I had a somewhat frustrating coaching experience last week. I was working with a group, and each person was taking turns to be peer coached by the group. The group was working very hard at asking "good" (ie open) questions, but the frustration built in me because despite this there was very little new insight being generated, and no progress towards seeing (or doing) things differently. It set me thinking about how often we focus on open questions, and how it might be a more useful to focus instead on open answers.
Reflecting back on that session, there were two unhelpful things happening. One was that, however the question was asked, the coachee was giving their answer extremely quickly and with great certainty. The implication is that the answer is already "known", and if it is already known it is (by definition) not going to result in new awareness. The more certain the answer, the less "open" it is. As coaches we need to ensure that coachees do not feel they should know the answer. It is more helpful to approach every answer with curiosity, ie "I wonder what the answer is". Coaching is a joint exploration, not a Q&A session!
Of course, the other unhelpful thing happening was that the coach(es) asking the questions could recognise that the coachee was missing something, so worked harder and harder at asking questions which would produce the "right" new awareness. Although in form these were still open questions, they were now looking for a particular answer (ie they were really closed). Not surprisingly, these leading questions only re-inforced the pattern of interaction, as neither party was now exploring with curiosity - both were assuming that they knew the answer, so it was anything but open!
So how can you break this pattern? One way, as nearly always, is to use the power of "naming and taming", eg "I notice you are answering very quickly, how might your answer change if you gave yourself more time?". Or "how else might you answer, if you assumed your first thought was only one of several possibilities?"
Another way is to remember coaches are not lawyers! There is a saying that lawyers should never ask a witness a question to which they do not already know the answer. But that is because the last thing they want is to reveal a different way of looking at things! As a coach, the key is to remember that, whatever form your question takes, you shouldn't already know the answer. Framed like this, even a question which in form is closed (ie can be answered Yes or No) is in substance open - because the answer is open.
Finally, my preferred way of avoiding this completely is by setting up the whole session differently. It's why I so often ask people to do something (draw a picture, experience something physical etc) and then get them to talk about it. It helps both because it is using the right brain rather than left, but also because rather than facing each other as we do in a typical Q&A based session, we are forced to explore it side by side together. And that's coaching!
Showing posts with label 2.9 Other posts in this section. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2.9 Other posts in this section. Show all posts
Daniel Ofman's model links it all
A colleague introduced me to Daniel Ofman's work a year or so ago. Just recently, on a programme, I was inspired to re-draw his model in a way which I find even more useful. So here is my version:
Why I like this model so much is that, whatever brings someone into coaching, you can use this to link it back to their strengths (core preferences). It doesn't matter whether the start point is some "stop, start, continue" type feedback, a more positive desire to build on their strengths in a new role, or simply a need to deal with someone they find difficult (in their team or maybe their boss).
The link to core preferences easily takes us to the neuro-psychology of perception bias, and from there to the key coaching challenge which is to develop the self-awareness and "in the moment" self-management to make situationally appropriate intentional new choices.
The link to core preferences easily takes us to the neuro-psychology of perception bias, and from there to the key coaching challenge which is to develop the self-awareness and "in the moment" self-management to make situationally appropriate intentional new choices.
A strategic conversation is not a conversation about strategy!
This was prompted by some work I did on a programme for global relationship partners in a professional services firm who were being encouraged to have more strategic conversations with senior management contacts at their clients. Hearing the usual responses of "But I'm not an expert in strategy" reminded me how often people confuse a strategic conversation with a conversation about strategy!
I would define a strategic conversation as any conversation which makes a significant impact on the other's long term thinking and hence future actions. Since thinking and decisons are driven by emotions, you could also say a strategic conversation is one which has a significant impact on how the other person feels. Some examples would be:
(a) A coaching conversation = using a balance of support and challenge to help someone change habitual patterns of thinking and hence open up new strategic possibilities, which neither you or they anticipated.
(b) A heart to heart conversation = personally connecting by sharing what you truly think and feel rather than hiding behind your role and task agenda, or by showing empathy. The strategic impact is in deepening the relationship and building trust.
