A633.7.4.RB_BrianneGowens_How Do Coaches Help

In terms of inter-organizational leadership, Obolensky (2014) describes a coach as a leader who assume their followers know what needs to be done and simply serves the role of supporter or cheerleader from behind the scenes. This role turns into something quite different when the coach originates from outside of the organization. Instead of mentoring followers within the organization, executive coaches are hired as independent consultants and are considered experts in rounding out the skills of up-and-coming talent. Executive coaching is becoming increasingly popular and has grown to be an industry with $1.5 billion in estimated annual revenues with over 20,000 paying members (Stanley, 2016).

                         

What Is an Executive Coach?

Traditionally, executive coaches were used to fix a problem caused by bad behavior at the leadership level (Coutu & Kauffman, 2009). When leaders at the top didn’t know how to manage people, an executive coach was brought in to help. When executives were weak on financial acumen or strategy development, executive coaches provided education and practical application opportunities to strengthen such weaknesses.  In summary, the role of executive coaches has always been to come in and help an existing executive eliminate a major deficiency. With the passing of time, the role of executive coaches has changed too. Now, executive coaches are hired to help high-potential performers develop and strengthen their capabilities (Coutu & Kauffman, 2009). Instead of eliminating deficiencies, coaches expand and highlight strengths in order to make high potential employees even more valuable to the organization.

Who Coaches & Who Needs Coaching?

The best leaders are those used to be followers, and the same is true for executive coaches. Many executive coaches are retired executives, including CEOs, university experts, and government officials (Coutu & Kauffman, 2009). These candidates make the perfect coaches because they’ve experienced organizational progression in their own careers. Often, these executives started out at lower levels within their own companies and grew to an executive position through strong leaders and coaching; this results in a strong foundation of knowledge and real-life experience.

Risks and Benefits in Executive Coaching

Risks

Although executive coaches are hired to address an individual’s business skills, they often turn into psychiatrists. This trend isn’t very surprising considering how intimately our business lives and personal lives co-exist. There are key events in both personal and professional lives that shape an individual’s values and develop their attitudes and behaviors…and consequently their approach to decision making (LaBier, 2013). The trouble with allowing an executive coach to double as a life counselor is that it can result in executives who have a long-term dependency on their coaches. This, of course, is less worrisome to the coach because “coaches have an economic incentive to ignore the problem of dependency” (Coutu & Kauffman, 2009). Not all coaches will take advantage of this situation, but the simple truth is that the longer the coach stays employed by the executive, the more revenue they earn from the firm employing both the person being coached.

Benefits

Companies that don’t use executive coaches typically utilize other leaders within the organization to serve as a mentor to high-potential employees. This can be less effective because on-the-job leaders solve problems in ways that fit within their own unique leadership styles.  One of the benefits of using a professional executive coach is that they are expertly trained in many different leadership styles, which means they understand the approaches that work and don’t work for different types of individual (Collier, 2016).  According to Collier (2016), “A good coach will gather not only a lot of data about a coach’s behavior, leadership styles, and overall effectiveness, but they will go to many sources to get the clearest picture.” On-the-job mentors simply don’t have time to do all of this research about the up and coming leaders, so this is one area where professional executive coaches really bring value.

Do I Need an Executive Coach?

Not yet, but if I am assigned an executive coach one day, I will consider it to be a sign that I’m moving in the right direction. Executive coaching used to have a negative connotation associated with it because being “coached” meant you needed a professional to help you fix your issues. Now, working with executive coaches “is often considered a badge of honor” because it means you’ve been identified as a candidate for catapulting high into the executive ranks (Coutu & Kauffman, 2009). Now a day, “It’s become so common for top executives to be coached that it’s viewed as a perk, a sign of having arrived at the top” (Stanley, 2016).

