Archive for Coaching

Experience of Right and Left Hemispheres of the Brain

Below is a link to an awesome video, in which neuroanatomist Jill Bolte describes alternating experiences of the left and right hemispheres of the brain. 

This is important because in the West, we have extensively developed the left brain, associated with rational sequential thought, and modern organizations and approaches to leadership reflect this orientation.  However, it is the right side of the brain which sees larger patterns and is the source of our creativity, including creative leaps.  Therefore, learning how to integrate these diverse facilities — to draw on our inner diversity — can help us to see new opportunities and solutions to old problems.  

Coaching does just this, and therefore it is increasingly being recognized as a core leadership competency in contemporary organizations. And, there are many more interesting and exciting implications of this insight that we will discuss in this blog…

http://blog.ted.com/2008/03/jill_bolte_tayl.php

Innovation & the Machine

 The juxtaposition of these two words sounds unlikely doesn’t it?  We really don’t think of machines as being innovative — they do pre-programmed things (one hopes well).  For certain, the operator of the machine can innovate, but not the machine itself.  Similarly, traditional bureaucratic organizations, specialization and organizational lines of communication and control usually substantially limit innovation from within.  

As we discussed earlier, the bureaucratic organization structure is based on the principle of rational control, which enables a small number of people to exercise control over a large number of people. Because security, privileges and economic rewards tend to be commensurate with the scope of authority and power, managers tend to guard and seek to enlarge their scope of conrol.  This and other factors tend to lead both to internal competition and a resistance to changes that may decrease a manager’s scope of control, or put him/her in a less advantageous position.  

Although this blog promotes a Partnership paradigm of leadership and organization, which is distinctly un-Machiavellian, there are few as insightful or eloquent with respect to the dynamics of authoritarian leadership than Machiavelli, who confirms one reason that innovation and change tends to be so difficult for modern organizations:  

“It should be borne in mind that there is nothing more difficult to handle, more doubtful of success and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. The innovator makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old order and receives only lukewarm support from those would prosper under the new.” (Niccolo Machiavelli 1512)

This tendency to pursue one’s own self interest can be counterbalanced by an inspiring vision — which is one of the key functions of good leadership. However, it is interesting and potentially instructive to observe that the burueaucratic organization form we take for granted today was not designed or intended to be innovative. This is not to say that such organizations cannot be innovative, but in order to do so, they have to overcome some problems of their own making.

In upcoming posts, we will continue to explore the dynamics of traditional organizations, and also begin to explore emerging paradigms of organization and leadership, and how coaching is both a means and an end to more empowered, collaborative and innovative organizations ….

Developing Leadership Capabilities for the Innovation Age

One of the purposes of this blog is to encourage fresh thinking with respect to how we can most effectively collaborate to achieve worthy goals.  According to leadership gurus, James Kouzes and Barry Posner, getting extraordinary things done in organizations in the current age (often called the “innovation age”) requires leaders who can:

  1. Articulate a vision of the future when things are so unpredictable […]
  2. Inspire others toward a common purpose […]
  3. Create an environment that promotes innovation and risk […]
  4. Build a cohesive and spirited team […]
  5. Share power and information, and still maintain accountability […]
  6. Put more joy and celebration into our efforts […]  (Kouzes & Posner, The Leadership Challenge, 4th ed., 2008)

Leaders and organizations that are deeply rooted in “industrial age” models leadership and organization, based on metaphors such as the “organization as machine,” often struggle to achieve the capacities needed to meet current challenges.  In the next few posts, we’ll discuss why this is the case and why coaching is such an effective strategy for organizational transformation and change.

First, we’ll talk about the goals of traditional bureaucratic organizations, the assumptions that underlie this strategy, and the conditions under which those assumptions might be appropriate.

Second, we’ll talk about common organizational problems, and why they are so difficult to solve, using industrial-age models of leadership and organization.

Third, we’ll talk about some emerging paradigms of leadership, and how they support leaders in building needed organizational capabilities.

Finally, we’ll talk about how leadership and organizational coaching can support leaders in transforming their organizations to develop the needed capabilities.

Does that sound good?

Coaching as a Transformative Leadership Competency

A key theme in this blog is transformative leadership, which involves transformative learning – on the part of both the leader and the organization. A key competency of transformative leadership is coaching.

As a transformative learning strategy, coaching can be contrasted with consulting. Consultants are experts who supply answers. However, more often than we might hope, these answers may become expensive “shelfware.” Knowledge becomes shelfware primarily because leaders and their organizations have not digested it and made it their own.

As an example, the CEO of a personal care products company in the Western U.S. wants to increase the company’s sales.  He has hired a succession of marketing consultants to advise him on how to accomplish this. Each consultant is hired with great expectations and eventually ushered out the door as a disappointment. Why? The CEO does not agree with the consultants’ assessments or recommendations. What they see as dysfunction, he sees as the way he wants to run his business. He has a particular philosophy of business and isn’t inclined to change it, even though it is not working for him.  If he saw the world in such a way that the recommendations made sense, chances are, he would already have been taking the actions the consultants’ recommended. He wants someone to make his philosophy work.

Assuming that the CEO is behind the needed changes, if the changes don’t seem normal and natural to all of the organization members who need to make them work, the organization will struggle to change. People will do what is asked as long as someone is looking over their shoulders but will tend to drift back to old, comfortable behaviors.

Transformative coaching, on the other hand, involves supporting leaders and organizations in developing expanded and more effective perspectives and strategies. In the above example, a coach might support the CEO in thinking though the assumptions that underlie his philosophy, to learn why it hasn’t achieved the desired results; in developing an enlarged perspective; and in developing and executing strategies that reflect these new insights.

Similarly, the CEO as transformative leader and coach, has the tools to facilitate a similar shift on the part of the organization as a whole…