Coaching at Work road-tests the Realise2 assessment tool

1 The tool

What is it?

Realise2 is a web-based strengths assessment tool developed by the Centre of Applied Positive Psychology (CAPP). Launched in June 2009, it assesses 60 different attributes according to three dimensions: energy, performance and use. The aim is to help people identify and develop strengths, while moderating learned behaviour and managing weaknesses.

Realise2 assesses:

Realised Strengths
What you love to do and get to do

Unrealised Strengths
What you love to do but don’t do

Learned Behaviours
What you can do but don’t like doing

Weaknesses
What you find hard to do (see Figure 1)

How does it work?

Realise2 asks you to rate 60 attributes according to how energising you find them, how good you are at them and how often you use them. Your most significant attributes are itemised in four quadrants in order of significance, featuring up to seven of each of the Realised and Unrealised Strengths, up to four Learned Behaviours and up to three Weaknesses.

The online assessment takes 20-30 minutes to complete.

For more information and to take the Realise2 assessment go to www.cappeu.com

2 The administrator

Using the tool

Realise2 assesses 60 attributes, whereas other strengths tools assess between 24 and 34 strengths themes. Also new is its distinction between realised and unrealised strengths, which provide the greatest development potential.

Knowing what your strengths are is useful but it’s what you do with this knowledge that makes the real difference in realising potential. Realise2’s facility to build a detailed personal development plan is crucial. There is no requirement to become certified to use the tool.

The verdict

Realise2 is a reasonably priced strengths assessment tool which is simple to use. I felt the use of a paired comparison analysis in the last section of the assessment might achieve an easier and more precise ranking of preferences.

The report is comprehensive and easy to understand. The Realise2 quadrant model attractively summarises the four dimensions.

For the most part the attributes mentioned in Realise2 are in line with our own self assessment.

In a team environment, 60 attributes might be unwieldy for team members to recall and manage.

I would like to see the report mention all 60 attributes with a brief explanation of each, rather than just our own 21 attributes.

Realise2 served to reinforce my client’s awareness and confidence around his strengths. He learned to accept what he couldn’t do well and to seek support from his team where they could do it better. By spending more time using his strengths, he was more productive and achieved substantial additional savings for his organisation.

The online facility which assists with prioritising areas for development and creating a development plan is useful.

Gail MacIndoe is an independent executive coach and director of MacIndoe, a strengths-based coaching and leadership development consultancy. Contact: gail@macindoe.com or 07919 405541

3 The client

The experience

In recent times the vogue has been to use development tools that focus on your areas for development and highlight things you do less well.

This approach is often demotivating as it downplays those things that you do well. This tool comes from a different angle, highlighting the things you do well, and those more hidden skills that you have but could make more use of.

Completing the questionnaire was very straightforward. I received a report with the results in a pie chart identifying the strengths I use at present and those I should use more.

It also identified the activities I should seek to downplay along with an examination of my learned behaviours.

Over the past few months I have undertaken a number of job-related psychometric and personality tests. The profile generated was in line with the output of these tests.

One observation is that some of the unrealised strengths identified in the profile were ones I use on a regular basis and, I felt, should

have been included in my realised strengths. I would like to have a better understanding of the underlying process of how the strengths are allocated between realised and unrealised to explain this inconsistency.

The application

The Realise2 tool was a cost-effective and straightforward aid to helping both my coach and I focus on my strengths. It helped me prioritise certain activities to achieve the best result.

The verdict

The tool provides a different approach for both clients and coaches compared to existing strategies. It is administered in a simple and straightforward way.

David Morgan is commercial director at Defence Support Group. (At the time of the coaching, he was commercial director of Technology Solutions at QinetiQ.)

See Something inside, so strong, Coaching at Work, vol 2, issue 6.

The pros and cons of Realise2

UPSIDE

• Quick and simple to use
• Assesses 60 strengths
• Accurate reflection of strengths profile
• Clear report with sufficient explanation of terms. Separates out Unrealised Strengths from Realised Strengths, Learned Behaviours and Weaknesses
• Facility to build personal development plan
• Reasonably priced

DOWNSIDE

• Trained facilitator is not required to provide feedback, which could result in reduced understanding of individual’s strengths and how best to leverage them
• Method of strengths allocation between categories is unclear
• 60 strengths might be unwieldy for a team to recall and manage
• Report does not list all 60 attributes but your personal 21 strengths

Coaching at Work, Volume 5, Issue 4

Coaching is a vital part of business development. Just make sure it is tied to your organisation’s strategic intent Jane Turner

‘Coaching’ and ‘culture’ are words that sit well together. We hear and read a lot about ‘coaching culture’ in practitioner literature – indeed, implementing a coaching culture among management is the aim of many an organisation – but breathing life into these words is a challenging journey. 

