Tag: corporate executive coach

  • On the Lighter side: Fantastic Job Titles for Your Business Card

    On the Lighter side: Fantastic Job Titles for Your Business Card

    Photo credit: getty images

    inc.com
    Please Steal One of These Fantastic Job Titles for Your Business Card. Your job title says a lot about you.

    Sadly, many of us use titles that sound like we’re boring or not that creative. HR manager? Really? There must be a better way. Here are a few creative options.

    1. Chief people officer

    What does this job entail? Who cares? It sounds awesome. It’s the name for the HR officer at Opportunity Network, a company that links CEOs to financial institutions.

    2. Culture operations manager

    Here’s another HR-related title, this one from When I Work. The scheduling app helps managers know when employees are at work.

    3. Chief robot whisperer

    This is a title from the startup Savioke, a company that provides robots to the service industry. It’s an apt description because it relays a sense of wonder and excitement.

    4. Director of bean-counting

    The creative agency Bidlack in Ann Arbor, Michigan, uses this title for the main accountant. It’s a nod to the fact that the role tends to be meticulous (in a good way).

    5. Software ninjaneer

    At a startup called TSheets, they don’t mess around with boring titles. This one nails it because, in many ways, software development is a mysterious and ancient art form.

    6. Director of first impressions

    At publishing house Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, the receptionist has this title. It’s perfect because it is exactly this person’s role at the company.

    7. Digital overlord

    If you have ever worked on a website, you know this term is fitting for the role. They use it at Composites Media, a company that works in the engineering field.

    8. Director of storytelling

    This role creates social media campaigns and strategies for companies. They use it at Eyespeak, a website development company.

    9. Money maestro

    At Delivering Happiness, this is the title for the accounting manager. It is definitely a role of orchestration, especially with pay scales, budgets, and expenses.

    10. Wizard of light bulb moments

    This title, popular on LinkedIn, describes the role of a marketing director. It works because, in a pure sense, marketing is the act of inspiring people to action.

  • MEECO™ (Measuring Excellence in the use of Corporate Executive Coaching in Organizations)

    MEECO™ (Measuring Excellence in the use of Corporate Executive Coaching in Organizations) is a designation that distinguishes organizations that have achieved excellence through weaving executive coaching into the fabric of their culture.

    Our goal is to recognize organizations that provide a benchmark and role model for other organizations that want to increase stockholder and stakeholder value, while experiencing overall success through utilizing mastery level executive coaches who understand how organizations work, and are determined to make a meaningful difference as “enterprise-wide business partners™”.

    www.meeco-institue.org

  • InGage Winter 2016 v1 issue1

    InGage Winter 2016 v1 issue1

    winter 2016 ingage cover

  • The End of Pay Secrecy?

    hreonline.com
    By Julie Cook Ramirez

    Employers are under pressure to divulge salary information. Could one of the last workplace taboos be going by the wayside?

    Thursday, February 4, 2016

    You are not to tell anyone how much you’re paid.

    It’s an unwritten rule at many companies, while other employers openly inform their employees they are not to share salary information with colleagues. A 2010 Institute for Women’s Policy Research/Rockefeller Survey of Economic Security found half of all workers were either “explicitly prohibited or strongly discouraged” from discussing pay with their coworkers.

    That may all be changing, as employees are increasingly seeking to discuss pay issues both inside and outside company walls. In large part, the trend is being driven by social media, coupled with the emergence of millennials in the workplace, according to Kevin Hallock, director of the Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., and author of Pay: Why People Earn What They Earn and What You Can Do Now to Make More. Younger employees, in particular, are comfortable sharing virtually every detail of their lives, he says, so divulging their salary doesn’t seem like a breach of privacy.

    It’s not just employees who are openly discussing compensation. A small but growing number of employers are making such information available, either internally to the workforce at large or externally, posting all workers’ salaries on their websites for the world to see. The most widely publicized example is Austin, Tex.-based Whole Foods Market, which allows employees to view information on pay and bonuses for everyone from the CEO down. The policy was introduced by then-co-CEO John Mackey in 1986, just six years after the natural-food retailer’s inception. The goal was to encourage competition by helping employees understand why some people are paid more than others. If workers understood what types of performance led to greater compensation, Mackey reasoned, they would be motivated to adopt similar workplace behaviors themselves.