Coaching has become more and more popular with organizations because it helps them prepare high potential talent early and secure a more stable future for their company. Coaches spend a lot of their time working with executives on things I consider “people skills” like listening, showing empathy, developing interpersonal relationships, and being self-aware (Stanley, 2016). These are qualities that I believe stand out as strong points for me already. Although one of the first steps of coaches is to perform an assessment that of the executives in order to determine strengths and weaknesses, the fact is that most executives are already well aware of where they shine and where they struggle, even if they don’t say it out loud. Some of the areas where I would benefit most from executive coaching include building upon technical and financial acumen and comfortably networking with superiors.

Before organizations decide whether or not to hire an executive coach, they should ask themselves a few key questions, as suggested by Mckenna (2009): (1) How valuable is the coach to the organization? (2) what challenges is the high potential executive currently facing? (3) How willing is the executive to be coached? (4) Are there alternatives to coaching available? (5) Are other leaders in the organizations supportive of the attempt at coaching?

As many companies face an increasingly aging workforce, there seems to be an increased focus on identifying young talent early in their careers. In other worse, executive coaches aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. In fact, almost all of the largest companies hire executive coaches today (Stanley, 2016). In the coming years, developing economies like Russia, China, India, and Brazil are going to have “tremendous appetites” for executive coaches because they have a very youthful population of management. If executive coaches continue to show their value as they have for the past several years, I expect their popularity to continue to grow in corporate America as well.

Resources

Coutu, D., & Kauffman, C. (2009). What can Coaches Do for You? Harvard Business Review, 87(1), 91-97

Collier, C. (2016). How Does Executive Coaching Really Work? Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2016/03/21/how-does-executive-coaching-really-work/#57396ee84003

LaBier, D. (2013). Why CEOs don’t want executive coaching. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-labier/why-ceos-dont-want-execut_b_3762704.html

Mckenna, D. (2009). Who needs an executive coach? Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/04/need-executive-consultant-ceonetwork-leadership-coach.html

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). New York, New York: Gower Publishing.

Stanley, O. (2016). The No. 1 thing CEOs want from executive coaching? Self-awareness. Quartz. Retrieved from https://qz.com/670841/the-no-1-thing-ceos-want-from-executive-coaching-self-awareness/

A633.7.3.RB_BrianneGowens_ Leader Follower Relationship

Obolensky starts chapter 10 of his book on complex adaptive leadership with a quiz to help leaders understand where their mind is mapped in terms of leadership strategy. In this quiz, readers can score as a strategy 1, 2, 3, or 4 leader based on how they say they’d address certain teams and individual followers within the organization. The intent of the quiz is to help readers assess the direction their leadership style is going as a result of Obolensky’s text. The number of different types of leadership styles can be overwhelming at times, but Obolensky (2014) broke it down into four different strategies, as follows:

Strategies 1-4

• Strategy 1 leaders tell people how to accomplish a task, which might include simply giving them the information needed to accomplish it.

• Strategy 2 leaders practice selling skills, which means that they to explain the benefits associated with certain organizational changes and they ask for followers to share concerns about factors that could get in the way of success. 

• Strategy 3 leaders like to involve followers in the decision-making process, often soliciting team members opinions of what they think is the best approach to solving problems, even if the leader already has an idea of how to move forward.

• Strategy 4 leaders prefer to devolve, meaning they let things play out naturally and hold back the urge to get involved until absolutely necessary. 

Obolensky (2014) grouped strategy 1 and 2 leaders together and explained them as strategies that are needed when a leader has pre-determined the solution and choses to either tell it or sell it to followers. Strategy 3 and 4 leaders, on the other hand, are described by Obolensky (2014) as those who do not know the solution (or chooses not to offer it) and follow or support followers instead.

Changes to My Leadership Style

Several weeks ago, I would have rated myself as a strategy 2 leader, which meant that I tended to sell the reasons for change to followers. I might even take this a step further and say I liked to convince followers that they should embrace organizational actions and/or new ideas. I behaved this way because I wanted followers and peers to feel the same way I did about an upcoming change. Over the past several weeks, as a result of Obolensky and others, my perspective on leadership has changed. Upon completing the quiz on leadership strategy and compiling my scores, I discovered my current leadership style leans heavily towards strategy 3: Involve. In fact, 10 out of only 16 possible points were assigned to the strategy 2 category, with the other 5 and 1 points falling under strategy 1 and strategy 2, respectively. Rather than trying to sell or persuade followers to buy into my approach, I am learning to let the followers sell me. 