The extent to which that challenge is met will determine and demonstrate how coaching can support the strategic intent of an organisation.

As the effects of the recession continue to be felt by businesses, regardless of their sector or discipline, the importance of linking development activities such as coaching to overall strategy has never been more pressing. Yet coaching can become a victim of its own success. 

Many organisations have dipped their toe into the water, experienced the impact at micro level and felt compelled to create their own coaching culture. It often follows a powerful coaching experience had by the CEO. The result is coaching as a directive from above – well-intentioned, but a directive nonetheless.

This puts learning and development (L&D) practitioners in a difficult position, at risk of leading what appears to be just the latest fad. The CEO may be keen, but the rest of the senior team won’t necessarily be engaged or clear about their responsibilities. There may be pockets of good practice but failure to show how coaching can support the future strategic intent of the organisation means the endeavour will have a distinct lack of longevity. It will never be a genuine coaching culture. 

 An overarching process should be adopted to create a level of disciplined thinking underpinned by consideration of the following:

• Discussions that will determine the organisational interpretation of a coaching culture. If there is a lack of alignment to the destination, the likelihood of arriving at it will be fundamentally challenged.
• Answers to these basic questions: How does this link to the business strategy? Where are we heading as an organisation? What do we require of our people to help us get there? How can coaching help? If a demonstrable link can be found it will likely achieve buy-in.
• Role models that demonstrate coaching behaviour. To facilitate this, the senior team should engage in development that supports role models in creating culture change. For example, do we want to develop internal coaching to focus on operational elements, so that line managers focus on the achievement of individual performance objectives in line with organisational ones? Your vision of a coaching culture needs to be painted in vivid Technicolor and role modelled constantly.
• Check that it is working. Determine measures upfront so that impact can be assessed – and the attention of senior leaders maintained.

At a more basic level, practitioners attempting to embed a coaching culture could try the following simple, yet powerful, exercise: 

Consider and describe what those two words – ‘coaching’ and ‘culture’ – mean to you. Next, do the same with the actual coaching culture in your own organisation.

In workshops I’ve run with L&D practitioners, such as those at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development annual conference in April, I ask people to use images to describe their thoughts and ideas, but even a few minutes’ focused thinking would help stimulate debate in your organisation.

My hunch is that the gap between the vision of a coaching culture and its reality on the ground may be cause for action.

Jane Turner is an associate dean of the Executive Development Centre at Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University

Coaching at Work, Volume 5, Issue 4

Many coaching approaches are based on positivity. Just don’t let it become oppressive, says David Megginson of the Coaching and Mentoring Research Unit of Sheffield Business School

Positive thinking and positive psychology need to be differentiated. Positive thinking stems from the work of Samuel Smiles1 in 19th century America and more recently of Norman Vincent

Peale2, 3. Positive psychology takes a rigorous, evidence-based approach to positivity. Like positive thinking, it turns its gaze towards the positive, but looks at the data rather than telling stories.

Both, however, take their place in coaching – and many would argue it is a fairly central place.

Positive psychology probably dates from Martin Seligman’s involvement in the field4. There is however tension between this “reasonable approach” and the farther reaches of what physicist Murray Gell-Mann describes as “quantum flapdoodle”5 (Ehrenreich, 2009, p685). The latter tendency is exemplified for me by Mohr6, where the universe is a fast food ordering service delivering our greedy dreams.

Appreciation in coaching

An early exponent of positive psychology in coaching is Mike Pegg7. Solution focused coaching seems to be solidly based in positive psychology. Peter Szabó8 (2009) in Switzerland and Paul Jackson and Mark McKergow9 (2002) in the UK have popularised this approach. Szabó and Meier8 (2009) assert:

Compliments or appreciative reinforcement are always high up on the list in surveys about what coaches did in the coaching session that was most helpful for clients. (p62)

Many other coaching approaches place strong emphasis on can-do positive thinking.

Ehrenreich’s view

Ehrenreich’s case is an ad hominem argument based on personal experience. She had breast cancer and was oppressed by those who said that if she thought positively nothing bad would happen. This she found offensive and she lays charges against positive psychologists for legitimising the oppressiveness of positive thinkers.

Life coaches should rely on positive psychology. However:

Many salesmen and managers had played sports in school and were easily roused by speakers invoking crucial moments on the gridiron. In the late 1980s, John Whitmore, a former car racer and sports coach, carried coaching off the playing fields and into the executive offices, where the goal became to enhance ‘performance’ in the abstract, including the kind that can be achieved sitting at a desk. (p62)

She invokes others involved in coaching who channel warrior spirits, success coaching, sympathetic magic, the Law of Attraction and positive vibrations, quantum physics and the uncertainty principle – and then exonerates them by asking:

What attracts the coaching profession to these mystical powers? Well, there’s not much else for them to impart to their coachees… All they can do is work on your attitude and expectations, so it helps to start with the metaphysical premise that success is guaranteed through some kind of attitudinal intervention. And if success does not follow, if you remain strapped for funds or stuck in an unpromising job, it’s not the coach’s fault, it’s yours. (p63)

I value positive thinking and positive psychology and continue to use them, but Ehrenreich’s arguments make me think a little before I plunge in.

