Tag: Executive Development

  • How To Use 360-Degree Feedback For Executive Coaching

    Executive coaching has been on the rise for decades as a strategic investment in human capital. When well-designed and delivered, coaching has been found to be one of the most effective approaches for developing senior leaders and enhancing the performance of their teams and organizations.

    One of the most important components of executive coaching is the 360-degree feedback that the coach gathers for coaching participants about their strengths and development needs, how they are perceived, and what they need to do in order to achieve a higher level of performance and positive impact. Feedback can be gathered via automated online surveys or one-on-one interviews.

    The first decision for coaching participants, their managers, and the coach is whether to collect data online or through in-person, video conference, or telephone interviews, or some combination thereof. Online 360s are more convenient and less costly, but, if correctly formulated and well-structured, interviews can help provide additional context and information. Sometimes an executive coach can use both, and follow up on a previous online 360 or performance review by interviewing designated feedback providers, in-person when possible, and via video conference or phone for those who are traveling and/or who work in different locations.

    Once the approach has been decided on, the next decision is who should participate. The list of feedback providers should generally include anyone who has enough familiarity with the coachee’s work to be able to contribute useful observations and suggestions. The list should also be inclusive rather than exclusive, and should include all of the coachee’s direct reports, peers, and managers. It’s important to take organizational politics into account when drafting the 360 list: internal or external constituencies, such as customers or counter-parties, may also have helpful feedback to provide, and inviting them to participate can send a positive message, indicating that the coachee cares about their views and feedback. In order to ensure that the feedback providers will have a balanced perspective, there should be no sample bias, wherein only those who have positive (or negative) things to say are invited to participate. As far as process is concerned, it’s generally best to have coachees draft the initial list, and then run it by their boss, and possibly even HR, for refinement and approval.

    In advance of doing the online 360 or conducting the interviews, it’s important to define who will see the feedback reports, either in full, edited, or summary form, and to clarify whether comments will be given “verbatim” in the feedback providers’ own words, or whether the coach will offer filtered/paraphrased feedback. Generally, we recommend that verbatim comments get shared in the report in order to include the most direct feedback. However, it should be clear to everyone who participates in an online or interview 360 that their verbatim comments will be shared, and in the case of an online 360, it’s useful to provide feedback providers with a sample report so they can see how their comments will be reflected in the report. We also suggest that the online or interview-based 360 should be shared in full, but only with the coaching participants themselves, as this increases the comfort that people have in being open and honest in the feedback that they provide without concern that tough feedback and/or specific criticism will somehow end up in the coachee’s “file.” However, once participants have received the full report, they should be willing to share a summary of insights gained, and/or developmental plans made, based on the feedback in order to ensure that they will be (and feel) accountable for making progress based on the report. Regardless of which option is chosen, the choice needs to be made and communicated before the interviews are conducted, so that parameters are fully clear in advance to all participants, and they know exactly how, and with whom, their feedback will, and will not, be shared.

    Once a consensus has been reached about the list of 360 providers, and who will see the report, the next step is drafting the questions that will be asked. If a standard online 360 will be used, it can be helpful, at times, to include a few additional context-specific questions, including open-ended questions, to gather more relevant information for the coachee. The boss and the coaching participant will likely be interested in each other’s preferred additional open-ended questions, as these questions will reveal their respective priorities and goals for the coaching program. If the boss wants to ask questions about executive presence or presentation skills, that is a signal to the coachee that the boss believes that those areas are relevant and improvable. If the coachee wants to ask what he or she needs to do in order to get promoted, that informs the boss that getting a promotion is a current goal or expectation for the coaching participant.

    It’s important to achieve consensus between the boss and the coachee about how broadly or narrowly to focus the questions, whether or not to include questions about the individual’s role and organizational constraints, whether to ask about potential future roles for the coachee, and whether or not to ask the same, or different questions to different people. Every question will also send a signal to participants about the coaching participant’s (and potentially the boss’s) coaching concerns and priorities, so it’s important to also consider organizational politics in drafting the questions in order to make sure that they are conveying the right messages. As with the participant list, we recommend that the coaching participants first draft the list of questions and then ask their boss (and possibly HR as well) for any edits, additions or changes.