So what does this changing style mean for me as a leader? First, it means I am becoming more inclusive, by “taking account of the needs and expectations of followers” (Hollander, 2008, p. 47). It also means that I have recognized the shift in leadership from traditional leaders who take control of all decision making and complex adaptive leaders who practice open communication and decision making at all levels. I strive to find a solid balance between maintaining a reputation as someone who has the knowledge and skills to direct followers towards a path and someone who stands back and lets followers take the reigns. More simply, I want to be a leader who trusts the employees and feel that the employees trust me in return.

Future Leadership Objectives

Strong leaders recognize their dependency on responsive followers who welcome the opportunity to play a role in setting organizational strategy (Hollander, 2008). My future objectives are to build up my current progression from a strategy 2 leader to a strategy 3 leader and continue making employees feel valued. I plan to do this by taking each of the following steps, as suggested by Stark (2010):

Obolensky’s (2014) quiz reminded us that strong leaders may take different approaches depending on the situation in front of them, which aligns with Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership model. Situational leaders assess organizational factors along with the willingness of followers to get involved in necessary action. In some cases, leaders asses their role to be that of a teller and seller (strategy 1 and 2 leaders) and in other cases the leader involves or devolves (strategy 3 and 4 leaders). One strategy is not necessarily better or more effective than the other. The best strategy for leaders depends on the situation leaders and followers face at any given moment. The key for becoming a strong leader in my own right is to remember the criticality of embracing and displaying qualities like flexibility and adaptability.

Application to Strategy

The benefits associated with increasing involvement of followers in the development and execution of strategy are clear. Involved employees become invested in the organizational direction and are more motivated to see the strategy succeed. According to Heifetz and Laurie (1997), one of the best things leaders can do during strategy development is to “frame the key questions and issues,” and then let followers make decisions. This is what strategy 3 leadership is all about. Although leaders are seen by many as the most knowledgeable and qualified person in the room, many people (including me!) argue that a robust strategy can only be built through collaboration and teamwork. The best strategic ideas “reside not in the executive suite, but in the collective intelligence of employees at all levels, who need to use one another as resources” (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997).

I can apply these ideas to strategy in my own organization by becoming more thoughtful about the questions I ask in strategy sessions. Strategy 3 leaders are skilled at reaching out to members of the team and gathering opinions/suggestions/ideas on what approach to take. Through this process, people are given a voice who might not normally speak up. Some employees are hesitant to offer their recommendations, but may feel open to doing so if they are asked directly during the strategy session. By applying strategy 3 leadership qualities to the process of developing strategies and solving organizational problems, my organization is more likely to find innovative, creative, and efficient ways of moving forward.

Resources

Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The Work of Leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 124-134.

Hollander, E. (2008). Inclusive Leadership: The essential leader-follower relationship. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=LHiak0kfQTwC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=involving+followers&source=bl&ots=vjondRKyPm&sig=99FqA9W2iMOLeX0MrT03lN6V2ns&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM55mS7dvVAhUrsVQKHXoLCqoQ6AEIOzAE#v=onepage&q=involving%20followers&f=false

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). New York, New York: Gower Publishing.

Stark, P.B. (2010). 6 Reasons to Involve Employees in Decision Making. Peter Baron Stark Companies. Retrieved from https://www.peterstark.com/key-to-engagement/

A633.6.4.RB_BrianneGowens_Circle of Leadership

The vicious circle of leadership says that leaders often adjust their style based on the behavior of their followers, and followers often behave the way they do because they are responding to what they perceive as the leader’s expectations (Obolensky, 2014). Followers wait around for leaders to provide them with more independence and responsibility. At the same time, leaders hesitate to provide their followers with freedom because such followers haven’t proven themselves as capable of acting on their own. The vicious circle of leadership prevents followers from ever reaching level 5 leadership, and as a result, leaders spend an unnecessary amount of time providing guidance to their perfectly capable employees.