References

• 1 S Smiles, Self Help, Institute of Economic Affairs, London, 1866/1997
• 2 NV Peale, The Power of Positive Thinking, Cedar, London, 1953/1990
• 3 NV Peale, The Amazing Results of Positive Thinking, Cedar, London, 1960/1990
• 4 MEP Seligman, Learned Optimism. Knopf, New York, 1998
• 5 B Ehrenreich, Smile or Die: How Positive Thinking Fooled America & The World, Granta Books, London, 2009 (see Review, Coaching at Work, vol 5, issue 2)
• 6 B Mohr, The Cosmic Ordering Service, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 2006
• 7 M Pegg, The Art of Encouragement, Management Books 2000, Chalford, Glos., 1995/1997
• 8 P Szabó and D Meier, Coaching Plain and Simple: Solutions–focused Brief Coaching Essentials, Norton, New York, 2009
• 9 PZ Jackson and M McKergow, The Solutions Focus: The SIMPLE Way to Positive Change, Nicholas Brealey, London, 2002

Coaching at Work, Volume 5, Issue 4

What can we learn from how others see the world? This new column peers through different lenses, exploring how ideas and perspectives might be woven into coaching and mentoring LINDSAY WITTENBERG

Just as children learn by observation, coaches can maximise their learning too – through focus and without judging

It’s lunchtime and I’m watching my nine-month old grandson. A tiny crumb of food falls from the spoon onto the tray of his high chair. He dabs at it, intent on the contact between finger and crumb. He pushes it, and contemplates with intense concentration what’s now on the end of his finger. There seems to be nothing else in his awareness but the finger and the crumb.

Half an hour later, he’s standing at a low coffee table. He reaches for a placemat, pulls it towards himself, and then a little further so that it overhangs the edge of the table. He tips it slowly over the edge, lets it go and watches it fall to the floor. He leans down, picks it up and puts it back on the coffee table. He pulls it towards himself, lets it overhang by the same amount, tips it to exactly the same angle and watches it fall. Again he picks it up, puts it back, pulls it towards the edge of the table… After the mat has fallen for the fifth time, he crawls off, in search of the next experience.

He’s learning by observing with undiluted attention. I realise that at least as significant as what he’s learning is that he’s learning about how he’s learning – what he needs to do and how he needs to be in order to learn. It looks like a pretty effective process. And I’m learning too: about purity of focus and the absence of judgment.

He’s shown me what it’s like to be totally present and intensely aware, to be uncompromisingly curious, to give total attention to what is, not to what ‘should’ be. He’s shown me what ‘maximising learning’ means. There’s no judgment about whether he’s getting it right or wrong, whether the mat ‘should’ or ‘should not’ fall, whether he himself is ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

In coaching sessions over the following weeks I focus on my own presence and curiosity. Clients’ feedback reflects both inner peace and resolve as they talk about new levels of awareness and solutions that they experience as energising to challenges that have felt immobilising.

One client, who has come to the first session with very clear transactional objectives for his coaching programme, realises with relief that what is fundamentally troubling him is the search for his calling. Had he addressed his original objectives, he says, he would have missed the essential question that informs his other issues.

Another client joyfully creates her own process for managing conflict in her team by focusing on her awareness and her options, rather than on a prescribed model for conflict management – and reports later that the effect on her team of applying this has been powerful.

This little baby has enriched my coaching, and in turn my clients have been enriched. My coaching relationships seem more connected, and my clients seem to be discovering more meaningful, creative and incisive routes to resolving their challenges.

See also ‘Child’s Play’ by Ian Day, Coaching at Work, vol 4, issue 6 www.coaching-at-work.com/2010/01/14/child’s-play/

Lindsay Wittenberg runs an executive coaching consultancy.

lw@lindsaywittenberg.co.uk
www.lindsaywittenberg.com

Coaching at Work, Volume 5, Issue 4

In recent months, a handful of large UK organisations have raised concerns about what they consider to be poor, unethical or even downright dangerous practice. But how, if at all, should they respond?

Coaching is increasingly viewed as a profession in the UK – with all the expectations that come with this. More and more people are setting themselves up as coaches. The trouble is, those who do not have adequate training, CPD or supervision are bringing the profession into disrepute.

Most are probably well-intentioned. But how can we capitalise on this good intent and raise the bar without being all ‘Big Brother’ about it, and without attracting the attentions of the government?