    While Whole Foods is a notable exception, the trend toward pay transparency is almost exclusively limited to “small tech-y companies,” according to Ed Lawler, director of the Center for Effective Organizations at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business in Los Angeles. For the most part, large companies have shied away from the idea, instead adopting a “what you don’t know won’t hurt me” attitude, says Lawler. That’s unfortunate, he says, because they have much to gain from sharing pay information with the workforce.

    “They seem to be stuck in the mindset of ‘If I don’t have to defend it, life is better and people are happier,’” says Lawler. “If you have a reasonably administered pay system that meets a certain agenda, like pay for performance, and it’s defensible, you are better off from an organizational effectiveness point of view of making that clear and visible to people. It’s a big credibility builder.”

    While Hallock sees more employers “experimenting” with pay transparency than ever before, he agrees that “most organizations are very reluctant” to divulge salary information. Usually, that’s because they fear the “chaos that might come with it,” he says, as employees learn they are making less money than colleagues they consider their inferiors. That bedlam can be avoided by adopting an approach in which salary information is accompanied by the opportunity to ask questions, learn more about the connection between pay and performance, and map out a plan for increasing their own earning potential, according to Sarah Moore, a partner in the Cleveland office of Fisher & Phillips.

    “To the extent that you can have a conversation with the employees and provide each of them a context for where they are in the scheme of things, that’s always a preferred approach, rather than just putting it up on the bulletin board,” says Moore.

    That’s the approach taken by Whole Foods. Rather than posting such data on the company intranet for easy access, the retailer requires employees to make an appointment with an HR manager to see others’ salary information. That enables the retailer to achieve its goal of bolstering employee performance through pay transparency.

    Even if an employer chooses not to officially divulge compensation data, technology is enabling employees to disseminate such information themselves via anonymous interoffice messenger apps like “Get the Memo” or websites such as Glassdoor.com, where current and former employees review companies and their management. One enterprising Google employee simply created an Excel spreadsheet where employees could plug in their salary information.

    While conventional wisdom may frown on such activities — and some employers might seek to squelch them — they could have no choice but to accept pay transparency as a component of the 21st century workplace. Legally speaking, says Moore, employees have every right to tell anyone they choose how much they make. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act makes it legal for employees to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment with each other. That includes salary and benefits.

    The end of pay secrecy is inevitable, says Moore. She advises employers to get in front of the issue and begin laying the groundwork for a smooth transition into the world of pay transparency.

    “The first step is to make sure the most-valued employees are compensated in a manner that is reflective of objective fairness so that when that information is rolled out, they don’t have a situation where a lot of angry people feel burned and ready to walk out the door,” says Moore. “The key is to make sure it’s done in a measured way, keeping an eye on retention of the most valued employees and recognizing you are going to have some people who just aren’t happy regardless.”

    Send questions or comments about this story to hreletters@lrp.com.

  • Terminating an Employee on FMLA Leave

    hreonline.com

    By Keisha-Ann G. Gray

    Question: My organization would like to terminate an employee who is currently on FMLA leave, for reasons unrelated to the leave. Can we properly lay off this employee?

    Wednesday, June 3, 2015

    Answer: Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), which applies to employers with 50 or more employees within 75 miles, covered employees who are on qualified leave have a right to be restored to the same, or an equivalent, position upon their return. 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(1) (1993). Further, employers cannot use the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions such as hiring, firing and promotions. See Wage and Hour Division, FMLA Fact Sheet, United States Department of Labor. However, this does not mean that an employee on FMLA leave is immune from termination. To the contrary, “an employee has no greater right to reinstatement or to other benefits and conditions of employment than if the employee had been continuously employed during the FMLA leave period.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.216.

    Prior to terminating an employee on FMLA leave, an employer should consider carefully whether it would make the same termination decision even if the employee did not take leave. Indeed, if the termination is challenged, the burden will be on the employer to prove the leave was not a factor in the decision. Accordingly, it is critical to keep sufficient documentation that supports the business decisions behind the termination. Below we describe some of the applicable case law that provides employers with examples of situations that may provide legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for terminating an employee on FMLA leave and underscores the importance of maintaining relevant documents.

