Tag: Association od Corporate Executive Coaches

  • Is Remarketing The New Free?

    Let’s face it, we’ve become increasingly numb to the lead capture bait for email address exchange. In fact, I think it’s become so bad that while people still sign up for the free thing, they often don’t even bother to download, rarely if ever actually read it or watch it, and unfortunately, don’t represent the opportunity for marketers that they once did.

    The bar for starting a relationship with a prospect has evolved, and the stakes are higher.

    Today, we have to create awareness before a prospect understands they have a problem or certainly before they are seeking a transformation.

    In my opinion, this is still done by offering the right content, in the right context, but with the right delivery mechanism.[tweetthis]To reach the greatest number of prospects in your market, the first contact can’t be an ask.[/tweetthis]

    Creating awareness through targeted content

    People still want to find answers to their challenges and will probably always seek information in many forms. Smart marketers are grouping and personalizing content by specific category or problem-solving advice and offering that content without strings in targeted advertising environments such as Facebook.

    The content may be a short video or series of video, a group of blog posts or even a series of templates and checklists.

    The key is that this is bite-sized, useful, easy to access and easy to consume. It’s the start of a relationship without commitment.

    Building trust before the ask

    So, how does totally free content create a lead? It does so by giving and giving and giving before asking anything. High-quality content without strings attached builds trust and authority – two of the primary objectives of all marketing today.

    The key to making this work as lead generation tactic is something called remarketing or retargeting.

    Now, you may be familiar with retargeting if you’ve ever reviewed a product you were researching online.

    A few years ago I wanted to get standup desk and looked around at a variety of products before finally settling on one made by Varidesk.

    I did my research one day and visited the manufacture’s site and sure enough everywhere else I went I started seeing ads for Varidesk.

    In fact, even after I had purchased the desk from Amazon I continued to see the ads on many news type sites I visited.

    This is retargeting not so much at its finest.

    Or perhaps you downloaded a free report on a site and when you returned to get the next one in the series they already knew your name and email and automatically completed it in the form. This is another type of very useful retargeting in a way.

    Essentially what retargeting involves is placing a cookie on a visitor’s browser that indicates they have come to your site. This cookie then allows ad networks to show certain ads when you visit one of their sites.

    Many people dislike this technology, and you can manage it by changing your privacy settings to disable it. Of course, a lot of things you do like, such as a website you frequent remembering your settings is activated using this same approach.

    One of the more effective ways to use retargeting in a gentle lead nurturing sense is by using Facebook’s retargeting tool.

    You simply run sponsored ads at highly targeted, useful content or a series of content and let Facebook tell you who visits and consumes the content. Once this mechanism is in place, you can start building custom audiences of the people that visited your free content with the knowledge that they may indeed be interested in a more substantial version of the content in exchange for an email address or opt-in.

    This approach, while requiring more patience, opens up a much larger potential audience and will likely make your list conversions triple or quadruple.

    Here’s a nice little tutorial on Facebook retargeting from Social Media Examiner

    And another, more technical one from WPCurve with specifics for WordPress users

    And, you might want to look for retargeting services outside of the Facebook walls, so take a look at PerfectAudience for a super easy approach or one of the pioneers of retargeting, AdRoll.

    Hyper segmentation for relationship building

    One of the beautiful things about this approach is that it not only allows you to nurture people who visit your website, but it also allows you to create segmented campaigns for people based on what they visited.

    For example, I attract many small business owners who are interested in tips and tactics for growing their business, but I also serve a growing network of independent marketing consultants who are interested in ways to grow a more profitable practice and serve more customers.

    Using a retargeting approach, I can create a highly personalized experience for these radically different audiences based on an understanding of the content they visited.

    Now, understand that this approach is certainly not limited to Facebook – Facebook just offers a nice way to use it to build awareness and trust.

    This is essentially the same technology that powers inbound marketing tools such as Hubspot or many CRM and marketing automation tools. It’s the same technology that powers many of the more sophisticated lead tracking tools such as ClickMagick or Kissmetrics.