Or is the latter what we want? Yet if the experiences of sister helping professions regulated via the Health Professions Council (HPC) are anything to go by, this is not to be undertaken lightly. It could well turn out to be a veritable minefield.

Many burning questions have been asked:

• What exactly constitutes incompetent, poor, unethical or dangerous practice? Are we in agreement or, more likely, is there a range of subjective perceptions?
• Should we be attempting to reach agreement across the professional bodies about what we deem to be best (and otherwise) practice?
• What incompetent, unethical or poor practices have coaches or assessors encountered anyway?
• Presuming there to be no all or nothing spectrum of what’s acceptable and unacceptable, what sorts of shades of grey should we be thinking about and what are the exceptions?
• And when we do encounter less than ideal practice, what do we do about it, if anything? Should there be a range of options that come into play depending on the “severity” of behaviour or is this all too Big Brother for us?
• Should we turn to the individual professional bodies to deal with complaints, seek cross-body collaboration, or use a government body such as the HPC?
• By sticking our heads above the parapet, are we increasing the likelihood of the government stepping in and requiring coaches to be registered with the HPC?

Against such a backdrop, and to get a sense of what you, as coaching providers, think, Coaching at Work has joined forces with the Association for Coaching, the British Psychological Society’s Special Group in Coaching Psychology, the European Mentoring and Coaching Council, the International Coach Federation and the Society for Coaching Psychology.

We will be sharing the results of the survey in two parts over two issues. This first part looks at what you think constitutes incompetent, poor and unethical practice, and explores the extent to which you’re encountering it.

What you say

Ninety five per cent of you think sexual intimacy with a client is “unethical” although 3 per cent of you have encountered it. Some 91 per cent of you think developing an inappropriately personal relationship with clients is unethical; 12 per cent of you have encountered it.

Some of you query how “inappropriate” is defined: “If it means becoming friends and seeing each other socially outside of the coaching, it’s perfectly acceptable so long as it doesn’t compromise the coaching”; “While I do not coach friends and family, for example, many coaches do, and I do not see this as a problem if the boundaries are clear.”

The question of whether it’s acceptable to become intimate after the coaching has finished also arises: “If the coaching relationship ceases when an intimate relationship starts, that’s not unethical.”

Ninety one per cent of you think breaking client confidentiality is unethical; 25 per cent of you have come across this. However, as many of you stressed, this is not a “black and white” issue.

One respondent says: “However occasional, people can and do disclose things that require the helping professional to take further action, otherwise they may be failing in their duty of care to their client, the general public and possibly acting outside the law.”

These would include, according to another respondent, child protection, or risk of harm to self or others.

Some 93 per cent of you think misleading people about your credentials or a professional body is unethical.

Making clients dependent on coaching was deemed to be “unethical” by 67 per cent of respondents, “poor practice” by 51 per cent and “incompetent” by 29 per cent of the 529 respondents (bearing in mind respondents could choose more than one category).

What you’ve encountered

Presented with a list of practices and behaviours, the two most commonly encountered are “leading the client” (63 per cent) and not evaluating (59 per cent). Others encountered by many of you include the coach talking for the majority of the session (50 per cent), concentrating on problems (49 per cent), not reviewing/gathering feedback from the client (49 per cent), not contracting at the outset or along the way (48 per cent), and not taking into account “the wider system” – 41 per cent of you.

Twenty-six per cent of you have encountered coaches “making the client dependent on the coach”, while 20 per cent of you have come across coaches encouraging dependency on coaching in general.

One respondent comments: “We see most of these problems in coach assessment centres, and these are mainly accredited coaches. So the problem must be even more widespread among coaches in general!”

There were many other practices and behaviours you put forward, including not being aware of or managing boundaries well, the coach bringing their own issues or agenda to the coaching, and a lack of self-knowledge and awareness in the coach.

One respondent says that occasionally, they have “come across coaching that is quite dangerous, simply because the coach was working beyond their competence or because they were un-usefully attracted to the notion of helping the distressed”.

Therapy

One thorny issue is whether it is acceptable to practise therapy while wearing a coach’s hat. A number of you query how we define therapy in this survey. Some 61 per cent deem practising it “unethical”, 49 per cent “poor practice”, 12 per cent “incompetent” and 9 per cent “acceptable” (respondents choosing more than one category).

Many of you felt this was a fuzzy area and one which depended on what contracting took place, on whether the coach switched back and forth between coaching and therapy, on the specific circumstances, on the definition of therapy, and so on.

A number of you believe that as long as the “hat-change” is made obvious, with clear contracting and client permission, the practice of therapy is not unethical.

One respondent argues that it is good ethical practice if a coach/therapist, with permission, breaks the coaching relationship for a while so that therapy can be undertaken. Assuming, of course, that it is agreed by the client and all appropriate discussions around the change of relationship have happened.