(c) A difficult conversation = daring to raise an issue that everyone else is avoiding, eg a conversation about a problem person in their management team that they aren't dealing with, or even the bit of the strategy that you just don't get ("the emperor has no clothes").
Sometimes, these all go together! Certainly, what's common to all three is that they are:
"Real" - you reveal who you really are, and invite the other to do the same
"Risky" - you expose yourself, a sign of trust and an invitation for them to trust you
"Relational" - you presume a desire for a deeper relationship, an invitation to build it
And how do you prepare for these strategic conversations? Not by learning about strategy but by:
(1) Awareness of who you are (at your best) and what gets in your way when you avoid the strategic conversation which might show it.
(2) Focus of attention on the quality of the interaction (or connection) rather than the content.
I would define a strategic conversation as any conversation which makes a significant impact on the other's long term thinking and hence future actions. Since thinking and decisons are driven by emotions, you could also say a strategic conversation is one which has a significant impact on how the other person feels. Some examples would be:
(a) A coaching conversation = using a balance of support and challenge to help someone change habitual patterns of thinking and hence open up new strategic possibilities, which neither you or they anticipated.
(b) A heart to heart conversation = personally connecting by sharing what you truly think and feel rather than hiding behind your role and task agenda, or by showing empathy. The strategic impact is in deepening the relationship and building trust.
(c) A difficult conversation = daring to raise an issue that everyone else is avoiding, eg a conversation about a problem person in their management team that they aren't dealing with, or even the bit of the strategy that you just don't get ("the emperor has no clothes").
Sometimes, these all go together! Certainly, what's common to all three is that they are:
"Real" - you reveal who you really are, and invite the other to do the same
"Risky" - you expose yourself, a sign of trust and an invitation for them to trust you
"Relational" - you presume a desire for a deeper relationship, an invitation to build it
And how do you prepare for these strategic conversations? Not by learning about strategy but by:
(1) Awareness of who you are (at your best) and what gets in your way when you avoid the strategic conversation which might show it.
(2) Focus of attention on the quality of the interaction (or connection) rather than the content.
"Why?" is not a very helpful question
The importance of getting away from the question "why" came up several times last week in slightly different circumstances each time.
A couple of clients were working on improving delegation. In both cases I had offered my version of the situational leadership model (see "useful 2x2 models") and we were exploring how they could use coaching more effectively to develop both competence and confidence in those they were delegating to, and so avoid bouncing straight back from delegation to detailed direction or doing it themselves.
What became apparent was that the question they often had in mind when coaching was "why?", as in (at least as a sub-text) "why didn't you do what I asked you to do?" Not helpful! The implied criticism triggers a threat response which is not good for learning or confidence, can create defensive reactions, and usually leads straight back to a repeat of directive instructions. It's like coaching someone to play tennis by asking them "why didn't you hit it over the net?" The much more useful question is "how?", as in "tell me how you approached x". In the tennis analogy, this is equivalent to saying "let me see you hit the ball again". Once someone is telling (or showing) you what they are doing, it is easy to notice, and help them to notice, things that are unhelpful that they might do differently next time. At one level, this is the essence of coaching - particularly when it is focused on improving performance in a task. It might seem as if it contradicts the famous saying "Leaders are the masters of what not how". However, really it supports it. You want your reports to be the masters of how, so you want them to tell you about the how - not you to tell them.
Another client was focusing on managing unhelpful emotions. For them the unhelpful "why" they had too much in mind was "why do I feel these emotions?". Again, more helpful is focusing on "how", as in "how do I manage these emotions". It's a little bit more complex in this scenario, as labelling is part of how you might manage them, and to label requires some understanding of "why". Also, we are clearly working at a deeper psychological level. However, what is clear is that "why" is rarely the most helpful question you can ask.
A couple of clients were working on improving delegation. In both cases I had offered my version of the situational leadership model (see "useful 2x2 models") and we were exploring how they could use coaching more effectively to develop both competence and confidence in those they were delegating to, and so avoid bouncing straight back from delegation to detailed direction or doing it themselves.