    The real lesson in this is that marketers today must understand that as brands big and small continue to take advantage of the technology to serve more personalized, useful and relevant experiences the more our prospects will come to hunger for and expect the same from any business they engage – whether they know it or not.

    Content Originally Created by Duct Tape Marketing

    Author: John Jantsch

  • When the Weight of a Decision is Keeping You Up at Night…

    When the Weight of a Decision is Keeping You Up at Night…

    Most of us find it easy to make a decision when faced with a right versus a wrong option. We were educated to know the difference between right and wrong in most cases, and through experience our minds were shaped to know how to make such a decision.

    There is clearly a right way to do things because doing it any other way would be wrong. As leaders, we tend to experience these types of situations on a daily basis. And, for the most part, we do quite well in removing obstacles, selecting the best options, and getting things done. However, most of us were not equipped to deal with situations that actually present two equally right options.

    The challenge in these situations is deciding which right thing to do because choosing one means we cannot chose the other. When faced with a right-AND-right choice, we are more likely to avoid making a decision altogether. Relying on the simple rule of “do what feels right” school of personal ethics won’t resolve your dilemma. Moreover, not making any decision doesn’t mean that the situation goes away or vanishes completely. In fact, the opposite is true. It creates a bottleneck, with work piling up because mandates cannot be completed on time due to your indecision. And try as you may, you cannot avoid these situations. It sort of feels like an unwanted traveling companion moving with you wherever you go. The weight of that decision lies solely with you, and only you can decide. No one else.

    So what’s ‘the thing’ about situations that ask you to choose one good option over another good option? Fundamentally, they require you to consider all aspects of the situation in light of personal and organizational values concurrently since the decision you will ultimately need to make will not only shape your character, but also the fabric of your organization.Throughout your professional career, the weight of these situations is experienced slightly differently.

    During the early years, the right-AND-right scenarios tend to touch upon personal integrity. Choosing one option versus another one usually means you compromise something that is of value to you. The pull is between one set of responsibilities over another: “Do I say ‘yes’ and realize I cannot do that anymore? If I accept this, it means I need to give up that!” The qualitative nature of the pull is essentially about you.

    As you gain in scope of influence and accountability in your line of work, these situations of right-ANDright tend to take on a different, more complex flavor. Now, your decisions are not purely personal. The consequences of your decisions can send ripple effects throughout the organization. Everyone is watching you carefully, and noticing if what you said is what you will do. Your decisions can also impact whether others will follow your lead or not: “If I decide to act on this, how will others interpret our corporate rules? By making this decision, who in my group will be mostly impacted? By saying no to this, will others feel I wasn’t being fair?”

    These decisions do define your leadership future as people notice the incongruence in how you hold yourself and others accountable to what you said was important to you, to the team, and to the organization. Finally, and perhaps the most challenging of situations are those that impact networks of relationships outside of your organization. These relationships have legitimate claims, but you cannot satisfy them all. Obligations to one network may be in conflict with another, for instance. Complicating this decision-making process is the stake you claim personally.

    Your own personal values and views may be in direct opposition to any one stakeholder group and what they are responsible for. In his seminal book, entitled, “Defining Moments”, Joseph Badaracco (1997) takes a deep dive into these situations. Suffice to say that there is no exact science or fast-easy approach. Making decisions in right-AND-right situations calls for prudence and awareness of our own moral compass. It demands that we select one option knowing that it factors out all future opportunities and possibilities linked with the other option. Organizations, for their part, ought to encourage managers to value the decision-making process for its inherent complexity, and not just push for ANY decision to be made.

    Moreover, when a decision is well-researched (not just rationalized) and thoughtful, it should be seen as ONE good decision even if it leads to an outcome that was not wanted. Otherwise, you risk creating organizational cultures where decisions are only made in right-versus-wrong situations, and those that present leaders with right-AND-right options are avoid ed altogether.*** Not too long ago, I shared the following three rules with a young aspiring student who was faced with aright-AND-right scenario. My intention was to help her notice that she was indeed facing a situation that she had never encountered before, and that the choice she made today meant eliminating some future directions.