“It is unethical and poor practice if the coach just flip-flops between the two without mutual agreement between coach and client.”

Another says: “As a qualified counsellor and coach, I do not believe there is as much difference between coaching and therapy as some would like to make out. Coaching is therapeutic. Many counselling approaches emphasise solutions/goal setting and the client as expert.”

This respondent says that whether some of the situations listed are poor practice/unethical or not depends on the coach’s levels of competence, skill and expertise both within and outside coaching and on what has been contracted (both upfront and ongoing) with the client and sponsor.

Another says: “If a therapist is coaching, and she and the client agree that she can sometimes take off her coaching hat and do therapy, I do not see an issue of ethics or incompetence.”

This same respondent gives another example: “If a client who has fought alcoholism or drug abuse in the past now wants to work with a coach, I do not see a problem, as long as the coach recommends a therapist or other intervention when appropriate.”

Neither do they and a number of other respondents see it a problem if a coach switches to some consultancy, as long as they make the hat-change clear.

Neither is it clear-cut when it comes to working in areas or with clients traditionally associated with therapy. Twenty two per cent had come across coaches working with someone who is mentally unwell, while 18 per cent had encountered coaches working with “deep-rooted psychological issues” such as sexual abuse. And many of you defend the right to do so. Many others comment that it very much depends on the circumstances, a point made about other issues under the spotlight in the survey.

• In the next issue of Coaching at Work, we will look at what, if anything, you think should be done about incompetent, poor and unethical practice.

The Poor Practice 2010 survey

Some 529 coaches responded to the Poor Practice 2010 survey carried out between April and June 2010.

Many of you welcomed its timeliness and the collaboration between Coaching at Work and the professional bodies. Some of you feared a pre-agenda – pushing the case for government regulation or more power for professional bodies, for example. However, the survey was initiated by Coaching at Work.

Others of you would have liked a debate beforehand about some of the definitions used including “unacceptable”, “therapy”, “inappropriate”. A few of you suggested carrying out another survey on best coaching practices.

Many of you felt that there are no clear-cut situations, that it is hard to categorically say a behaviour or practice is unethical as it would depend very much on the circumstances.

You’ve also encountered coaches:

• Misrepresenting professional bodies or one’s credentials
• Acting as consultant within coaching
• Not understanding tripartite contracting
• Not understanding conflicts of interest and what to do about them
• Lacking awareness of boundaries and how to manage and hold them appropriately
• Lacking self knowledge and awareness
• Practising despite needing therapy
• Making grandiose claims for coaching
• Offering poor advice
• Bullying or harassing clients
• Dominating conversations with own issues
• Coaching children without criminal record checks or appropriate training
• Seeking referrals when client is vulnerable or during “halo effect” of coaching
• Not advising client to get appropriate professional support
• Not keeping client files according to Data Protection Act guidelines
• Coaching despite insufficient training
• Using “wishy-washy psychobabble approaches” they’ve made up
• Frequently referring to own examples
• Dismissing client issues (depression), advising them to get anti-depressants while working on coaching
• Using “high pressure sales tactics to get client to commit to 12-18 month contracts upfront”

Coaching at Work, Volume 5, Issue 4

Today’s businesses will only survive if they stop prioritising financial return over sustainability. Coaching has a crucial role to play in moving the focus from the individual to collaborative action. Neela Bettridge reports

The ‘New Normal’ isn’t a fad, rather a recognition that economies and organisations depend on inter-connectedness. Since the late 1970s, business leaders have focused on the bottom line and quarterly results. Concern for the wider employee population, and for society in general, is a matter of conscience. But this view does not adequately reflect the reality of a global, highly skilled, inter-connected economy.

In the New Normal, anyone with expertise in communication, coaching, teamwork and skills, will play a huge role in equipping corporations for the new century. Such people will also need a keen understanding of the commercial reality, in order to help organisations meet their goals.

Through coaching, senior business leaders accustomed to a traditional business practice that prioritises returns over sustainability are awakened to new perspectives and approaches.

In some ways the sustainability agenda has been hijacked by third-party interests detracting from its real purpose in the New Normal. In fact, environmental and social pressures should be seen as opportunities to innovate and seek new markets. Sustainability should be a core business ethic, not just a paragraph in the annual report.

Coaching for sustainability requires a shift away from viewing individuals as the primary beneficiaries of coaching and the primary agents in driving change. Instead the focus should be on teams, collective intelligence and collaborative action. It is the inter-connection between transformation at both organisational and individual levels that highlights why coaching is critical here.

Senior business leaders must invest in their own development and recognise that organisations only transform as fast as their leaders can.