What became apparent was that the question they often had in mind when coaching was "why?", as in (at least as a sub-text) "why didn't you do what I asked you to do?" Not helpful! The implied criticism triggers a threat response which is not good for learning or confidence, can create defensive reactions, and usually leads straight back to a repeat of directive instructions. It's like coaching someone to play tennis by asking them "why didn't you hit it over the net?" The much more useful question is "how?", as in "tell me how you approached x". In the tennis analogy, this is equivalent to saying "let me see you hit the ball again". Once someone is telling (or showing) you what they are doing, it is easy to notice, and help them to notice, things that are unhelpful that they might do differently next time. At one level, this is the essence of coaching - particularly when it is focused on improving performance in a task. It might seem as if it contradicts the famous saying "Leaders are the masters of what not how". However, really it supports it. You want your reports to be the masters of how, so you want them to tell you about the how - not you to tell them.
Another client was focusing on managing unhelpful emotions. For them the unhelpful "why" they had too much in mind was "why do I feel these emotions?". Again, more helpful is focusing on "how", as in "how do I manage these emotions". It's a little bit more complex in this scenario, as labelling is part of how you might manage them, and to label requires some understanding of "why". Also, we are clearly working at a deeper psychological level. However, what is clear is that "why" is rarely the most helpful question you can ask.
3 lenses on preparing for meetings
After taking the whole month off for a variety of holidays (and variety is the word - the month started with a week of Tai Chi training and ended with a week in Ibiza) I am back and preparing for a number of coaching sessions later this week. So it struck me it would be good to write something about my learning around preparation - particularly for coaching, but equally applicable to any business meeting.
My approach mirrors the way I help clients to look at what is really going on by using three lenses. FIrst I pay attention to myself - how am I feeling, both physically and emotionally, what am I thinking about, what will I need to do to be able to be fully present (ie at my best)? Second I focus on the other person and wonder about what is going on for them. What do I know about who they are, their character style, preferences etc? I also notice how I am feeling about meeting up with them again. Finally, I think about the (coaching) context and the assumed roles we have taken in our previous (coaching) meetings. How helpful are they to achieving our mutual goals?
What I don't spend a lot of time on nowadays is thinking about my coachee's challenge. I maybe over-emphasise this point because I know that with my natural preference for problem solving and task achievement, I could easily become pre-occupied with it. And the purpose of coaching is not for me to work out my solution to the challenge, it's to help them work out theirs. Even in my consulting career, I learnt early on that content is only a small part of preparation. Some wise words from one of my early managers come back to me: "If you want to spend x% of the time on the client's agenda, only prepare (100-x)% of the content". I guess in coaching I now want to be virtually 100% on my client's agenda so I try to plan virtually 0% of the content.
A simple example from a while back will maybe bring this to life. Preparing for my third session with a client, I noticed I was working much too hard thinking about their challenge and how they could make progress on it. I realised this was because I was feeling anxious about whether I was really helping - not my best state for coaching. I then also remembered that my client was very introverted (vs my extraversion), so there might be a lot going on for them below the surface and my "pushing" to make "better" progress wasn't going to help it emerge. I could also see its potential for creating the wrong dynamic between us - me taking too much responsibility in my role and them taking too little. As a result of this preparation, I relaxed and (with a quieter mind) became more receptive, I created space to find out what was going on for them (by sharing my anxiety and listening to their perspective), and we actually had a great session exploring some areas they had been reflecting deeply upon following our previous session.
So even in preparation, the power to change comes from what you become aware of because of what you pay attention to.
My approach mirrors the way I help clients to look at what is really going on by using three lenses. FIrst I pay attention to myself - how am I feeling, both physically and emotionally, what am I thinking about, what will I need to do to be able to be fully present (ie at my best)? Second I focus on the other person and wonder about what is going on for them. What do I know about who they are, their character style, preferences etc? I also notice how I am feeling about meeting up with them again. Finally, I think about the (coaching) context and the assumed roles we have taken in our previous (coaching) meetings. How helpful are they to achieving our mutual goals?