    For interview-based 360s, here are some open-ended questions that we find helpful as a starting point:

    • How would you describe Jane’s leadership and management style?

    • How would you describe Jane’s communication and collaboration style?

    • What are Jane’s strengths?

    • What are Jane’s areas for development?

    • If you could give Jane one piece of advice, what would it be?

    • If you could make one request to Jane, what would it be?

    If the boss and organization are open to it, the coach can also ask contextual questions like:

    • What organizational factors or changes outside of Jane’s department present challenges and opportunities?

    • What organizational factors or changes inside of Jane’s department present challenges and opportunities?

    • What leadership suggestions do you have for Jane and her department to be more successful in the future?

    • What organizational suggestions do you have for Jane and her department to be more successful in the future?

    After all of the above decisions have been made, the next step is for participants to email their feedback providers about the upcoming interviews (or online 360). Sharing the questions in advance can have the dual benefit of giving people time to prepare their answers in advance, and also providing reassurance that everyone will be asked the same questions in the interviews. Furthermore, gaining alignment about the timing and logistics of the interview-based or online 360, including the list of participants, the questions that will be asked, and the confidentiality and reporting parameters can help set up the process for success. When the coach asks the most topical and timely 360 questions of the right sample of feedback providers, the answers will enable the coach to provide the most specific, relevant and useful feedback to coaching participants who can in turn utilize it to develop their skills and professional capabilities. Often, the process of selecting feedback providers, drafting questions, and deciding on timing, logistics and parameters can itself be an important learning opportunity within the overall coaching process. When it comes to 360-degree feedback, the questions (and the process of the coachee achieving consensus with his or her stakeholders about how the questions will be asked, of whom, and how and with whom the report will be shared) can be as important as the answers to those questions.

    In brief, although it can be laborious and complex to get it right, there is no better source of evidence for an executive’s reputation, and no better way to enhance their self-awareness, than through 360s.

    Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a Professor of Psychology at UCL and Columbia University, and the Chief Talent Scientist at ManpowerGroup

    Resource: https://www.forbes.com/sites/discoverpersonalloans/2018/04/16/5-expenses-small-business-owners-face-and-how-to-cover-them/#7b2e98456fd5

  • Leadership Lessons You Should Learn Early

    By Jeff Boss

    View original publication on Forbes.com

    Leadership challenges are more complex today than ever before, and one leadership challenge that I see as an executive coach is the tendency to anticipate what might happen tomorrow while forgetting about what is happening today. In other words, leaders try to outthink and overanalyze the future. They anticipate all the possibilities that could happen, select the outcome most likely to occur and then mold their leadership style to accommodate it, only to find that Murphy has a full-time job and is apparently dedicated solely to them — and Murphy wins.The point is, tomorrow, next week or next year are all uncertain, so if you try to mold your leadership style to the “most likely” option to occur, then you’re not leading, you’re contingency planning.

    Leaders don’t just think about the future, they think in it. Once they have a clear picture of what they want to see, where they want to be—as an individual or as a team — and why, they begin to mold the world around them to achieve it.

    I learned a lot in the military about leadership and continue learning today by helping others with their “molding process” as an executive coach. Here are four more leadership lessons to share with you:

    Leaders have choices, but leadership is a choice.

    You can be promoted, “given” responsibility for a new project or authorized to make certain decisions, but none of that makes you a leader. These are just tools designed to test you, to be added to your arsenal of potential should you accept the challenge, but they don’t inspire others to follow you. You know you’re a leader when somebody follows you no matter what title you have, and they do so because you’ve made difficult choices that others have shied away from. That’s what leaders do.

    Leadership isn’t the problem, but it is the solution.

    It’s easy to blame “leadership” for the way things are because it takes the blame off oneself, but the only problem truly exists is how each person contributes to the problem. If you have a toxic leader, for example, it’s not up to HR to “fix” him, it’s up to every person around him to start leading! For every person who doesn’t challenge the status quo but complains about it, they’re contributing to the problem. For every person who wants to build more trust in their team but doesn’t speak candidly in meetings, they’re part of the problem. You get what you give, so speaking with candor yields trust. Asking questions calls for direct answers (“why is the sky blue?”) whereas making statements generally lead to more statements and ultimately turn into dead-end conversations (“there must be a reason why the sky is blue”). Poor leadership doesn’t exist because people are malicious but because nobody has taken the time to develop people as leaders.

