Tag: corporate executive coach

  • 19 Traits of Bad Bosses

     

  • How an Executive Coach became a Trusted Leadership Advisor from the perspective of both the Coach and the Executive

    Karol M. Wasylyshyn

    Leadership Development Forum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    An in-depth case study is used to illustrate the transition senior consultants can make from the role of executive coach to a role conceptualized by the author as trusted leadership advisor (TLA) in long-term engagements with senior business executives. In this engage- ment, spanning several years, the client ultimately became CEO of a global entity. Factors addressed in the case include the client’s development issues, his progress, and the challenge of his simultaneously making developmental progress while managing a difficult boss and understanding how the company culture in some ways exacerbated his leadership issues. A number of key practice factors are specified as potential guidance for practitioners already working or aspiring to work with CEOs and other senior business leaders. These factors, embedded in the application of an integrated practice model, include how the TLA guided and conceptualized the engagement, useful tools including written summaries and construc- tive triangulation, and the management of multiple roles.

    Read more…

  • Coaching the Uncoachable Executive

    How do you help leaders who don’t want help?

    by Steve Albrecht

    View original publication on Psychology Today

    If we take the idea that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink to the business arena, how do companies help their leaders improve their performance or behavior, through coaching, when they don’t think they need it?

    I work with two types of employees when it comes to coaching; pick the one you’d rather be in the room with. One says, “I’m so glad you’re here! I know I’ve got some rough edges, some blind spots, and I need to improve the way I communicate with my staff and my boss. We have a lot to talk about and I want to get right to work.” Chance of success: high.

    The other type says, “I don’t know why you’re here or I’m here. It’s probably because one of my team got hurt feelings and complained. Maybe my style is a bit rough, but I get things done. Besides, the clients love me and I make this place a lot of money. Can we get on with whatever this is? I have a lot of work to do.” Chance of success: poor to middling.

    For help with this thorny issue, I spoke with Jordan Goldrich, COO of the San Diego-based executive coaching firm, CUSTOMatrix. He holds an LCSW license and the Master Certified Executive Coach (MCEC) designation, from the Association of Corporate Executive Coaches. Jordan is also a Talent Management Executive with Executive Core, an international Executive Coaching firm.

    When it comes to coaching the executive who doesn’t want to participate in the process, Jordan says, “Most executives who don’t want to be coached are referred by their managers for coaching for several reasons. They’re very valuable because of their technical knowledge or business expertise, but their interpersonal style creates a negative impact on their key stakeholders, direct reports, and superiors. Or, they are part of a leadership development program, where everyone must have coaching, and they don’t want it because they are legitimately too busy, don’t trust or respect the coach, or don’t believe it will be valuable for them.”

    He also sees them having either a lack of insight or a skewed view of their impact on their firm and the people in it. “They’re genuinely not aware of the impact they’re having on others,” he suggests. “Or they recognize they’re having a negative impact but can’t believe their impatience, frustration, anger, and even sarcasm with others is more of a problem than the lack of production, late deadlines, fuzzy thinking, and lack of accountability of the people who are complaining. In addition, many don’t believe they can control their behavior.”

    It’s interesting to note the mindset that Jordan Goldrich sees in these executives and senior leaders who are seen as abrasive. They believe they are like warriors, achieving a level of success in overwhelmingly complex strategic roles.  He says, “They believe they are not being recognized for their contribution. They may even feel they are being disrespected.”

    These internal challenges can manifest in significant hurdles for Jordan as a coach. He says of the abrasive leader as a coachee, “They believe that the request to change is part of a politically-correct culture where, as one executive said to me, ‘Kids are not allowed to play tag because being it will harm their self-esteem.’”

    Their coach must help them uncover their own intrinsic motivation to change. In other words, find a reason they would change this behavior even if they were not getting pressured to change. If the coaching is successful, they conclude that they should change because they want to be more consistent with their own core beliefs and values. He says, “Many I have met are sincerely religious people. Or, they may change because they recognize they want to win or achieve even greater things than they already have.”