What I don't spend a lot of time on nowadays is thinking about my coachee's challenge. I maybe over-emphasise this point because I know that with my natural preference for problem solving and task achievement, I could easily become pre-occupied with it. And the purpose of coaching is not for me to work out my solution to the challenge, it's to help them work out theirs. Even in my consulting career, I learnt early on that content is only a small part of preparation. Some wise words from one of my early managers come back to me: "If you want to spend x% of the time on the client's agenda, only prepare (100-x)% of the content". I guess in coaching I now want to be virtually 100% on my client's agenda so I try to plan virtually 0% of the content.
A simple example from a while back will maybe bring this to life. Preparing for my third session with a client, I noticed I was working much too hard thinking about their challenge and how they could make progress on it. I realised this was because I was feeling anxious about whether I was really helping - not my best state for coaching. I then also remembered that my client was very introverted (vs my extraversion), so there might be a lot going on for them below the surface and my "pushing" to make "better" progress wasn't going to help it emerge. I could also see its potential for creating the wrong dynamic between us - me taking too much responsibility in my role and them taking too little. As a result of this preparation, I relaxed and (with a quieter mind) became more receptive, I created space to find out what was going on for them (by sharing my anxiety and listening to their perspective), and we actually had a great session exploring some areas they had been reflecting deeply upon following our previous session.
So even in preparation, the power to change comes from what you become aware of because of what you pay attention to.
The therapeutic coach
The title of this post came out of a group supervision session today - don't worry, I'm not breaking confidentiality as it was my issue that I brought to the group and this title sums up what came out of it for me.
I was looking at whether working with a particular new client was really coaching or was straying over the boundary into the area of therapy. And where is that boundary anyway, given that the process of coaching is for me undoubtedly a therapeutic process - using the relationship between coach and coachee to bring about change. What brought new clarity to a distinction I had always worked with (ie that the difference is not in the process but in the objective) was a physical mapping process using objects to represent me, the coachee and the issue we were working with.
In a coaching context, the coachee and I are both facing towards the issue in a sort of triangular arrangement. The arrangement if I were to stray into therapy would be that I would simply be facing the coachee and they would be the primary issue we were working on. If the difference in these images doesn't speak clearly enough to you, I also articulated how the goal could be expressed differently in each case. In coaching the question is "How can I help you (ie someone with your personality and history, strengths and weaknesses etc) deal better with this issue, eg a work situation or relationship?" It is not "How can I help you change yourself?"
Of course, the self-developing nature of people (even the way our brains re-wire themselves) means that in finding new ways to deal better with something you will (over time) be changing yourself - that's how therapy works. But that is a secondary outcome, not the primary goal. So I am not a therapist. But I am a therapeutic coach.
I was looking at whether working with a particular new client was really coaching or was straying over the boundary into the area of therapy. And where is that boundary anyway, given that the process of coaching is for me undoubtedly a therapeutic process - using the relationship between coach and coachee to bring about change. What brought new clarity to a distinction I had always worked with (ie that the difference is not in the process but in the objective) was a physical mapping process using objects to represent me, the coachee and the issue we were working with.
In a coaching context, the coachee and I are both facing towards the issue in a sort of triangular arrangement. The arrangement if I were to stray into therapy would be that I would simply be facing the coachee and they would be the primary issue we were working on. If the difference in these images doesn't speak clearly enough to you, I also articulated how the goal could be expressed differently in each case. In coaching the question is "How can I help you (ie someone with your personality and history, strengths and weaknesses etc) deal better with this issue, eg a work situation or relationship?" It is not "How can I help you change yourself?"
Of course, the self-developing nature of people (even the way our brains re-wire themselves) means that in finding new ways to deal better with something you will (over time) be changing yourself - that's how therapy works. But that is a secondary outcome, not the primary goal. So I am not a therapist. But I am a therapeutic coach.
10 minute coaching - what's that about?
Last week I was on a stand at the HRD 2011 conference at Olympia, working with some colleagues under the banner of "10 minute coaching". Our plan was to offer a true experience of deeper level coaching to HR professionals who, although they may be responsible for procuring coaching for business managers, or for encouraging a coaching culture within the business, have had little or no experience of receiving coaching, hence sometimes don't really get what it's about. It was such a good experience I have to write about it!