    Embedded in my strategy was to have her ease into this part of young adulthood and not fear such situations as she is bound to experience more in her adult life.Three Rules to a Happy Life:

    1. Never be too proud to change your mind. The sign of a strong leader is one who changes her decision as new information emerges.

    2. Never go for easy. You have one life. Make it matter.

    3. Even after you have carefully considered your options and how each one factors in and factors out possible pathways, flip a coin and name the two sides. If the toss lands on one side that represents the option you chose, and you feel the need to flip again, you have your answer.

    Final words:I’ve encountered countless leaders faced with right-AND-right situations who in the moment, needed an impartial person to help them through the decision: Someone completely separate from their company and usual circle of trusted advisors who although held in high esteem, still tended to have some sort of bias. They have acknowledged that a simple phone call to a professional coach, outside of their structured leadership and mentorship programs, was the game-changing difference. This my friends, was the AHA! moment I had in founding Grand Heron International – for on-demand coaching, for anyone, anywhere, facing a situation where they feel stuck and unable to move forward. I’ve been there, I’ve seen others there and chances are, you’ve been there in your professional life too.

    Remember: Stagnating in indecision is never an option. There are ways to help you see beyond the horizon.

    By Mirella De Civita Ph.D., PCC, MCEC President & Founder of Grand Heron International https://grandheroninternational.ca/

     

  • Superpowers for Leaders

  • Defy Gravity

    Defy Gravity

    How to break from convention and lead in an ambiguous business world

    by Susan Gilell-Stuy, Executive Coach, Trusted Leadership Advisor and Host of “Lead With IT“ podcast

    A reliance on conventional wisdom limits your ability to act in an ambiguous business world. A new generation of employees has redefined their expectations for top leaders and global organizations. And I’m going to tell you something your employees won’t: if you aren’t meeting their needs, they’ve already decided to jump ship and find a new team or company that will.

    Their lack of loyalty is a sign of your neglect. It’s a clear message that you can’t continue to tackle today’s challenges and opportunities with yesterday’s approach. You’ve got to change or lose them.

    It’s time you defy the gravitational pull for doing for what’s conventional: after all the only other option is staying stuck in the past.

    Here are 4 ways you can defy gravity:

    Raise the Bar for Everyone

    Everyone you add to the team should raise the bar for everyone else. That includes you. Only hire people you could see yourself working for one day. The goal is to constantly boost the talent pool, create ongoing intellectual diversity, and learn from each team member’s knowledge and ability.

    Give Up “Kitchen Sink” Meetings

    Stop holding catch-all weekly team meetings. Instead, switch to meetings driven by subject matter. For example: Mondays are project meetings, Wednesdays are budget meetings, and so on. Invite only the key players to keep things simple. A focused meeting makes for quicker and better decision-making.

    Think Big and Let Them Call the Cadence

    As the leader, paint the big picture for your team. Share with them where you’re heading, tell them that you expect them to get there the quickest way possible, and assure them that you’ll clear the speed bumps if need be. Then step back and let your trusted team members call the cadence, approach, and path they’re going to take to get there.

    Kill the Annual Review

    Only one thing matters when it comes to connecting with your people: putting them first. Spend more time focused on them and less time worrying about technical aspects of the business. Don’t wait for an annual review to share what you’re thinking; coach and develop them in real-time. Your investment in them will pay big dividends over the long-term.

    Once you’ve chosen to defy gravity and finish your transformational journey the organization and those around you have no option but to transform too. Fostering real change in those you lead and the organization itself makes you an unstoppable force as a leader.