    Leadership is hard to measure.

    One reason why leadership is hard to measure is that people have different definitions of what it means to lead. Without a shared definition of success, it’s difficult to ascertain whether success was ever achieved. I found one definition of leadership as operating along a spectrum, with persuasion and influence on one end and virtue and nobility on the other. I thought this was close, but it isn’t. Leadership isn’t good and it isn’t bad. It isn’t virtuous and it isn’t evil. History is full of malicious leaders. Hitler, Idi Amin, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were all rotten to the core, but they were leaders nonetheless. That’s why leadership is neither good nor bad but a tool that serves as a guide toward intention. Leadership is authentic self-expression that instills value in others and compels them to act.

    Another reason leadership is hard to measure is that when it’s going well there’s nothing to measure. It’s much easier to identify something that’s not working well than something that is.

    Leaders don’t work alone.

    As “solo” as the concept of leadership seems, leaders rarely serve as lone wolf contributors. They know that extraordinary results don’t come from “me” but from “we;” from collective effort united toward a shared purpose. When you start a new business you don’t go it alone, you enlist the insight, advice and support of others. When actors receive an award they thank others for helping them make it happen (and I’m not saying that all actors are leaders but that their success is the result of collective effort). The point is, smart leaders are smart because of the people they surround themselves with.

    What are your leadership lessons?

  • High-Performing Teams Need Psychological Safety. Here’s How to Create It

    “There’s no team without trust,” (….”and no tribe without trust and direct feedback” cb) says Paul Santagata, Head of Industry at Google. He knows the results of the tech giant’s massive two-year study on team performance, which revealed that the highest-performing teams have one thing in common: psychological safety, the belief that you won’t be punished when you make a mistake ...”or speak your truth”…cb). Studies show that psychological safety allows for moderate risk-taking, speaking your mind, creativity, and sticking your neck out without fear of having it cut off — just the types of behavior that lead to market breakthroughs.

    Ancient evolutionary adaptations explain why psychological safety is both fragile and vital to success in uncertain, interdependent environments. The brain processes a provocation by a boss, competitive coworker, or dismissive subordinate as a life-or-death threat. The amygdala, the alarm bell in the brain, ignites the fight-or-flight response, hijacking higher brain centers. This “act first, think later” brain structure shuts down perspective and analytical reasoning. Quite literally, just when we need it most, we lose our minds. While that fight-or-flight reaction may save us in life-or-death situations, it handicaps the strategic thinking needed in today’s workplace.

    Twenty-first-century success depends on another system — the broaden-and-build mode of positive emotion, which allows us to solve complex problems and foster cooperative relationships. Barbara Fredrickson at the University of North Carolina has found that positive emotions like trust, curiosity, confidence, and inspiration broaden the mind and help us build psychological, social, and physical resources. We become more open-minded, resilient, motivated, and persistent when we feel safe. Humor increases, as does solution-finding and divergent thinking — the cognitive process underlying creativity.

    When the workplace feels challenging but not threatening, teams can sustain the broaden-and-build mode. Oxytocin levels in our brains rise, eliciting trust and trust-making behavior. This is a huge factor in team success, as Santagata attests: “In Google’s fast-paced, highly demanding environment, our success hinges on the ability to take risks and be vulnerable in front of peers.”

    So how can you increase psychological safety on your own team? Try replicating the steps that Santagata took with his:

    1. Approach conflict as a collaborator, not an adversary. We humans hate losing even more than we love winning. A perceived loss triggers attempts to reestablish fairness through competition, criticism, or disengagement, which is a form of workplace-learned helplessness. Santagata knows that true success is a win-win outcome, so when conflicts come up, he avoids triggering a fight-or-flight reaction by asking, “How could we achieve a mutually desirable outcome?”