There are signs of the vicious circle of leadership in my organization, especially when it comes to the topic of drafting agreements – mainly letter writing. My organization includes dozens and dozens of individuals who support at least six regions of the world. In many ways, we function as one single group because we generally follow the same work processes and procedures. In other ways, we function in our own silos because each region reports to its own set of leaders and each set of leaders has his or her own background and style of leading. In my region (Europe), there are employees who have joined the Europe region after working in other regions, like North America, Middle East, or Asia Pacific.

                                                                   

When others come to the Europe region, it’s clear that they operate with an expectation for much more freedom, at first. Then, as they learn the leadership style of managers in the Europe region, they begin to lose sight of the training they received in previous regions and they try to fit into the mold that has been created in Europe. An employee from the Middle East, for example, had never run a contract letter past a leader for proof reading because they were taught that peer reviews and self-discipline were the preferred approaches. Europe leaders had completely different expectations. In Europe, every contractual document, including letters, must be reviewed by the managing contract director in the region before they are sent to customers. Instead of pushing back on their new regional leader, the “new” employees in Europe pulled back on their level 5 qualities and began to revert to level 3’s and 4’s.

As a result, newer employees like me who have never worked in a region before have an even harder time breaking through the level 3/4 ceiling. I look to the more senior employees, like those who have experience working in other regions, to set the tone for pushing back on leadership so that I can strategically follow. This, perhaps, is my first mistake. I should stop looking to others to set the tone of the organization, just because others have been doing the job longer than I have. Instead, I should set the tone for building a reputation as a self-managed follower. Self-managed followers are key assets to an organization – “they give their organizations a significant cost advantage because they eliminate much of the need for elaborate supervisory control systems…” (Kelley, 1988).

Perhaps by looking at the circle of leadership in a different way, followers like me will start making changes. What if, instead of followers asking their leaders for advice, they ask their peers and stakeholders instead? Johnson (2008) refers to this as “lateral leadership,” which consists of using the resources around you instead of the ones above you. With this approach, leaders feel a certain level of comfort because followers aren’t acting in complete silos, but followers avoid feeing like they are asking permission to act according to their instincts. If stakeholders and peers enter the circle, it might look something like this:

Note 1: These are one time steps that the followers must take to be redirected towards independence.

Note 2: Stakeholders include financial functions, marketing, sales, and engineering. Such functions may or may not be consulted, dependent on the content of the letter. It is at the follower’s discretion on which stakeholders need consultation.

This diagram suggests that followers initially consult leadership and are guided by leaders to consult someone I refer to as “a neutral party.” This consultation allows followers to do things like gather good information about what needs to be accomplished and recognize opportunities to improve the work product without consulting directly with the leader (Kolb, 2015). During the interactions between follower and peers/stakeholders, followers maintain a leadership role and are enabled to make the ultimate decision on whether or not they incorporate the guidance they’ve been given. This is quite different from interactions with leaders because it’s much more difficult to take a dominate role when discussing something with a superior (though some have mastered this approach as well!)  When consulting with stakeholders and peers, followers may have an easier time taking on a leadership role and building their confidence. Real leaders, suggested Hymowitz (2001), find a way to gain authority simply by convincing people to listen to their ideas and value their approach to solving the problems that lay ahead of them.

Resources

Hymowitz, C. (2001, February 20). How to lead when you’re not the boss. Harvard Management Update, 5(3).

Johnson, L.K. (2008) Exerting influence without authority. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2008/02/exerting-influence-without-aut

Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142-148.

Kolb, D.M., (2015).  Be Your Own Best Advocate. Harvard Business Review, 93(11), 130-133.

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). New York, New York: Gower Publishing.