Coaching methods can facilitate the questioning of assumptions and lead to increased self-awareness. The greater the awareness, the more options a leader has to maximise innovation and competitive advantage through integrating sustainability.

Increased awareness doesn’t only relate to external events. Coaches also support alignment and enquire into disconnects between individuals’ values, aspirations and behaviour and their actions.

The new generation of corporate governance requires that individuals and teams have the self-reflective capacity and conscious approach to their own mission and development that will enable them to lead in these increasingly complex circumstances. Coaching can play an important role here. It is far more effective to encourage individuals to embrace new ideas than it is to say “do as you’re told”.

Developing a culture of innovation and a proactive stance towards integrating sustainability may also be about changing the relationships organisations have with their customers. One leading energy supplier is coaching its staff through transition from a business model based on selling more energy, to one that is about helping customers use less.

The biggest leverage points for achieving innovation and transformation occur within the ‘inner’ (ie, personal development, organisational values and cultural development). Inter-subjective, developmental approaches – like coaching – are the most powerful and effective ways to support these changes and facilitate adoption of new values and culture.

New methodologies for coaching teams, communities and organisations are evolving. These contextualise an individual’s development and enhanced performance as a means to achieve a transformation of the whole team or organisation. Individuals and teams are encouraged to reflect on how individual priorities do or do not support the health of the whole. This is exactly the sort of shift that enables next-level thinking – and the generation of creative solutions to our challenges.

Neela Bettridge is an executive coach and co-founder of Article 13, a corporate social responsibility consultancy www.article13.com

Top tips

• Think of sustainability in terms of innovation and opportunity.
• Shift the emphasis away from individuals as the primary beneficiaries of coaching and agents for change to teams, collective intelligence and collaborative action.
• Help individuals and teams develop a self-reflective capacity and conscious approach to their own mission and development.
• Effective integration of sustainability must start at the top. Help senior business leaders understand that their ability to navigate this is key for the business.
• Facilitate the questioning of assumptions underlying action and decisions in order to increase self-awareness.

Case study: Green Tech Solutions

The brief To provide support in the assessment and development of a potential executive team for an innovative business specialising in using clean waste water in toilet systems for water-saving efficiencies.

A venture capitalist wished to invest in and work with Green Tech. Support was needed to understand personality preferences and traits of team members and how they should work together to create a successful venture. There were also plans to expand the business so that the executive team would need to be able to lead a more extended group of employees.

Part of the process involved running a workshop to explore a wide range of issues with a particular focus on people management and leadership development skills. In particular, it was important to remember that while we were coaching a group of bright people, these were not business people and as such there were bound to be gaps in their skills base that needed building for the team to come together with a shared vision. In terms of a greater self-awareness of the individual, understanding key one-to-one relationships and team working, it was also important to focus on potential blind spots and issues.

We helped the team envision what moving into the future might look like in terms of strengths, potential conflict and difficulty and the potential impact on a wider group of employees when the team expands.

A wide range of assessment tools and techniques were used, from co-coaching as a means to receive and explore feedback to facilitated workshops, one-to-one support and the FIRO-B (Fundamental Interpersonal Orientations-Behaviour) instrument in a combined feedback and workshop context.

As a result of the strategic and holistic approach taken to help Green Tech both assess the suitability of the team and develop individual and team awareness, the organisation received the investment it needed from the venture capitalist.

Case study: British Nuclear Fuels

The brief The British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) corporate responsibility executive wanted to build the group’s capacity and performance in terms of sustainability issues as well as its role for the strategic and corporate future of the business.

Working with the senior executive team, we undertook a horizon scan which revealed a range of issues from environmental challenges to supply change liabilities and the importance of promoting diversity.

In most cases these themes were already recognised; however, by working with the team and building their capacity around integrating these issues into the business strategy, new angles became apparent, exposing synergies and barriers within the executive team.

We helped the team examine the implications. First, it was important to pick up on concerns around the environmental agenda. Linked to this was the feasibility, capacity and appropriate strategy so that the executive team could potentially manage and take on investment in clean technologies. Second, we reviewed previous assumptions to ensure none were out of date and to agree a clear strategy around responsible business planning. This included understanding internal and external stakeholders’ values and ensuring they were reflected in the future of the business.

Going forward, a key focus will be the relationship between BNFL and its daughter companies in terms of mitigating risks and anticipating areas of synergy and friction.

Finally, it was important to ensure that the communications strategy would enable the executive team to communicate effectively to its own staff, external stakeholders, shareholders and the wider public.

The future scanning techniques we used to identify potential issues and their impact both for the client and the wider nuclear industry, were then extended through leadership and performance coaching to identify and address areas that would affect the future of the business.

The ongoing nature of the project also allowed the executive team to develop long-term business planning which reflected not only the values and beliefs of the company and its staff, but also the wider public opinion in a very contentious sector.