    In many situations, Jordan finds self-assessment instruments can help coachees with their insight. He says, “Assessment instruments provide a wealth of information to coachees in an economical way. Their self-ratings on specific items deepen their understanding of their own motivations, personality style, communication style, decision style, and influence style. The assessment reports and our debriefs can combine to create new options for behavior changes. I typically use two self-assessments, plus a 360 evaluation, which may include my interviews with key stakeholders. Since I’m certified in these assessments – Myers-Briggs, FIRO-B, California Personality Inventory, Workplace Big 5, Conflict Dynamics Profile, DISC, and the Hogan Personality Inventory – they are part of my coaching tool kit as well.”

    So, with serious internal and external obstacles in the coachee’s path, how does he prove success? Coaching, like other soft-skills improvements, may not have an obvious immediate benefit, but more of a behavioral and performance shift, which could appear over a span of weeks or months. Obviously, business owners and C-level executives don’t always have a lot of patience for the slow-and-steady route to the improvement approach. Jordan uses subjective evaluations, like feedback from internal customers, peers, superiors and other stakeholders; if the coachee is achieving goals and meeting deadlines; and even employee turnover is a measure.

    Poorly-performing employees sometimes leave under the coachee’s “new and improved” leadership approach because they can no longer hide behind the formerly abrasive behavior of their manager.

    The coaching process is going to benefit those who participate fully. The challenge in all behavior and performance change is getting coachees to leverage their own intrinsic motivations to change. Then they are able to see the wisdom of good ideas, positive suggestions, and the need to embrace them, whether they initially like the coaching intervention or not.

    Dr. Steve Albrecht is a keynote speaker, author, podcaster, and trainer. He focuses on high-risk employee issues, threat assessments, and school and workplace violence prevention. In 1994, he co-wrote Ticking Bombs, one of the first business books on workplace violence. He holds a doctorate in Business Administration (DBA); an M.A. in Security Management; a B.S. in Psychology; and a B.A. in English. He is board certified in HR, security, coaching, and threat management. He worked for the San Diego Police Department for 15 years and has written 17 books on business, HR, and criminal justice subjects.

  • How new CEOs can boost their odds of success

    By Michael Birshan, Thomas Meakin, and Kurt Strovink

    View original publication on Mckinsey

    A data-driven look at the link between the strategic moves of new CEOs and the performance of their companies highlights the importance of quick action and of adopting an outsider’s perspective.

    The success of CEOs is deeply linked to the success of the companies they lead, but the vast body of popular literature on the topic explores this relationship largely in qualitative terms. The dangers of these approaches are well known: it’s easy to be misled by outliers or to conclude, mistakenly, that prominent actions which seem correlated with success were responsible for it.

    We tried to sidestep some of these difficulties by systematically reviewing the major strategic moves (from management reshuffles to cost-reduction efforts to new-business launches to geographic expansion) that nearly 600 CEOs made during their first two years in office. Using annualized total returns to shareholders (TRS), we assessed their companies’ performance over the CEOs’ tenure in office. Finally, we analyzed how the moves they made—at least those visible to external observers1 —and the health of their companies when they joined them influenced the performance of those companies.2

    The results of this analysis, bolstered by nearly 250 case studies, show that the number and nature of the strategic moves made by CEOs who join well- and poorly performing companies are surprisingly similar. The efficacy of certain moves appears to vary significantly across different groups of companies, however. What’s more, the sheer number of moves seems to make a difference, at least for CEOs who join poorly performing companies. Also, external hires appear to have a greater propensity to act.

    These findings have important practical implications for new CEOs and the boards that hire them: focus early on a few bold moves well suited to the context of your company, and recognize the value of the outsider’s perspective—whether or not you are one.

     

    Surprising similarities

    The starting point for analysis was a group of nearly 600 CEOs who left S&P 500 companies from 2004 to 2014 (identified in the annual CEO Transitions report produced by Spencer Stuart, the global executive-search and leadership-consulting firm).3 For each CEO’s first two years, we gathered information—from a range of sources, including company reports, investor presentations, press searches, and McKinsey knowledge assets—on nine strategic moves that chief executives commonly make.