    Susan Gilell-Stuy, Executive Coach, Trusted Leaderhip Advisor and Host of “Lead With IT” podcast

    Susan is a top-tier corporate executive coach, leadership strategist and speaker who helps millennial leaders and executives tap their genius by discovering the distinct skills and abilities that empower them to map out a plan for success – one that is perfectly suited to them. She is an executive coach for The Wharton School – University of Pennsylvania, a member of the Association of Corporate Executive Coaches and host of the Lead With IT™ podcast. If you’re wondering what your sweet spot is as a leader get your free copy of Susan’s Lead With IT Kit© at susangilellstuy.com and find out what you lead with.

  • The Path To Better Decision Making

    The Path To Better Decision Making

  • Women on Corporate Boards: Are You Preparing Your Clients to Take on This Role?

    Women on Corporate Boards: Are You Preparing Your Clients to Take on This Role?

  • The propensity to pursue executive coaching: …

    The propensity to pursue executive coaching: …

    The propensity to pursue executive coaching: variables of self-efficacy and transformational leadership  CEOWORLD Magazine

    www.ceoworld.biz

    Two dominate variables, which has been linked to successful, sustainable, and innovative businesses is transformational leadership and leadership self-efficacy.  However, nearly 60% of companies face leadership talent shortages (Crainer, 2011).  Leadership coaching is a strategy to address the deficit of effective leaders (Gregory, Beck, & Carr, 2011; Hannafey & Vitulano, 2013), and leaders who seek coaching indicate improved self-efficacy and  transformational leadership (Abrell, Rowold, Weibler, & Moenninghoff, 2011; Enescu & Popescue, 2012; Moen & Allgood, 2009; Mukherjee, 2012; Shanker, Bhanugopan, & Fish, 2012).  According to the research literature and theorists, leadership coaching provides a new path for learning and self-awareness to an individual’s growth and development (Kay, 2013; Moen & Federici, 2012).

    Unfortunately, a paucity of information exists about leaders who take responsibility for their own development, and McCall (2010) posited no substitutes exist for teaching evolving leaders how to take charge of their own advancement.  Therefore, the objective of this research study was to (a) enrich the substantive theory building and empirical research on self-efficacy and transformational leadership by (b) assessing the leaders’ self-efficacy and transformational leadership, and(c) to ascertain if a relationship exists between these variables and the propensity to pursue executive coaching.

    Theoretical Framework

    Coaching continues to grow faster than research and Gregory et al. recommended an integration of theory and practical application of organizing frameworks.  Control Theory (CT) posited humans take an active role or responsibility toward one’s behavior, where CT attempts to control the state of some variable, often the pursuit of accomplishing a task by controlling their behavior (Gregory et al., 2011).
    Literature Review

    Executive Coaching

    In a comprehensive literature review by Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson (2001), the history of executive coaching is noted as barely traceable and a hard date for the commencement of executive coaching does not appear to exist.  The word coach emerged in the 1500s into the English language to describe a particular horse drawn carriage.  The origin of the verbto coach refers to a highly regarded person getting from where he or she was to where they wanted to go (Witherspoon & White, 1996).  Over the centuries, the term moved through several avenues from sports coaching to academic coaching and to the evolution of executive coaching (Stern, 2004).

    Predominately, western societies implement executive coaching.  The United Kingdom reports 70% of companies  use coaching, where 44% of employees report using coaching (Sergers, Vloeberghs, Henderickx, & Inceoglu, 2011), and 93% of companies in the United States (Jowett, Kanakoglou, & Passmore, 2012).  The Coaching International Federation (CIF) reported an increase in membership from 1,500 in 1999 to 10,000 members in 2006 across 80 different countries (Jowett et al., 2012).  Van Genderen (2014) asserted executive coaching is the fastest growing profession for the development of corporate success.