    2. Speak human to human. Underlying every team’s who-did-what confrontation are universal needs such as respect, competence, social status, and autonomy. Recognizing these deeper needs naturally elicits trust and promotes positive language and behaviors. Santagata reminded his team that even in the most contentious negotiations, the other party is just like them and aims to walk away happy. He led them through a reflection called “Just Like Me,” which asks you to consider:

    • This person has beliefs, perspectives, and opinions, just like me.
    • This person has hopes, anxieties, and vulnerabilities, just like me.
    • This person has friends, family, and perhaps children who love them, just like me.
    • This person wants to feel respected, appreciated, and competent, just like me.
    • This person wishes for peace, joy, and happiness, just like me.

    3. Anticipate reactions and plan countermoves. “Thinking through in advance how your audience will react to your messaging helps ensure your content will be heard, versus your audience hearing an attack on their identity or ego,” explains Santagata.

    Skillfully confront difficult conversations head-on by preparing for likely reactions. For example, you may need to gather concrete evidence to counter defensiveness when discussing hot-button issues. Santagata asks himself, “If I position my point in this manner, what are the possible objections, and how would I respond to those counterarguments?” He says, “Looking at the discussion from this third-party perspective exposes weaknesses in my positions and encourages me to rethink my argument.”

    Specifically, he asks:

    • What are my main points?
    • What are three ways my listeners are likely to respond?
    • How will I respond to each of those scenarios?

    4. Replace blame with curiosity. If team members sense that you’re trying to blame them for something, you become their saber-toothed tiger. John Gottman’s research at the University of Washington shows that blame and criticism reliably escalate conflict, leading to defensiveness and — eventually — to disengagement. The alternative to blame is curiosity. If you believe you already know what the other person is thinking, then you’re not ready to have a conversation. Instead, adopt a learning mindset, knowing you don’t have all the facts. Here’s how:

    • State the problematic behavior or outcome as an observation, and use factual, neutral language. For example, “In the past two months there’s been a noticeable drop in your participation during meetings and progress appears to be slowing on your project.”
    • Engage them in an exploration. For example, “I imagine there are multiple factors at play. Perhaps we could uncover what they are together?”
    • Ask for solutions. The people who are responsible for creating a problem often hold the keys to solving it. That’s why a positive outcome typically depends on their input and buy-in. Ask directly, “What do you think needs to happen here?” Or, “What would be your ideal scenario?” Another question leading to solutions is: “How could I support you?”

    5. Ask for feedback on delivery. Asking for feedback on how you delivered your message disarms your opponent, illuminates blind spots in communication skills, and models fallibility, which increases trust in leaders. Santagata closes difficult conversations with these questions:

    • What worked and what didn’t work in my delivery?
    • How did it feel to hear this message?
    • How could I have presented it more effectively?

    For example, Santagata asked about his delivery after giving his senior manager tough feedback. His manager replied, “This could have felt like a punch in the stomach, but you presented reasonable evidence and that made me want to hear more. You were also eager to discuss the challenges I had, which led to solutions.”

    6. Measure psychological safety. Santagata periodically asks his team how safe they feel and what could enhance their feeling of safety. In addition, his team routinely takes surveys on psychological safety and other team dynamics. Some teams at Google include questions such as, “How confident are you that you won’t receive retaliation or criticism if you admit an error or make a mistake?”

    If you create this sense of psychological safety on your own team starting now, you can expect to see higher levels of engagement, increased motivation to tackle difficult problems, more learning and development opportunities, and better performance.

  • Leading with the Power of Humility

    by Dan Rockwel

    View original publication on LeadershipFreak

    The seductions of arrogance wreck leaders, demoralize teams, and destroy organizations.

    “The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.” (Attributed to Albert Einstein.)

    Everything good in leadership begins with humility.

    Subtleties of arrogance:

    1. Taking offense at slights. A thin skin points to pride. “You deserve better.”
    2. Judging others by unspoken expectations. The “humble-arrogant” are better than others because they hold people to high standards that they don’t meet themselves.
    3. Searching for self-justification. Arrogance circles back on problems – not to find solutions – but in search of reasons it didn’t do wrong.

    The brother of arrogance is disdain.

    All you can do is coerce those you look down on.

    Practice humility:

    Humility is a practice not a destination.

    #1. Acknowledge the subtlety of arrogance.

    Humility begins when you acknowledge arrogance.

    You have puddles of humility and oceans of arrogance, but you judge yourself by the puddles. My own arrogance makes me skeptical of any other option.

    #2. Pursue growth.