Coaching at Work, Volume 5, Issue 4

Practice makes perfect

Your recent edition (vol 5, issue 3, p20) of Coaching at Work talks of bad practice in coaching, while Talking Point raises the question of policing. There are questions I would like raised in this debate. These fall broadly into two areas.

The first relates to the needs we hope to meet by our approaches. Whose and which needs? Without a clear response we have no basis for holding discussions and making decisions. Worse, the true basis for our discussions and decision-making becomes a hidden agenda.

 The second is congruence – between the beliefs we espouse as a profession and the actions we take in policing and regulation. For example, if we believe that our clients are resourceful and whole it might follow that it is the client who needs to be the judge of their coach’s suitability. We might also hold that when the client fails to take action to draw to an end coaching that is not meeting their needs the experience is an opportunity for learning. Or that when we look at our fellow coaches with horror and want to control their behaviour, it may be a sign that we, too, have something to learn.

In writing, I want to raise questions and stimulate debate rather than provide definitive answers.

Dorothy Nesbit, executive coach, Learning for Life

A right pair

I was fascinated by the article on coaching in pairs (It takes two, vol 5, issue 3). I, too, had researched this subject prior to working with the chair and chief executive of a progressive housing association.

 I strongly agree that it allows a much deeper look at a working relationship. What the article doesn’t do is stress the increased complexity of working as a threesome. There are six sets of interactions to be aware of and at least three agendas (chief executive, chair and chief executive and chair).

 My clients tell me they found the 12-month programme extremely beneficial. I found it stretching and powerful and definitely a model to develop.

Paul Johnson fcipd, mba, cqsw, managing director, 3DK Solutions

Coaching at Work, Volume 5, Issue 4

Entrepreneurs in Jordan are using mentors to help them develop their businesses and boost employment figures John Hannon

• Is there anything I can do as a coach to help promote economic growth in some of the poorer countries of the world?
• Are there ways in which coaching and mentoring can make a difference on a global scale?
• How can I use my training and experience to help young entrepreneurs in the Middle East develop their businesses and employ more people?

These were some of the questions that led me to Jordan in late March with the Mowgli Foundation. Mowgli is a not-for-profit mentoring organisation. It aims to make a difference to business start-ups and aspiring entrepreneurs worldwide. Mentors are matched with mentees, initially in the Middle East, to help them develop businesses.

The other mentors on this trip came from a variety of backgrounds including coaching, training, engineering, management and consulting. All had been inspired to volunteer their time in support of this project.

After landing in Jordan we had a three hour drive from the capital Amman, followed by half an hour along a dirt track in an ancient pickup truck driven by a local Bedouin. We arrived at Feynan Eco Lodge at midnight.

Feynan was an experience in itself. It is mostly solar powered and lit partly by candles. It is in the Dana Biosphere Reserve and generates revenue for the local community. All this provides a unique and memorable setting for mentors and mentees to get to know each other.

Mowgli CEO Simon Edwards and volunteer mentor Derek Watson skillfully guided us through the four days, spending two days with the other mentors and two with the mentees, five of whom were from Jordan and two from Palestine.

The experience was memorable in many ways, from hiking up the surrounding hills before breakfast and feeling the deep solitude and peace of the location, to the enthusiasm and optimism of the young Palestinian and Jordanian entrepreneurs. We also worked outdoors in the spring sunshine whenever possible.

Other moments included pausing to talk under the shade of a tree, dining by candlelight on the terrace, sitting around the fire in the evening listening to stories of Bedouin life, hearing first-hand about the pain and suffering of life in Palestine, and sitting on the roof of the lodge and seeing the stars without light pollution.

For me the core of the experience was the purpose that drew us to the Jordanian desert that week. Whatever our different ethnic backgrounds, political views, religious affiliations, nationality, gender, age or personality, we’re all very similar beneath the surface. We share the same hopes and fears: to be happy and prosper, to be able to support our families, and to feel successful and proud to be alive. In such a troubled world it felt very rich to be part of an enterprise based on the principle of human beings working together for no other reward than to help one another.

It has been said that 80 million new jobs are needed in the Middle East over the next 10 years. It’s a huge undertaking and it will need the support of many people.

It felt good to make a small contribution.

• To find out more about the work of the Mowgli Foundation go to www.mowgli.org.uk
• The European Mentoring and Coaching Council raised more than £1,000 for the Mowgli Foundation at its charity dinner in May.

John Hannon is a coach and consultant. He is founder of New Projections. www.newprojections.com

Coaching at Work, Volume 5, Issue 4

How many times have you been faced with a client and felt paralysed by your own ineptitude? In this series, Sam Humphrey looks at stereotypical clients and identifies the CPDs you can undertake to support your coaching mastery.

This issue: Loadsamoney!