    According to the CIF, coaching offers the definition as an ongoing professional relationship that helps people produce extraordinary results in their lives, careers, businesses, or organizations.  Through the process of coaching, clients deepen their learning, improve their performance, and enhance their quality of life. (Brown & Rusnak, 2010, p. 15)

    Self-Efficacy

    Bandura (1986), a social cognitive theorist, first introduced the concept of self-efficacy.  Social cognitive theory includes grounding in the conceptual understanding that human beings are vigorously committing to their development and actions (Bandura, 1986).  Bandura (1997) postulated self-efficacy refers to a judgment of one’s own ability to perform a specific task within a specific domain.  Thus, self-efficacy is the aspect of self, which refers to how sure (or how confident), the individual is that he or she can successfully perform requisite tasks in specific situations, given one’s unique, and specific capabilities. (p. 4)

    Transformational Leadership

    Transformational leadership is a leadership style, which incorporates relationships and the dynamic interplay between the followers and the leader of a group. Transformational leadership inspires followers to be the best they can be, to accomplish their goals, and values what followers need and want.  By focusing on the follower’s values and aligning those values with an organization’s value this outcome may further the mission of an organization (Givens, 2008).

    Research Design

    A quantitative study with a descriptive correlational design and linear regression analysis was used for this study with established self-efficacy and leadership instruments, which contain quantitative data to assess if a relationship exists between the variables.  Applying a correlational design approach suits the needs of this study because the purpose is to examine if significant relationships exist between three sets of identified variables.

    Population and Sample

    The target population for this research study was executives in leadership positions (CEOs, COOs, VPs, CFOs, and executive management), which was accessed through SurveyMonkey®’s database.  To avoid social and research exclusion, this study did not exclude gender or industry, but was limited to the United State.  The study used a purposive sampling of executives.  A standard email notification was used to notify respondents, that he or she had a new survey to take and the invite was a random group selected through an algorithm process. SurveyMonkey®’s solicited 186 responses with 110 of those responses being fully completed.

    Instrumentation / Measures

    The instruments used in this research study were selected because of their established reliability and validity measurements.  The new general self-efficacy scale (NGSES) and the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) are established instruments (Bass & Avolio, 1997; Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001).  Participants received a survey, which incorporated the assessments NGSES and MLQ, to include a follow-up Likert-type scale question to ask how he or she  self-rated their self-efficacy and transformational leadership (low, neutral or high), and then how likely he or she was to  pursue executive coaching (Strongly disagree-Will not pursue executive coaching, Disagree – Might consider pursuing executive coaching within the next 3 months, Neutral, Agree, will definitely pursue executive coaching within the next 3 months, Strongly agree – will pursue executive coaching immediately).
    Data Analysis
    This quantitative correlational study used SigmaXL to run the descriptive statistics, correlations, and linear regression analysis.  Minitab software was utilized to run the Cronbach alpha scores for the reliability and normality testing to reduce the risk of Type I and Type II errors of the instruments for this research project.

    Results

    Demographics

    Male 56.76% self-reported as male (N = 63)
    Female: 43.24% respondents self-reported as female (N = 48)

    Ages:                                                   Position

    18-30 – 22.52% (N=25)                      CEOs – 47.7%  (N = 53)
    31-40 – 33.3% (N=37)                        COOs – 15.3% (N=17)
    41-50 -19.8% (N=22)                         VP – 7.2% (N=8)
    51-60 – 21.6%) (N=24)                       CFOs -7.2% (N=8)
    61-70 – 2.7% (N=3)                            Executive Management – 22.% (N=25)

    Number of Employees

    >100  –                         46.85% (N = 52)
    101 – 1,000 –               30.63% (N=34)
    1,001 – 10,000 –          19.82% (N=22)
    10,001<                       2.7% (N=3)

    RESULTS

    Research Question 1: Does a relationship exist between self-efficacy and transformational leadership?  The Pearson correlation is .691 with p <  0.000 therefore the null hypotheses was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted demonstrating a significant relationship between transformational leadership and self-efficacy.  These findings support  Mesterova, Prochazka, and Vaculik (2014), which stated the two variables are positively paired, contribute to each other, and contribute significantly to effective leadership.

    Research Question 2: To what extent does self-efficacy predict the propensity to pursue coaching?