    We expected that CEOs taking the helm at poorly performing companies, feeling compelled to do something to improve results, would have a greater propensity to make strategic moves than those who joined well-performing organizations. To learn whether this idea was true, we looked at how each company had been performing relative to its industry counterparts prior to the new CEO’s arrival and then subdivided the results into three categories: well-performing, poorly performing, and stable companies.4 When we reviewed the moves by companies in each of these categories, we found that new CEOs act in similar ways, with a similar frequency, whether they had joined well- or poorly performing organizations. CEOs in different contexts made bold moves—such as M&A, changing the management team, and launching new businesses and products—at roughly the same rate.

    Contextual contrasts

    Although new CEOs transitioning into companies that have been performing well and CEOs transitioning into companies that have been performing poorly make similar moves with a similar frequency, that doesn’t mean those moves are equally effective. We measured the performance of companies by excess TRS over a CEO’s tenure. At companies where chief executives made strategic moves early on, we found striking contrasts between organizations that had been performing well when the new CEO took charge and those that had been performing poorly:

    • Organizational redesign was correlated with significant excess TRS (+1.9 percent) for well-performing companies, but not for low performers.
    • Strategic reviews were correlated with significant excess TRS (+4.3 percent) for poorly performing companies but were less helpful for companies that had been performing well.
    • Poorly performing companies enjoyed +0.8 percent TRS when they reshuffled their management teams. But when well-performing companies did so, they destroyed value.5

    We recognize that excess TRS CAGR does not prove a causal link; too many other variables, some beyond a CEO’s control, have an influence. But we do find the differences that emerged quite plausible. It stands to reason that troubled companies would enjoy special benefits from major overhauls of management or strategy. Organizational redesigns are challenging for all companies and may, in some cases, be premature for organizations in significant flux.6 Also plausible was the finding that cost-reduction programs appear to improve a company’s TRS relative to those of its counterparts for both well- and poorly performing organizations, though the effect is strongest for weak ones.

    A final point on context is that the bar for top performance varies significantly by sector. In some, such as investment services and automotive, the TRS CAGRs of top-performing organizations with new CEOs are more than 16 percent above those of their industry counterparts. In other sectors, such as media and telecommunications, a CEO’s company must outperform the market by only a few percentage points to be classed in the top quintile. The implication is that new CEOs seeking to calibrate their starting points and to prioritize strategic moves should look beyond top-level performance metrics to understand what it will really take to beat the market.

    Bold bouncebacks

    We also sought to compare the number of major moves that new CEOs made in parallel at well- and poorly performing companies. Well-performing companies had no discernible pattern. But in poorly performing ones, CEOs who made four or more strategic moves at the same time during their first two years achieved an average of 3.6 percent excess annual TRS growth over their tenures. Their less bold counterparts in similarly bad situations could claim just 0.4 percent excess annual TRS growth.

    These findings are in line with earlier McKinsey research7 showing how difficult it is to reach higher levels of economic profit without making substantial strategic or operational shifts. That has also been our own experience working with new CEOs on turnarounds.

    Outside views

    When the time comes to appoint a new CEO, corporate boards face a difficult question: promote an executive from within or choose an outsider? We turned our own lens to this issue and found that the performance of outsiders and insiders differed significantly. Externally appointed CEOs have a greater propensity to act: they were more likely to make six out of the nine strategic moves we examined. The size of the gap in frequency—in other words, the chance an external CEO would make a particular move minus the chance an internal CEO would do the same thing—was much greater for the moves external CEOs opted to make.

    External CEOs almost certainly have a leg up when it comes to bold action. They are generally less encumbered by organizational politics or inertia than their internal counterparts. They may also be more likely to take an outside view of their companies. It’s no coincidence, in our view, that the strategic moves that have the largest gaps in the propensity to act include some of the most far-reaching ones: organizational redesign, for example, or geographic contraction.