Firstly, let me explain about the 10-minute tag. Many people came to see us assuming we had some special "fast" methodology. But actually we had the opposite. What we were seeking to demonstrate was that the true power of coaching is not in any methodology, it is in the ability of the coach to give full attention to their client and to be fully present with them. If you can achieve this as a coach, even for 10 minutes, something useful will happen for your client.
And this proved to be the case. We set up two leather armchairs behind a silk room divider and created a quiet space. Appointments were at 15 minute intervals to allow a few minutes for changeover and we alternated coaching sessions, one of us recovering while the other coached behind the screen. It was amazing (even to us if I am honest), and also uplifting, to see what people got out of these sessions. So thank you to all who visited us, and to my colleagues. I'm now wondering how we take this "guerilla coaching" one step further. Maybe we take our two chairs and the screen to Liverpool Street, Waterloo, or Canary Wharf? Watch this space!
Firstly, let me explain about the 10-minute tag. Many people came to see us assuming we had some special "fast" methodology. But actually we had the opposite. What we were seeking to demonstrate was that the true power of coaching is not in any methodology, it is in the ability of the coach to give full attention to their client and to be fully present with them. If you can achieve this as a coach, even for 10 minutes, something useful will happen for your client.
And this proved to be the case. We set up two leather armchairs behind a silk room divider and created a quiet space. Appointments were at 15 minute intervals to allow a few minutes for changeover and we alternated coaching sessions, one of us recovering while the other coached behind the screen. It was amazing (even to us if I am honest), and also uplifting, to see what people got out of these sessions. So thank you to all who visited us, and to my colleagues. I'm now wondering how we take this "guerilla coaching" one step further. Maybe we take our two chairs and the screen to Liverpool Street, Waterloo, or Canary Wharf? Watch this space!
"It's not them, it's you"
I have a great example which illustrates this both in my client's situation at work and in my interaction with them (a "parallel process"). I think I can tell the story without giving away anything confidential by making the real point of the story about me not them.
My client was on a programme rather than having chosen to do one to one work with me (the significance of which will become clear very shortly). Listening to their story it was clear that they were deeply frustrated by their situation - incredibly angry but holding their anger in rather than being able to vent it, use it, or otherwise dissipate it, so that it was building and building (to quite a dangerous level). They were in a double bind of contradictory forces. The grip of their character style (by which I mean their deeply held but unconscious beliefs and attitudes - "Guardian" for those who know the Centaur model) meant they were clear that others' behaviour was "not ok", but they were equally clear that telling them directly was also "not ok". They were clear that others needed to change, but equally clear that they themselves didn't need to change - after all, they had done nothing "wrong"!
This was a really stuck situation. And my heart went out to them - I desperately wanted to help them see what seemed obvious to me, ie that what was keeping it stuck was not the others, but them. So I tried really hard using all sorts of approaches in the very limited time we had. And I failed completely - in fact I think I probably just made them angrier and more frustrated!
I was myself very frustrated about this for a while until, in a "supervisory" discussion, I saw the parallel to their situation in the dynamic between us. What was preventing me helping them wasn't them, it was me. Because just as they were gripped by their core character style in their work situation, I was gripped by my core character style ("Warrior" in the Centaur model) in this programme situation, causing me to push too much to try to achieve something specific to help them (eg a "solution" to their problem).
If we had been in a one to one coaching relationship, I hope I would have been working from a deeper place. We might have got more quickly to the discussion we did eventually have at the end of the programme (which I believe actually was quite helpful in highlighting the parallel to their work situation) about why behaving in line with my core character style was particularly unhelpful to them, and how the best way for me to allow them to help change their behaviour would be to focus on changing mine.
My client was on a programme rather than having chosen to do one to one work with me (the significance of which will become clear very shortly). Listening to their story it was clear that they were deeply frustrated by their situation - incredibly angry but holding their anger in rather than being able to vent it, use it, or otherwise dissipate it, so that it was building and building (to quite a dangerous level). They were in a double bind of contradictory forces. The grip of their character style (by which I mean their deeply held but unconscious beliefs and attitudes - "Guardian" for those who know the Centaur model) meant they were clear that others' behaviour was "not ok", but they were equally clear that telling them directly was also "not ok". They were clear that others needed to change, but equally clear that they themselves didn't need to change - after all, they had done nothing "wrong"!