    The Pearson correlation is .167 with p <  0.08 therefore the null hypotheses must be retained and the alternative hypothesis rejected demonstrating no significant relationship  between self-efficacy  and the propensity to pursue executive coaching.
    This was a surprising result to this researcher.  A possible explanation for this finding is  the purposive sampling of just high-level executives and their self-efficacy was assessed.  The composite variable for actual self-efficacy was 4.5 (on a scale of 1-5) indicating a high-level of self-efficacy as self-reported by the respondents.  The non-significant relationship between self-efficacy and executive coaching may indicate high-level executives feel quite confident, secure in their abilities, and do not feel the need to pursue coaching to enhance or develop their already existing level of self-efficacy.  Additionally, the results of this research underpin Nease et al.’s (1999) research study where participants with robust self-efficacy would exhibit decreases in feedback acceptance.

    Research Question 3: To what extent does transformational leadership predict the propensity to pursue coaching? 

    The Pearson correlation is .362 with p <  0.0001, therefore the null hypotheses was rejected and the alternative hypothesis accepted demonstrating a positive relationship between transformational leadership and the propensity to pursue executive coaching.  The overall composite combined variable score for transformational leadership was high; therefore, transformational leaders may always feel a need to improve their abilities, promoting relationships, and enhancing their followers’ abilities despite their high scores.  Transformational leadership, in definition, is a continuous growth path and one actually never arrives at full transformational leadership.  Therefore, the results of this study support the characteristic domains of transformational leadership by demonstrating a desire to pursue executive coaching for continued growth.

    Research Question 4: What is the relationship between self-efficacy, transformational leadership, and the proclivity to pursue executive coaching? 

    A linear regression model was calculated to predict likeliness to pursue coaching based on transformational leadership and self-efficacy.  A significant regression equations was found (F = 11.8488, p < 0.000), with an R-square adjusted of 0.0905.  The alternative hypothesis was supported indicating a small, only 10%, but significant likelihood when combining transformational leadership and self-efficacy, that an individual will be inclined to pursue executive coaching.  Additionally, this result indicates transformational leadership may be a possible moderator on the variable self-efficacy, as self-efficacy as a standalone variable will not propel an individual to pursue executive coaching.

    Limitations, Assumptions, and Future Research

    A limitation to this current research study was the limitation of SurveyMonkey® to give the respondents in real-time their results of their assessed transformational leadership characteristics and scores of self-efficacy.  This known variable may or may not have a different correlational relationship on the propensity to pursue executive coaching.  Understanding the demographic variables of education, experience, or length in the executives’ current position may also help to elucidate the non-significant relationship between self-efficacy and executive coaching.  Additionally, the industry of executive coaching is an established international industry and this research study was isolated to the United States.  Replicating this same study in other geographic international locations may yield different results as well as for global companies or organizations in other countries.