    Poorly performing companies are more likely to appoint external CEOs, and corporate performance tends to revert to the mean. But the TRS edge of outside hires was substantial: over their tenure, they outperformed their internally promoted counterparts by a margin of more than five to one—on average, a 2.2 percent excess TRS CAGR, compared with 0.4 percent.

    Clearly, this performance differential is the result of multiple factors, and it’s important to note that new CEOs need not come from outside companies to cultivate an outsider’s mind-set—or to be successful in their role.8

    While our results are averages across multiple organizations and industries, they do suggest a few principles for new CEOs:

    • Adopt an outsider’s mind-set. On average, external hires appear to make more moves during their early years. This doesn’t mean that insiders are the wrong choice for boards. But it does suggest that it’s critical for insiders to resist legacies or relationships which might slow them down and that approaches which help insiders adopt an outsider’s mind-set have great potential. Equally, there is value in having outsiders who can lean into the boldness that their status naturally encourages. Some executives have done so by creating new ways to assess a company’s performance objectively—for example, by taking the view of a potential acquirer or activist investor9 looking for weak spots that require immediate attention. Others have reset expectations for the annual allocation of resources, changed the leadership model and executive compensation, established an innovation bank, and looked for additional ways to bring an external perspective to the heart of the leadership approach.
    • Don’t follow the herd. On average, new CEOs make many of the same moves, regardless of starting point. They will do better, however, by carefully considering the context of their companies and leveraging more scientific ways to assess their starting points. For instance, some new CEOs take stock of the economic-profit performance of companies relative to that of their peers and, in light of the starting position, assess the odds that potential moves will pay off.10
    • When you’re behind, look at the whole playbook. On average, CEOs taking the helm at underperforming companies do better when they make more major strategic moves, not fewer. That doesn’t mean they should try to do everything at once, but it does suggest a bias toward boldness and action. Plan a comprehensive set of moves that will significantly improve your company’s performance, and make sure that you aim high enough.11

    New CEOs take the helm with a singular opportunity to shape the companies they lead. The best ones artfully use their own transition into the CEO role to transform their companies. But this window of opportunity doesn’t last long. On average, an inflection point arrives during year three of a CEO’s tenure. At that point, a CEO whose company is underperforming is roughly twice as likely to depart as the CEO of an outperforming one—by far the highest level at any time in a chief executive’s tenure. During this relatively short window, fortune favors the bold.

     

  • 5 Habits Of Effective Introverted Leaders

    5 Habits Of Effective Introverted Leaders

    [Photo: Flickr user John Alexis Guerra Gómez]

    View publication at Fast Company

    Introverts can be quiet changemakers. Here’s how they can adopt their leadership style in a world that won’t shut up.
    By Trina Isakson 4 minute Read

    Leadership is often associated with words like “charisma,” “power,” “outgoing,” and “confident.” As a result, introverted and quiet changemakers may have difficulties envisioning what their leadership looks like.

    But core aspects of leadership, such as those described by transformational leadership researchers James MacGregor Burns, Bernard M. Bass, James Kouzes, and Barry Posner, and by Good to Great author Jim Collins, reflect ideas that are in total alignment with quiet changemakers, and you don’t need to be in a position of authority or have a formal leadership role to practice these leadership characteristics.

    Here are a few practices that introverts–whom I refer to as “quiet changemakers”–can adopt to strengthen their leadership:

    1. Good leaders treat those around them as individuals.

    They learn the interests and preferences of their colleagues. They engage in two-way communication. Quiet changemakers can excel through our preference for one-on-one or small-group communication. Through these individual interactions, we learn about our colleagues more deeply in a way that positively impacts our relationships.

    Questions that lead to better leadership practice:

    • Do I know much about my colleagues outside of work?
    • What do my colleagues and I have in common? Difference?
    • Which parts of their jobs do my colleagues love/hate?
    • What skills do my colleagues have that they don’t have a chance to share in their jobs?
    • How do my colleagues work best?