    “An arrogant person considers himself perfect. This is the chief harm of arrogance. It interferes with a person’s main task in life – becoming a better person.” Leo Tolstoy

    Everyone who develops their leadership knows what they’re working on.

    What leadership behavior will you practice today?

    Practice is intentional repetition that includes reflection and course adjustment.

    #3. Pick up the trash.

    Don’t simply tell people to pick up the trash. Pick it up yourself.

    No job is menial to the humble.

    Ray Kroc, the founder of McDonald’s, was famous for picking up trash. “Every night you’d see him coming down the street, walking close to the gutter, picking up every McDonald’s wrapper and cup along the way,” former McDonald’s CEO Fred Turner told author Alan Deutschman. “He’d come into the store with both hands full of cups and wrappers.” (Daniel Coyle in the Culture Code)

    What are the subtitles of arrogance?

    How might leaders practice humility?

  • Getting beyond the BS of leadership literature

    By Jeffrey Pfeffer

    View original publication on McKinsey.com

    Management books and commentaries often oversimplify, seldom providing useful guidance about the skills and behavior needed to get things done. Here’s a better reading list for leaders.

    The almost insatiable demand for leadership studies is a natural outgrowth of the all-too-frequent leadership failures in government, business, and nonprofits. Few people trust their leaders, according to the Edelman Trust Barometer surveys, among others.1 Gallup data show low levels of employee engagement worldwide, while the Conference Board finds job satisfaction at a low ebb and executive tenures decreasing.2 Other research consistently indicates that companies give their own leadership-development efforts low marks. Leaders aren’t doing a good job for themselves or their workplaces, and things don’t seem to be improving.

    This consuming interest in leadership and how to make it better has spawned a plethora of books, blogs, TED talks, and commentary. Unfortunately, these materials are often wonderfully disconnected from organizational reality and, as a consequence, useless for sparking improvement. Maybe that’s one reason the enormous resources invested in leadership development have produced so few results. Estimates of the amount spent on it range from $14 billion to $50 billion a year in the United States alone.3

    The limits of morality tales

    Despite the many shortcomings of leadership instruction, some books and articles do provide fruitful guidance on how to be a better, more effective leader. And there’s scattered information about what skills and behavior are needed to get things done and how to develop them. Sadly, and for a number of reasons, there’s a scarcity of useful material. Here’s why.

    The first and maybe most pernicious problem is that thinking on leadership has become a sort of morality tale. There are writers who advocate authenticity, attention to employees’ well-being, telling the truth, building trust, being agreeable, and so forth. A smaller number of empirical researchers, contrarily, report evidence on the positive effects of traits and behavior such as narcissism, self-promotion, rule breaking, lying, and shrewd maneuvering on salaries, getting jobs, accelerating career advancement, and projecting an aura of power. Part of this discrepancy—between the prescriptions of the vast leadership industry and the data on what actually produces career success—stems from the oft-unacknowledged tendency to confuse what people believe ought to be true with what actually is. And underlying that is an associated confirmation bias: the tendency to see, and remember, what you’re motivated to believe.

    Second, this moral framing of leadership substantially oversimplifies the real complexity of the dilemmas and choices leaders confront. An essay on the 500th anniversary of the writing of Machiavelli’s The Prince noted that it is sometimes necessary to do bad things to achieve good results.4 Not surprisingly, then, some of the most successful and admired leaders—for example, Nelson Mandela, Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy—were above all pragmatists, willing to do what was necessary to achieve important objectives.

    As such, each of them (and many other renowned leaders) changed their positions on decisions and issues and behaved inconsistently. They dissembled and engaged in strategic misrepresentation, not always disclosing their full agendas and plans, in part to avoid provoking opposition. At times, they acted in ways inconsistent with their authentic feelings. Human beings are complex and multidimensional, so not only do bad people do good things and vice versa but the whole idea of good and bad can also be problematic when you consider the knotty dilemmas leaders face deciding whether the ends justify the means.