Client profile

• Theme tune The Winner Takes it All by Abba
• Favourite film Slumdog Millionaire
• Favourite TV The Six Million Dollar Man, Cash in the Attic and Who Wants to be a Millionaire?
• Catch phrases “How much was that then?”
• Role models Lord Alan Sugar and Cinderella

Working with a money-obsessed client can be challenging. The desire to know how much something costs is driven by his need to get the best deal. Your job is to package the coaching so it appeals to him yet would still pass the Coaching Ethics Committee.

A chemistry meeting is in itself a challenge. He does not associate with losers so you must ooze confidence and emanate success. Your ‘assessment’ is a short interview. The best way to prepare is to recreate the set of Mastermind. Your specialist subject is your wealth so make sure you have answers to the following questions:

• How much is your business worth?
• What’s your house worth?
• What kind of car do you drive? What reg?
• When you board a plane do you turn left or right?

Your job is to help this client find meaning and flow. Read on to ensure your CPD supports your work.

Foundation – Get lucky

This client can be hugely intimidating to a novice coach. Have something with you that bolsters your self-confidence (like lucky pants) and something that will bolster your client’s confidence in you, eg, take notes with a Mont Blanc pen. Get the picture?

Intermediate – Bartertown

A client like this loves to barter so make the most of it. Your fees are the obvious starting point but contract in a negotiation style. Phrases such as “If you… then I will …” should do the trick and will create the feelgood factor for your client.

Practitioner – Name dropper

Copy coaching is a powerful technique to use with this client. By dropping in stories of high-profile people you believe were coached using a particular tool or approach, you can create the illusion that your client is getting top-notch coaching at a bargain.

Master – Cash cow

As a master coach, you will understand the principle of value branding and pricing.

The more expensive you are, the more this client will want to work with you. Shift paradigms by ignoring the CPD suggestions:

• Don’t look the part. In fact, dress badly and in clothes needing repair. Write with a BIC
• Do not negotiate on fees. Say: “Most of my clients don’t ask, they just pay” or “What value would you put on this succeeding?”
• Drop in stories of you being copied and how your lawyers are advising you to sue

This approach has sold a lot of beer so make sure you too are reassuringly expensive.

Coaching at Work, Volume 5, Issue 4

This series of columns by an anonymous coaching buyer takes a thought-provoking helicopter view of what’s going on in the industry.

This issue: outsourcing – buying coaching from whom and for whom?

As coaching has expanded over the past decade, so too have the ways that we contract coaches. Non-traditional coaching organisations have grown. These clearing houses or coach dating agencies find coaches for organisations that have neither the time nor the inclination to find competent coaches themselves. But with pressure mounting to cut in-house costs, coaching procurers are increasingly wondering if their roles can survive.

Intermediaries between coach and client appear to have a lot going for them. They argue that they source and quality-assure coaches. Their depth of experience ought to mean that they can quickly match the right coach with the client. And they offer a one-stop process for managing the coach’s invoices, rather than dealing with a multitude of providers.
The attraction for coaches is obvious. I know very few who enjoy selling themselves – their passion is coaching! Also, using an intermediary means a coach can have access to a wide range of organisations via a company that is effectively their agent.

Is there a catch? Well, it all depends. For a coach or coaching company, dealing direct with an organisation means a higher return because they cut out the intermediary. Of course, the coach still has to manage the intermediary. Should they be reliant on that one company for their work, they become dependent and vulnerable to change – the same as in any business relationship.

Intermediaries offer one way of sourcing coaches. Yet most coaching companies usually offer a selection of coaches who vary in price, experience and qualifications. The main benefit is reduced staff overheads for the organisation that outsources. The cost of the coaching could be higher, as intermediaries will have their own costs to cover. And if coaches receive less for their services, what impact will that have on their commitment to clients through intermediaries as opposed to those they contract with directly?

From my perspective, looking at this issue in financial terms neglects the real business benefit of using coaching. The relationship between the organisational representative and a coach often produces insight into the state of organisational development.

Of course, confidentiality is an issue, but using a neutral third party to gather feedback from coaches that is then fed into the organisation often provides valuable and anonymous organisational intelligence.
Personally, I prefer minimising the number of relationships in a system. Having direct organisation-to-coach links reduces the risk of information being filtered by an intermediary – and that goes both ways.

For now, I’m open-minded but unconvinced that these intermediaries offer anything that isn’t already available. Their emergence is simply another facet of the coaching industry learning how to do business.

This column was inspired by the title of the book A View from the Balcony: Leadership Challenges in Systems of Care by G de Carolis, M Linsky (foreword) and R Heifetz (foreword), Brown Books, 2005.

Let us know what you think at: thefacelessclient@coaching-at-work.com

Coaching at Work, Volume 5, Issue 4