    First, a corporate re-organization may qualify as a legitimate reason for terminating an employee on FMLA leave, provided that the re-organization is not merely a reaction to the employee taking the leave. See Yashenko v. Harrah’s NC Casino Co., LLC, 446 F.3d 541, 551 (4th Cir. 2006). Nonetheless, an employer still must be sure to document the specific business decisions and determinations behind a corporate re-organization in order to avoid potential FMLA violations if an employee on leave is terminated. For instance, in Brenlla v. LaSorsa Buick Pontiac Chevrolet, Inc., No. 00 CIV. 5207 (JCF), 2002 WL 1059117, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2002), an employer decided to consolidate two job functions, thus eliminating the position of an employee on qualified FMLA leave, three days after the employee formally requested to return to full-time work. The employer argued that the “re-organization” was motivated by legitimate business concerns. Id. at *5. However, the jury found, and the court upheld, there was no documentation or evidence showing any financial benefits from the consolidation or indicating how the employer chose which employee was best suited for the new consolidated position. Id. Instead, the temporal proximity to the employee’s request to be reinstated and the employer’s decision to consolidate the positions supported the conclusion that the restructuring would not have taken place had the employee not taken FMLA leave.

    Second, courts have held that an employee’s poor performance may qualify as a legitimate reason for terminating an employee on FMLA leave. See Mercer v. Arc of Prince Georges Cnty., Inc., 532 F. App’x 392 (4th Cir. 2013) (upholding employer’s decision to terminate an at-will employee for poor performance, despite the employee being on FMLA leave). Again, documentation, such as performance evaluations, likely will be instrumental to ensure that the termination is not viewed as retaliation for taking FMLA leave. See Richmond v. Oneok, Inc., 120 F.3d 205, 209 (10th Cir. 1997) (ruling that the employee was not terminated for taking FMLA leave, but instead was properly terminated based on 15 documented incidents of poor performance). A prudent employer should make sure that it has documentation indicating not only the reason for the termination, but also why the termination decision was not made prior to the employee’s request for (or taking of) FMLA leave. Even with sufficient documentation, some employers choose to wait until the employee returns to work before taking an adverse employment action to avoid the inference of retaliation. Simply waiting until an employee returns from work, however, will not insulate an employer from a retaliation claim. Even if performance issues are well-documented, an employer should evaluate the timing of a discharge of an employee who recently took FMLA leave to avoid even the appearance of a retaliatory motive. Of course, an employer might not become aware of performance issues or policy violations until the employee goes out on FMLA leave. In that situation, the employer likely will be within its right to terminate the employee immediately, even if the employer discovered the misconduct from the employee’s leave replacement. See Cracco v. Vitran Exp., Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 636 (7th Cir. 2009).

    Furthermore, a reduction in force is likely to be considered a legitimate reason for terminating an employee on FMLA leave. If a reduction in force results in the termination of an entire department or division, depending on the size of those groups, it will usually be sufficient to show that there was no discriminatory animus to eliminate an employee on FMLA leave. However, if a reduction in force is employee-based, instead of group-based, the employer will want to produce significant documentation indicating how and why each laid off employee was chosen. See Roll v. Bowling Green Metalforming, LLC, 457 F. App’x 458, 460 (6th Cir. 2012) (upholding the termination of an employee on FMLA leave because the employer produced significant documentation that the employee’s selection for inclusion in the reduction in force was based on objective criteria including skills, performance and work history).

    Overall, the main takeaway from the case law for employers is that it is not only important to have legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons for terminating an employee on FMLA leave, but employers should also make certain they have adequate documentation supporting the business decisions behind the termination.

    Patrick Lamparello is a senior counsel in Proskauer’s labor and employment department in New York. Proskauer Associate Ian Plummer assisted with this article.

     

  • A Great Opportunity for Corporate Executive Coaches to be seen as “Enterprise Wide Business Partners™.”

    A Great Opportunity for Corporate Executive Coaches to be seen as “Enterprise Wide Business Partners™.”

    This presents a great opportunity for Corporate Executive Coaches to be seen as “enterprise wide business partners™.” By identifying and presenting solutions to your client early on creates an image of being proactive and solutions focused:

    Are Retirements About to Hit Your Organization Hard?