    Conclusion

    First, to the industry of executive coaching when soliciting possible clients, transformational leadership is a construct, which leaders may be willing to explore, enhance, and continuously develop.  Additionally, combining the assessments of transformational leadership and self-efficacy may influence a leader to pursue executive coaching.  Furthermore, organizations, HR departments, and Board of Directors can administer the MLQ (5x) separately or combined with the NGSES and may see a willingness for the leader to pursue coaching to develop and enhance these skills on a deeper level.  Leaders do appear to want to take charge of their own development and will pursue executive coaching if given the opportunity to assess their transformational leadership and self-efficacy.
    REFERENCES
    Abrell, C., Rowold, J., Weibler, J., & Moenninghoff, M. (2011). Evaluation of a long
    term transformational leadership development program. Journal of Research Personnel, 25(3), 205-224. doi:10.1688/1862-0000
    Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New Jersey, NY: Prentice Hall.
    Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: NY, Freeman.
    Brown, M., & Rusnak, C. (2010). The power of coaching. Public Manager, 39(4), 15-17.
    Coaching International Federation. (2012).  Retrieved from
    Crainer, S. (2011). Leadership special report. Business Strategy Review, 22(2), 17-22. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8616.2011.00745.x
    Enescu, C., & Popescu D. (2012). Executive coaching – instrument for implementing organizational change. Review of International Comparative Management, 13(3), 378-386.
    Givens, R. (2008). Transformational leadership: The impact on organizational and personal outcome. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 1(1), 4-24. Retrieved from http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/elj/issue1/ELJ_V1Is1_Givens.pdf
    Gregory, J., Beck, J. W., & Carr, A. E. (2011). Goals, feedback, and self-regulation: Control theory as a natural framework for executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 63(1), 26-38. doi:10.1037/a0023398
    Hannafey, F., & Vitulano, L. (2013). Ethics and executive coaching: An agency theory approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 599-603. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1442
    Jowett, S., Kanakoglou, K., & Passmore, J. (2012). The application of the 3+1Cs relationship model in executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64(3), 183-197. doi:10.1037/a0030316
    Kampa-Kokesch, S., & Anderson, M. Z. (2001). Executive coaching: A comprehensivereview of the literature. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53(4), 205. doi:10.1037/1061-4087.53.4.205
    Kay, D. (2013). Language and behavior profile as a method to be used in a coaching
    process. Poznan University of Economics Review, 13(3), 107-129.
    McCall, M. W. (2010). Recasting leadership development. Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, 3, 3-19. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01189.xMesterova, J., Prochazka, J., & Vaculik, M. (2014) Relationship between self-efficacy,transformational leadership and leader effectiveness. Journal of Advanced Management Science, 3(2), 109-122. doi:10.12720/joams.3.2.109-122
    Moen, F., & Allgood, E. (2009). Coaching and the effect on self-efficacy. Organization Development Journal, 27(4), 69-82.
    Moen, F., & Federici, R. A. (2012). Perceived leadership self-efficacy and coachcompetence: Assessing a coaching-based leadership self-efficacy scale. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 10(2), 1-16. doi:10.5539/jel.v1n2p1
    Mukherjee, S. (2012). Does coaching transform coaches? A case study of internal coaching. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 10(2), 76-87.
    Nease, A. A., Mudgett, B. O., & Quiñones, M. A. (1999). Relationships among feedback sign, self-efficacy, and acceptance of performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 806-814. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.5.806
    Segers, J., Vloeberghs, D., Henderickx, E., & Inceoglu, I. (2011). Structuring andunderstanding the coaching industry: The coaching cube. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(2), 204-221. doi:10.5465/amle.2011.62798930
    Shanker, R., Bhanugopan, R., & Fish, A. (2012). Changing organizational climate for innovation through leadership: An exploratory review and research agenda. Review of Management Innovation & Creativity, 5(14), 105-118.
    Stern, L. R. (2004). Executive coaching: A working definition. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(3), 154-162. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.56.3.154
    Van Genderen, E. (2014). Strategic coaching’ and consulting: More similar than meetsthe eye. Middle East Journal of Business, 9(1), 3-8. doi:10.5742/mejb.2014.91368
    Witherspoon, R., & White, R. P. (1996). Executive coaching: A continuum of roles. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(2), 124-133. doi:10.1037/1061-4087.48.2.124
    ++++++
By Dr. Shauna Rossington, DBA, LMFT.
    0 Comments

    2 + 7 =
    RECOMMENDED ARTICLES

    Executive coaching is back in fashion Economic growth in the UK has led to a resurgence in businesses u

  • Coaching Supervision, A Tool or a Mandate?

    By CB Bowman, MBA, MCEC, BCC, CMC

    CEO, Association of Corporate Executive Coaches

    http://acec-association.org March 29, 2015

    Here is a radical  question, is “coaching supervision” much to do about something, or much to do about nothing with regard to its possible infestation  into coaching in the United States?

    The concept of coaching supervision is swimming its way to the U.S. from European waters, where by law it is mandatory.  The law requires that, executive coaches have  coaching supervision.

