Blog Archives - Page 9 of 13

Playing the ‘Inner Game’

I was recently reminded of Tim Gallwey’s ** performance equation : Performance equals Potential minus Interference.

Although a tad pseudo-scientific, Gallwey’s equation succinctly expresses the notion that most of our battles are not ‘out there’ but in our own heads – how we play our ‘Inner Game’. The issue is not what we can do, so much as what we talk ourselves out of doing. Just listen to your own self-talk next time you face a difficult or challenging task and you will probably hear self-doubt, negative forecasting and other forms of self-limiting beliefs – all examples of ‘mental interference’ in Gallwey’s terms.

This simple equation has spawned a whole approach to coaching. Rather than building skills or knowledge (ie maximising the potential component of the equation), the ‘Inner Game’ coach works on ‘interference’ element by finding causes of low self-confidence, challenges self-limiting beliefs and assumptions and recasting self-defeating or destructive patterns of behaviour. This means the coach is more likely to ask questions and listen, rather than tell, instruct or teach.

“It’s not what they can do, it’s what they tell themselves they can’t do, that brings them to coaching” said an old colleague of mine. Too true!

Here’s a short clip of Tim Gallwey talking about how he stumbled on the ‘Inner Game’ approach.

**Gallwey, T. (2000) The Inner Game of Work: overcoming mental obstacles for maximum performance. London: Orion Books, pp17

Thinking together

I’m fascinated by how groups of people talk, listen and think together. So often the experience is dispiriting – something about the sum of the parts adding up to less than they should. So it always of interest to observe, and be part of, a group in which the quality of collective thinking outweighs what seems possible individually.

What makes the difference? William Isaacs ** reckons it is often down to the quality of dialogue and some apparently very simple, very teachable behaviours:

Listen – like a peer
Suspend – your certainties
Respect – others views
Speak – your true voice

Easy .. no not at all . We, by and large, don’t ‘get’ the difference between debate and dialogue. We’ve all be trained in a ‘debating’ culture and have few really positive role models of group collaboration and skilled dialogue. It takes time and patience to learn these apparently simple skills, and get the balance of advocacy and inquiry consistently right.

Watch next time you are in a group that’s going round in circles – which of these behaviours is being overplayed and which undercooked? Always illuminating.

**Isaacs, W. (1999), Dialogue and the art of thinking together, New York: Doubleday.

Choosing change – issues in coaching

I’ve recently started work with two new coaching clients – one who has fought tooth and nail for a coach and another who has been told come. As you’d expect the contrast between them is stark: client 1 is very clear about what they want to work on and very motivated, whilst client 2 is every so slightly resentful and more than a bit fuzzy about ‘their’ goals . As you can imagine this impacts the work hugely and I’m working hard to find an agenda that client 2 can call their own … and still aligns with the organisational need that sent them to me in the first place.

I believe we have to choose change – especially personal change – and that it is nigh on impossible to coach someone in directions they don’t buy-in to or pay only lip service to. I don’t think this necessarily renders them uncoachable so much as uncoachable on an imposed agenda. The ‘trick’ (if trick it is) is to connect to what people really care about, the reputation they want and the changes they are trying to make in the world… and then see if it aligns with the organisational paymaster.

So I’m with Peter Senge when he says “We don’t resist change. We resist being changed”. Coaches are on dangerous territory if they see themselves as changing other people – we can only hope to help people change themselves in the directions they choose for themselves.

In praise of confusion and uncertainty

I got off the phone this morning with my mentor thoroughly confused, and feeling grumpy as a result. I’d gone from a surety that “I’ve got my ducks in a row” to feeling that the whole duck pond had been unexpected emptied. However I also know that this will be to the good eventually as a better plan will emerge once I’ve have time to stew.