    2. Good leaders provide opportunities for others to demonstrate their thinking and knowledge.

    They provide space for intellectual discussion. They ask others to provide advice. They provide opportunities for people to show off their knowledge. Quiet changemakers can do well because of their enjoyment of conversation with just a few people on topics of shared interest. They can be good listeners and allow other people to spend more time talking. They can share work or ask for advice in ways that allow other people to shine in their areas of expertise.

    Questions that lead to better leadership practice:

    • Who knows more than me in an area I’d like to improve in? What advice can I ask of them?
    • What projects am I working on that others may be interested in getting involved with?
    • Who would be interested in joining me about a discussion on ________?
    • Are there opportunities for my colleagues to lead mini-professional development lunches so that we can learn from each other?

    3. Good leaders are good role models.

    They follow through on commitments. They have strong characters and are consistent in their beliefs. They offer to help for the good of the team. Quiet changemakers can practice this aspect of leadership by knowing their values and contributing to a positive overall environment.

    Questions that lead to better leadership practice:

    • Does my current workload allow me to follow through on all commitments?
    • Do my values align with those of the organization?
    • Are my interactions with others generally positive, or do I focus on the negative or gossip too much?
    • Do I help others and provide others the opportunity to help me when times are tough?

    4. Good leaders focus their energy on the big picture.

    They ensure that work aligns with the mission and values of the team. They help keep people focused on the end goal. Quiet changemakers naturally take time to reflect on their purpose and that of the organization.

    Questions that lead to better leadership practice:

    • Do I understand how my work and that of my colleagues connects the purpose of the organization and can I communicate that to others?
    • Am I able to communicate how our work positively impacts society?
    • What aspect of my organization’s work really invigorates me?
    • Who in my network would also enjoy talking about the bigger picture of our organization’s work and/or the type of work I contribute to the movement?

    5. Good leaders are both strong-willed and humble.

    They are driven to achieve a purpose, but aren’t interested in taking all the credit or blaming others for failure. They are strong yet reflective. Quiet changemakers are naturally interested in reflection, enjoying time alone thinking. And as introverts often overthink past interactions, we may be at risk for overly blaming ourselves when things don’t work out, so we also need to give ourselves a break once in a while.

    Questions that lead to better leadership practice:

    • Do I know what I want to achieve in my role?
    • Who else can I credit for my successes?
    • What have I learned from past failures and missteps, and how can I share that learning with others?
    • Am I spending time on my purpose? Or are my personal issues getting in the way of success?

    Leadership as a concept or something to aspire to can be alienating to many. If you don’t have a job that involves supervising others or have natural skill as a charismatic public speaker, it can be hard to see yourself as a leader. But by practicing many of the qualities of leadership that align with being a quiet changemaker, leadership is accessible for the introverts among our movements, too.

  • 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 Surprising Value of Being Unattached

    The Surprising Value of Being Unattached

    Some people are naturally blessed with the powers of persuasion. Maybe you’ve seen them in action. They ask and they receive, and they make it look effortless, painless—even fun. For the rest of us, trying to persuade someone can be a maddening experience, and one that is definitely not fun. Maybe we’re trying to make a sale, recruit a partner or get the support we need to pursue a new idea—whatever our goal, and no matter our tactics, the other person stays resolute in “no.” We can push, beg and even manipulate, but he won’t budge. It soon becomes clear that if we keep pushing we might make things worse.

    In those moments, if we can step back and stop pushing, the situation is more likely to work out in our favor—perhaps with a result perhaps better than the one we sought. It seems counterintuitive, but something happens when we stop trying to force an outcome. And if we understand why this happens, we can use it to get the results we want.

    This is not a new idea. In the 14th century Japan it was shibui, while in 16th century Italy, it was called sprezzatura. Chinese Daoists call it wu-wei, and Hindu philosophers know it as ahamkara.

    In the North America, we think of it simply as cool. And if we remember anything we learned in junior high, it was that life was infinitely better for the people who were cool.

    It’s All About Attachment

    In New Age circles, people sometimes speak of a concept called attachment—which means when we’re caught up in something, we get attached to it. That’s when we lose sight of the big picture. We get tunnel vision on the outcome we want, so we don’t notice all that’s happening
    around us. We are blind to what’s really going on, and we are equally incapable of seeing the situation from another person’s perspective.