    What is “Coaching Supervision”?  According to the Coaching Supervision Academy, coaching supervision will provide coaches with the following

    •  Clear Contracting  – multi-party contracting where appropriate.
    •  Ensuring that standards and ethics are maintained.
    •  Establishing good boundaries.
    •  Enhancing reflectivity – working with content and process.
    •  Attending to the Coach’s Personal Development.
    •  Creating the Working Alliance.
    •  Deepening Coaching Presence.
    •  Building the Internal Supervisor.
    •  Offering new perspectives to the coach.
    •  Increasing the coach’s interventions and tools.
    •  Being sensitive to the coach’s Learning and Coaching Style.
    •  Teaching about Coaching Psychology.
    •  Working with Parallel Process.
    •  Developing systemic thinking.
    •  Giving constructive feedback.
    •  Providing the coach with new tools.
    •  Creating experiments through which the coach can learn.
    •  Offering educative and restorative support to the coach.
    •  Working systemically – with coach, client and the wider field.
    •  Opening up new areas of competence for the coach.

    It occurs to me that any Executive Coach who cares about their profession consistently ensures that the above actions take place as part of their annual professional development criteria; much of this occurs through being a member of a trade association. In fact, in many fields the above list is the reason that professionals belong to a minimum of two associations annually.

    There are many non-supporters of coaching supervision in the United States, as well as some supporters. It seems, though, that more and more of the non-supporters are raising their hands against this concept, especially as the discussion becomes more vocal and heated.

    This is probably due to the fact that in United States we are kindly referred to as the as the non-confrontational giant, except when freedoms are threatened. Americans also are known for their ability to strike back, strike hard, and strike accurately when their freedom is questioned or jeopardized.

    This surely appears to be the case here, especially for veteran Executive Coaches, when the freedom of self-determining how they will maintain the quality of their professionalism is at risk.

    It is clear that if given a choice verses a fait accompli of requiring the incorporation of this new aspect of coaching requirements into their professional standing, coaches might experience it as less of an infringement on their freedom or sense of dignity.

    Having said all this, there may be a greater opportunity amongst us who actually do care about the quality of our work and the quality of  our profession. I present to you an option that lays within our ability to move out of the role of Executive Coach and  move into the space of Corporate Executive Coach; however, let’s not stop there. I also present to you the opportunity to move from Corporate Executive Coach to Enterprise Business Partner―which is not the same as a Business Coach or a Business Consultant.

    My personal thought is that now is the time to focus our attention on how to become a Enterprise Business Partner to our clients. If we agree that the Corporate Executive Coach is quite different than the Executive Coach in that the Corporate Executive Coach has to walk the fine line between coaching and consulting—which is something that’s not necessarily taught or embraced traditionally by those involved with Executive Coaching, then it gives us the opportunity to incorporate a paradigm shift by presenting ourselves as business partners.

    I imagine that I will receive a great deal of negative responses from those who are traditionalists. That is, before they really take a close look at why the likes of Marshall Goldsmith, Gary Ranker, John Maxwell, Mike Myatt and Johanna Rothman are successful— they are business partners to their clients.

    In truth there really is no need to object; what is being presented is simply a conceptual thought of a different color. It states, if we want to be respected at a different level than we are currently, for the tremendous work that we do, perhaps it’s time to elevate how we are perceived in the boardroom. If we want to move from simply being see as a remedial solution to performance behavior concerns then we need to present ourselves as an integral part of our client’s business.

    How many of us can identify the challenges that are currently in play for the CXO’s as related to human capital? Basically there are three areas, as we are now in the predicted era of  the war-on-talent. This is the result of retiring baby boomers, the recent recession, business growth in countries to which we have outsourced, and zero population growth. These three things are called RRI:

    1. Recruitment
    2. Retention
    3. Investment Dollars

    The critical question is, “How do we get to the boardroom to make a difference in these areas?” Once we figure out the answer, executive coaching will elevate itself from the arena of being depicted as the “Wild Wild West” by Harvard Business Review to the level of respect that we so much desire and deserve. The question of coaching supervision may well become a moot point.

    Is it possible that the focus on coaching supervision provides a golden opportunity to expand our vision to areas that will elevate us and where coaching supervision will become just a tool and not a raison d’être or discourse? …CB