    Valued older workers are thinking seriously about retirement again. Here’s why—and what your organization can do about it.
    By William C. Byham, Ph.D.

    Are Retirements About to Hit Your Organization Hard?
    Late in the last decade, many valued older workers were getting ready to head for the doors and into the golden years of retirement. Most organizations weren’t prepared—they didn’t have qualified people ready to step into soon-to-be-vacated critical roles, and they had no viable retirement management strategy. What happened next—a deep recession, declining stock portfolio values, soaring health care costs—reset the retirement clock for many, allowing organizations to delay facing a potentially major talent crisis. But now, retirement is again poised to become a serious problem for many organizations in the U.S.

    As economic conditions have improved to the point where a greater number of older workers are again finding retirement both appealing and viable, the question to consider is whether or not your organization has “ready-now” replacements. If your organization is like most, the answer is no.

    There are steps you can take, however, to manage the loss of valued people to retirement and buy more time to find or develop replacements for key positions.

    What’s changed?

    Consider the plight of those who were at or near retirement age during the recession: They watched helplessly as the value of their stock portfolios dropped 30 percent or more in a matter of weeks. They did the math and quickly determined their lifestyle in retirement wasn’t going to be what they’d hoped.

    Rising health care costs also gave them pause. Workers who didn’t have a company-paid health care plan that would carry over into retirement were scared of what might happen if they got sick. They knew personally, or had heard of, people with illnesses whose medical bills were financially crippling, and how even the best health care plans didn’t cover all of the costs.

    For many, though, especially those in good health, the decision to postpone retirement wasn’t just an economic one. Many liked their work and their colleagues, so they decided to continue working.

    Now, however, there are five factors that stand to create dramatic increases in the number of retirements:

    The stock market has rebounded. The Dow Jones Industrial Average hit record highs in 2014, finally reclaiming the valuation that was lost during the recession. Other markets, including the NASDAQ, also have bounced back. As many investment portfolios are healthy again, many older workers feel that they can be financially secure in retirement.

    Inflation remains low. At the end of 2014, the U.S. inflation rate was below 1.5 percent. It has hovered at about two percent or lower since 2012. This adds further to older workers’ confidence that they will have a sufficient retirement nest egg.

    The new health care regulations. The Affordable Care Act, which provides for coverage in case of catastrophic health events and ensures the availability of insurance for people of any age, regardless of pre-existing illnesses, is giving older workers peace of mind that health care won’t be a financial drain on them in retirement.

    Those who delayed retirement are older now. People who were age 65 when the recession hit are now in their early 70s and may see retirement as a more attractive option than they did before.
    Part-time employment options are plentiful. The unemployment rate is at its lowest level since the recession, and there seems to be a multitude of available jobs for highly trained, highly skilled people who may want to continue working—but not full-time. There also are options for older workers wishing to work full-time but to do something different from the job they currently hold.
    The risk for employers

    When valued workers retire, a great deal of talent, knowledge, and experience walks out the door. But organizations don’t have to just stand by and watch it happen. What’s needed is a sound, systematic approach—a retirement management system—that anticipates retirements, prepares people to step into key roles, and, where needed, makes accommodations to keep specific people in the fold (e.g., in part-time or modified roles) until replacements can be developed.

    Retirements aren’t bad for an organization, of course. When workers retire, more opportunities are created within the organization for younger employees to step up and grow. It also provides the chance to bring in fresh thinking. Retirements are only bad when organizations are unprepared and must fill critical roles with people who either aren’t ready or aren’t a good fit.

    Get ready to manage retirement!

    “Retirements are only bad when organizations are unprepared.”

    A retirement management system is the best approach to guard against the huge potential consequences of losing valued workers with unique skills, knowledge, or connections that are important to the organization—and not having appropriate replacements. Many organizations try their hand at retirement management at the very top levels, but few organizations have a systematic retirement management program targeting those few people at all levels whose retirements will cause the greatest disruption.