    This is when the Law of Attraction kicks in, according to New Age Thought. When we’re attached to the outcome, we’re afraid that the thing we want won’t happen. We become attached to that negative thought pattern and then, under the Law of Attraction, we begin attracting more of that negativity. In other words, we begin to imagine the person saying no to us, and eventually he really does say “no.”

    In the Western paradigm—inherited from the thinking of Dr. Sigmund Freud—we end up clinging to our egos. This ego-centered way of related to the world (and to ourselves) traps us in behaviour patterns that don’t meet our needs but which, maddeningly, are hard to see in the moment.

    Effortlessness + Effectiveness = Success

    All of this happens because we’re merely repeating old patterns. We’re like a car that’s stuck in the mud. The harder we try, the more we spin our wheels and make our situation worse.

    Over years of repetition, we have unintentionally trained ourselves to react this way. Just like an athlete who uses repetition to instill muscle memory, we’ve trained our mind to immediately apply that approach. When we become frustrated or desperate, we instinctively revert to these ways. It’s an unconscious, knee-jerk response. If we want to avoid it, we have to consciously change how we react.

    Early Chinese philosophers believed the ideal state of being was when a person was not actively thinking and was not exerting effort. They believed that this is the state in which the person is most able to achieve his goals.

    But retraining yourself so that you can get to that state most definitely requires conscious effort.

    The first step is simply to be aware of your patterns. Catch yourself in that moment; try to talk yourself out of pushing harder. And it’s a paradox, but trying too hard to stop trying too hard is not going to help you break the habit. Mencius, a Chinese philosopher in the fourth century B.C., advocated an approach similar to gardening: Do the planting and monitor the progress, but mostly just sit back and let the plants grow.

    Mencius’ approach isn’t much different from what New Age thought leaders call “the mindset of the witness.” They argue that, when we find ourselves caught up in these frustrating ineffective patterns, we should try to think like a witness. Because a witness is watching the event, not participating and not invested in the outcome.

    Consider the detective shows you’ve watched on TV: A witness comes in and impassively tells the detective what she saw. She wasn’t harmed by the crime and wasn’t involved in the action. She simply watched it all go down. Taking on the mindset of the witness means not getting emotionally engaged in what is taking place.

    As the witness, we notice what is happening but have no expectations about what will happen. We may intend a certain result, but we are not attached to it.

    Still not convinced? Think about insomnia. The harder you try to fall asleep, the less likely it is to happen. Stop trying and…zzz.

    Non-attachment feels unnatural to us in the West. It’s a hard practice to follow. From birth, we’re trained to desire, act and expect positive results, and we’re taught that the harder we work, the greater our reward. It feels strange to let go of an outcome in order to succeed. It’s especially difficult to practice in the moment, when we are trying to persuade someone and our stress levels begin to rise.

    But, by consciously practicing a more passive approach, we can establish new patterns and get our cars unstuck from the mud. We can train ourselves to let go. Whether we call it sprezzatura, shibui, wu-wei, ahamkara or just cool, we’ll be able to remove the tension from the interaction, tension that is keeping the other person from saying “yes.” With that tension gone, we may find ourselves getting a bigger “yes” than the one we imagined.

    AUTHOR: Beverly Benwick

    ABOUT BEVERLY: https://acec.mgmcsolutions.com/directory/bev-benwick-mal-pcc-cpcc/

    CONTACT INFORMATION:
    Ste. 30, 6488 – 168th Street
    Surrey, BC  V3S 8Z1 Canada

    TEL:  604.576.4970
    TOLL FREE: 1.866.95COACH or 1.866.952.6224
    E-MAIL: bev@advanceyourleadership.com
    WEBSITE: http://advanceyourleadership.com/
    LINKEDIN: www.linkedin.com/in/bevbenwick
    FACEBOOK: www.facebook.com/advanceyourleadership

     

  • 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