    Finally, the division of leaders and their actions into good and bad seriously oversimplifies a much more complex reality and continues to reinforce a problematic, trait-based, and personality-centric view of human behavior. As social-psychological research has made clear for decades, people are not only shaped by their enduring traits but also profoundly influenced by cues and constraints that vary by situation. So they adopt different types of behavior and even personas, depending on the circumstances and the various roles they play. Leaders may behave differently within their families and religious institutions than they do at work, to take one example. When individuals are promoted to management, their perspectives change and so too does their behavior. McKinsey research also suggests that the effectiveness of various types of leadership behavior varies with the health of the organization in which they are practiced (see “Leadership in context”).

    Characterizing leaders’ behavior as somehow dependent on inherent traits provides an easy excuse for avoiding the sort of behavior and strategies that may be required to get things done. To take a simple example, people sometimes tell me that they are not networkers, as a way of explaining their reluctance to build the social relationships so necessary for success. I remind them that they were not born walking or using the toilet either. Networking behavior and skills, like all such behavior and skills, can be learned, as University of Chicago sociologist Ronald Burt has nicely demonstrated.

     

     

  • Decoding leadership

    What skills and behaviors make a good leader effective? Here are the traits that matter.

    Jeffrey Pfeffer, Stanford Graduate School of Business says that “This consuming interest in leadership has spawned a plethora of books, blogs, TED talks and commentary [that] are often wonderfully disconnected from organizational reality, and as a consequence, useless for sparking improvement”.

    McKinsey found that 4 out of 20 behaviors explain 89% of the variance between strong and weak leaders.Here are the traits that matter

    Click here to view on Mckinsey

  • Putting an End to Leaders Self-Serving Behavior

    by Morela Hernandez

    View original publication on MITSloan

    Although we might hope that leaders in business environments will embrace their decision-making responsibilities with a clear head and an open heart, empirical research has shown otherwise. Instead, business leaders are often selfish. Access to resources in many organizations is a moving target, leaving many managers feeling protective of what’s theirs. And when they take more than their fair share — extra resources for themselves at the expense of others — they often do it because they honestly think they are entitled to these resources and believe they have earned the right to take more.

    Where does this kind of entitlement come from?

    As I’ve tried to reconcile current political events — such as the European Union’s reaction to Brexit, the continuing global refugee crisis, and the ongoing debates in the United States about tax and health care reform — with scholarly work on ambiguity and decision-making, I’ve come to think that feeling entitled to a larger share of a resource might come not from objective assessments of reality but rather from what social scientists call motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning occurs when people “selectively notice, encode, and retain information that is consistent with their desires.” People use this kind of reasoning to reach conclusions that help them support their self-serving beliefs. After all, reasoning, it has been said, “was designed by evolution to help us win arguments.”

    Understanding the effects of self-serving beliefs is a tricky business. In the last decade of research in behavioral ethics, for instance, scholars have moved away from a “bad apples” approach in which only people with poor moral characteristics are deemed likely to behave unethically. Instead, researchers have examined how people can engage in self-serving behaviors while convinced of the rightness and fairness of doing so. Few studies, however, have explored the circumstances in which this type of selfishness — one that comes with a sense of entitlement and justification — is likely to arise.

    Working alongside my colleague Laura Noval of the Imperial College Business School in London, we sought to understand how organizations enable self-serving behavior. Specifically, we investigated how certain contextual and individual characteristics can facilitate motivated reasoning aimed at justifying self-serving decisions.

    We explored this issue through two experimental studies, one using a hypothetical business decision-making scenario (in which 395 people participated, 52% women) and the other using a behavioral task in the laboratory (in which 239 people participated, 52% women). In both studies, we assigned participants to conditions in which they received either identical performance information with respect to another party (strong, unambiguous context), or in which they and the other party were favored by different performance criteria (weak, ambiguous context). In the latter case, participants could use motivated reasoning to convince themselves that their own performance criterion was more relevant for the task at hand, thereby convincing themselves that they deserved larger shares of the resource.

  • Executive coaching: New framework for evaluation

    Evaluation research has struggled to keep up with the popularity of coaching, as measures of its effectiveness are challenging to standardize, particularly when coaching executives. Similar to interpersonally based interventions in other fields such as counseling and psychotherapy, coaching takes the form of a fluid, humanistic process, whereas coaching-evaluation standards strive to be consistent with a standardized, scientifically based method.

    To read more: APA_Exec_Coaching

  • Superpowers for Leaders

  • 19 Traits of Bad Bosses