    Such a system covers the following steps:

    • Identifying the jobs where there’s the greatest risk. While the departure of senior managers or executives may have the most visible impact, the retirement of valued lower-level workers is also a concern. These valued workers may have scientific, technical, or specialized skillsets that make them difficult to quickly replace. You need to identify these people, assess the risk and time associated with replacing them, and then be willing to work with them to buy more time for replacements to be hired or developed. This typically won’t be a large number of people; just the few whose departures would create the greatest headaches for the organization.
    • Find ways to postpone or redefine retirement for key workers. Once you have identified the workers you want to keep, you need to open a line of communication with them about their future. These conversations are critical because not everyone will have the same plans or needs. While some may be determined to retire and stop working, others may prefer to be part-time. Still others may wish to keep working full-time for a while longer, but have their jobs change to incorporate new tasks or responsibilities.

    It’s the individuals who want to continue working that you will want to engage to see if you can make a deal that is mutually beneficial to them and to the organization. As you are striving to buy more time for the organization to identify or prepare replacements, you might need to get creative in what you are offering these older workers.

    Some ideas might include:

    • Offering additional vacation time.
    • Allowing them to work remotely.
    • Creating a new role in a different part of the company where they can apply their experience and skills to new challenges and with new clients.
    • Paying for them to attend professional conferences or other work-related events that would provide travel opportunities.
    • Establishing a formal mentoring relationship, where the workers take an active role in training their replacements.
    • Special accommodations such as these may run up against existing HR policies, as they would only be offered to a select few individuals. But these are special people whose potential loss poses a significant risk to the organization. And while discretion is warranted in making these arrangements, the fact that a few individuals would be singled out for special treatment shouldn’t be a reason not to consider creative options.

    Review and revisit regularly. Special arrangements you make with retirement-age workers should be short-term deals—no more than two to three years—as you are applying a temporary “patch” rather than fixing the problem permanently. You’ll want to review these arrangements regularly to make sure the organization is holding up its end of the bargain and also to confirm the older workers are performing as expected (these workers should continue to be covered by your performance management process).

    Despite the logic of identifying and finding creative ways to keep valued older workers, too few organizations in the U.S. have an effective retirement management system. There are a few that are seeing the problems and possibilities of a surge of retirements and are being proactive, but these organizations are few and far between. For everyone else, the time to get serious about retirement management—to know the extent of the risk and to take action—is right now. The clock is ticking!

    William C. Byham, Ph.D., is DDI’s chairman and the author of 23 books, including 70: The New 50: Retirement Management: Retaining the Energy and Expertise of Experienced Employees.

    http://www.ddiworld.com/go/archive/go-magazine-2015-issue-1/are-retirements-about-to-hit-your-organization

  • Association of Corporate Executive Coaches (ACEC): Position Regarding Coaching Supervision

    Association of Corporate Executive Coaches (ACEC): Position Regarding Coaching Supervision

    Coaching Supervision

    Corporate Executive Coaches and Executive Coaches who join ACEC are at the mastery level in their career and are therefore well qualified to select the correct tools to use with their clients. They are supporters of life-long professional learning, have agreed to abide by ACEC’S code of ethics and ACEC’S high moral standing requirements.

    ACEC does not take the position of knowing what is the best tool or that there is only one way for our members to support their client’s needs/goals as we are not intimately part of the client/coach relationship. ACEC’s focus is on the growth and/or the sustainability of our member’s practice and supporting our coaches in reaching the level of “enterprise-wide business partners©”

    ACEC prescribes to “humility” and “sharing” to foster this tenet of membership—supporting each other. We strongly encourage each member to reach out to other members. Each member has their specialities listed on their web page (see http://acec-association.org/directory/)as well as their contact information we encourage you to reach out to each other in areas where brainstorming is wanted/needed. We also encourage members to take advantage of our “Rapid Cycle Peer-to-Peer Coaching” program (contact Eileen Broer ebroer@humandimension.org) where real-time case studies are presented and discussed.

    Because our membership model respects all methodologies that are heathy for the coach and the client (including “coach consulting”) we feel that there is no need for ACEC to make coaching supervision a mandate for meeting our ethical requirements, qualifications for practice, requirements for certification, requirements for recertification and/or membership. Instead we will let each member make this a personal decision based on their professional goals/portfolio.

    CB Bowman, CEO
    MBA, CMC, BCC, MCEC
    Association of CorporateExecutive Coaches

     

    HERE IS THE LINK TO ICF’s POSITION:
    https://coachfederation.org/the-case-for-coaching-supervision

     

  • 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