This was a really stuck situation. And my heart went out to them - I desperately wanted to help them see what seemed obvious to me, ie that what was keeping it stuck was not the others, but them. So I tried really hard using all sorts of approaches in the very limited time we had. And I failed completely - in fact I think I probably just made them angrier and more frustrated!
I was myself very frustrated about this for a while until, in a "supervisory" discussion, I saw the parallel to their situation in the dynamic between us. What was preventing me helping them wasn't them, it was me. Because just as they were gripped by their core character style in their work situation, I was gripped by my core character style ("Warrior" in the Centaur model) in this programme situation, causing me to push too much to try to achieve something specific to help them (eg a "solution" to their problem).
If we had been in a one to one coaching relationship, I hope I would have been working from a deeper place. We might have got more quickly to the discussion we did eventually have at the end of the programme (which I believe actually was quite helpful in highlighting the parallel to their work situation) about why behaving in line with my core character style was particularly unhelpful to them, and how the best way for me to allow them to help change their behaviour would be to focus on changing mine.
Which comes first - a relationship or coaching?
I'm prompted to write this by a discussion with a client who is responsible for leading the relationship with a key global account for one of the big consultancies. We had been talking about how he might develop new relationships at the most senior level, and my client had framed the strategic conversations he would like to have as being a bit like coaching conversations.
His goal, using a coaching mindset, is to help the client see things from a different perspective and so reach new insights of their own, rather than simply to tell them what he thought. I really liked this framing - it seems to me a great way for him to have a strategic conversation without the usual baggage of anxiety about demonstrating the quality of his own strategic ideas or about provoking a defensive reaction through implied criticism of the other's current strategy.
My client talked about another client where this works really well with the CEO... "but, of course, I know them quite well now. I can't do that with X until I have had some more meetings to build relationship and establish credibility." Which set me thinking: which comes first, the relationship or the coaching? And I concluded that ideally they develop in parallel. Pure relationship building may not, in itself, provide enough value to the other to make further investment in development of the relationship seem worthwhile. Conversely, the value from a good coaching conversation is a great way to build the relationship. The key is to respect, and pay attention to, the natural balance.
You might question whether a new contact would see it as appropriate for you to position yourself like this. But perhaps whether they will see it as appropriate depends on whether you do. You can easily check it out. And it is hard to think of a better alternative!
His goal, using a coaching mindset, is to help the client see things from a different perspective and so reach new insights of their own, rather than simply to tell them what he thought. I really liked this framing - it seems to me a great way for him to have a strategic conversation without the usual baggage of anxiety about demonstrating the quality of his own strategic ideas or about provoking a defensive reaction through implied criticism of the other's current strategy.
My client talked about another client where this works really well with the CEO... "but, of course, I know them quite well now. I can't do that with X until I have had some more meetings to build relationship and establish credibility." Which set me thinking: which comes first, the relationship or the coaching? And I concluded that ideally they develop in parallel. Pure relationship building may not, in itself, provide enough value to the other to make further investment in development of the relationship seem worthwhile. Conversely, the value from a good coaching conversation is a great way to build the relationship. The key is to respect, and pay attention to, the natural balance.
You might question whether a new contact would see it as appropriate for you to position yourself like this. But perhaps whether they will see it as appropriate depends on whether you do. You can easily check it out. And it is hard to think of a better alternative!
Challenge vs Support... and parallel processes
A couple of weeks ago I had a great illustration of a parallel process while facilitating on a programme for a global firm of strategy consultants. On day 1, we (the facilitators) were mostly observing the participants working in teams on a case study and were frustrated that the participants weren't being sufficiently challenging with each other, and that it hadn't got better as the day wore on. One of the most important things in creating a learning environment is this balance between challenge (dissonance) and support (resonance). If there's too much challenge and not enough support then it is too exposing and people close down and become defensive. But if there's too much support and not enough challenge, it is like a social chat and people do not stretch themselves to expand their awareness.
The breakthrough came at our facilitator group debrief on the morning of day 2 when we recognised the parallel process that we ourselves were not being challenging enough about their lack of challenge. So in the next session the session leader was! He gave them some pretty direct feedback on their performance on the previous day. And they came right back at him... and then each other. And, hey presto, they upped their engagement, upped their performance in the case study, and (crucially) upped their learning. The rest of the three day event was great, as was participant feedback on their learning.
The learning I took away was just how important it always is to be conscious of (ie monitor) the balance between challenge and support, and to recognise your responsibility for it. But the balance shouldn't simply reflect your own personal style! Your responsibility is do what is in the best interests of your client, ie provide what they need from you at any point in time to create the right space for their learning.
The breakthrough came at our facilitator group debrief on the morning of day 2 when we recognised the parallel process that we ourselves were not being challenging enough about their lack of challenge. So in the next session the session leader was! He gave them some pretty direct feedback on their performance on the previous day. And they came right back at him... and then each other. And, hey presto, they upped their engagement, upped their performance in the case study, and (crucially) upped their learning. The rest of the three day event was great, as was participant feedback on their learning.
The learning I took away was just how important it always is to be conscious of (ie monitor) the balance between challenge and support, and to recognise your responsibility for it. But the balance shouldn't simply reflect your own personal style! Your responsibility is do what is in the best interests of your client, ie provide what they need from you at any point in time to create the right space for their learning.
Personality profiles: So what?
Nearly every leadership development intervention at some point looks at personality profiles. But what do you really do with the results? This was the discussion we had in the group I was leading on a programme this week, in this case looking at their NEO profiles.
There are two apparently contradictory messages that go with any profile. On the one hand, to justify doing them, we say "you (pretty much) can't change who you are" and on the other hand, because we're talking about leadership development, we say "what got you here won't get you there" (self explanatory comment on stepping up to lead, but see the book of the same name by Marshall Goldsmith if you want more). So what do you actually supposed to do with your profile?
It was easy to agree that one key benefit of looking at profiles is that by becoming more aware of what you do instinctively (ie without conscious thought), you can "loosen the grip" of your personality. If you can loosen the grip, you develop flexibility and give yourself the choice of doing things differently. But our common experience was that the grip is strongest just when you most need to loosen it up.
To truly loosen the grip you have to do some deeper more psychologically based work around these profiles, recognising that what you do instinctively is driven by a set of unconscious beliefs and assumptions you hold about the world. To overcome these you first have to make them more conscious, then work out how to get around them in certain situations. This is what we worked on in the group, as usual finding that it's often more productive to focus on whether an assumption is helpful or unhelpful in a given situation, rather than whether it is true or not. And if it's not helpful, it's also often easier to reframe the situation, rather than work directly on the belief itself.
So the real benefit of these personality profiling tools is not the profile itself - a description of characteristic behaviour. Whichever one you use, it's really just another way to uncover those unconscious assumptions which, for better AND worse, are driving your behaviour.
There are two apparently contradictory messages that go with any profile. On the one hand, to justify doing them, we say "you (pretty much) can't change who you are" and on the other hand, because we're talking about leadership development, we say "what got you here won't get you there" (self explanatory comment on stepping up to lead, but see the book of the same name by Marshall Goldsmith if you want more). So what do you actually supposed to do with your profile?
It was easy to agree that one key benefit of looking at profiles is that by becoming more aware of what you do instinctively (ie without conscious thought), you can "loosen the grip" of your personality. If you can loosen the grip, you develop flexibility and give yourself the choice of doing things differently. But our common experience was that the grip is strongest just when you most need to loosen it up.
To truly loosen the grip you have to do some deeper more psychologically based work around these profiles, recognising that what you do instinctively is driven by a set of unconscious beliefs and assumptions you hold about the world. To overcome these you first have to make them more conscious, then work out how to get around them in certain situations. This is what we worked on in the group, as usual finding that it's often more productive to focus on whether an assumption is helpful or unhelpful in a given situation, rather than whether it is true or not. And if it's not helpful, it's also often easier to reframe the situation, rather than work directly on the belief itself.
So the real benefit of these personality profiling tools is not the profile itself - a description of characteristic behaviour. Whichever one you use, it's really just another way to uncover those unconscious assumptions which, for better AND worse, are driving your behaviour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)