This experience got me to thinking about the value of feeling confused. Isn’t a good shake up of one’s certainties and assumptions actually the stuff of learning and growth? Like most of us, I’m not keen on the feeling of confusion and can rush on in an attempt to get back to the comfort of ‘certainty’ rather than tolerate the discomfort of confusion and not knowing. However, I know from experience that the ‘not knowing’ place is often the place where I find genuinely fresh perspectives … if I am prepared to give it the time it needs.

I notice when I work with novice coaches they are often very keen for their clients to reach clarity and are often dismayed if a way forward doesn’t emerge quickly. Consequently the work can become a rushed problem-solving session rather than a thoughtful and considerate examination of the assumptions and beliefs underlying an issue. Result – a superficial quick-fix that doesn’t stick… perhaps tolerance of confusion and uncertainty is a muscle more coaches could usefully develop.

Creating our own glass ceiling – issues in coaching

I’ve recently come back to an old favourite of mine – the ‘Let Go, Preserve, Add On’ model * and found myself having some interesting and useful leadership coaching conversations on the back of it. Arthur Freedman’s simple model suggests that the mix of skills, abilities, beliefs and knowledge (etc.) that got us to where we are today not only won’t get us further up the organisational ladder but actually might be holding us back – our own glass ceiling if you like. The trick is to know what we should ditch, what we should preserve and what we need to add into the mix. The problem is we tend to be comfortable with the repertoire that got us to today and the idea of shaking it up can feel scary .. particularly behaviours that have served us well in the past.

This was born out in a conversation I had with Martin last week. Martin is a promoted expert in his company and is struggling with the fact that he now being asked to lead experts instead of being one. “I just love the work” he confided in me, “…so much so that I’ve been know to repeat my team’s work just so I can feel connected again”. Worse still, he was struggling to value working strategically and was in danger of doing neither his new or old role well.

Freedman talks about a series of ‘crossroads’ that leaders must navigate as they move upward through the organisation. At each of these turning points, a fundamental reappraisal of our ‘leadership map’ is called for if we are not to be trapped by a glass ceiling of our own making.

*Freedman, A. (1998) , Pathways and Crossroads to Institutional Leadership, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 50, No. 3,131-151 – click here for a copy

Do we live in separate universes?

I never cease to be amazed at the difference in perspective that two people can hold – its almost as if we live in completely separate universes. Its happened to me twice this week – I am talking to a coaching client about their take on the world and separately talking to their boss about how they see things. Apart from the odd coincidence of facts – dates, places, people – the interpretation of events is completely different, and equally compelling. This makes finding the ground of coaching extremely difficult and I find myself working to find out where views coincide enough so the work can begin.

This is particularly the case when the coaching assignment is around the behaviours of the individual and too often the debate becomes a clash of perspectives. One man’s assertiveness is another man’s aggression. One woman’s planning is another woman’s over controlling. This gets particularly tricky when both parties claim the ‘truth’ of the situation as their own perspective and it is easy to get drawn in believing one party over another.

A productive way out of this I’ve found is to focus on impact rather than intent. I’ve rarely met anyone who intends to show up badly at work, and will defend tooth and nail the positive intent behind their actions – ” I was only trying to get him to hear all the facts”. Shifting the ground to the impact they have on others – “I can see how I spoke upset him” – and the perceptions they create is often more fertile and less defended ground.

The ‘pink and fluffy’ stuff.

OK I’ve going to use the ‘F’ word – feelings – I know it is not fashionable but there you go I’ve done it now. While the value of emotional intelligence is not new news, what is it about the very hint of an emotion that make many of us head for the hills? Worse still, how come we have to deride ‘feelings’ as the ‘pink and fluffy’ stuff when often they are the most challenging part of our relationships … or is it because they are the most challenging part of our relationships?

Daniel Goleman reckons that all conversations – including hard headed business conversations – have an emotional content which we can choose to pay attention to, as well as a factual content. It could be as ‘in your face’ as fear, sadness or anger, or more subtle and lower key such as resentment, amusement or boredom. Whatever is present, all emotions have an impact whether we admit it or not and colours what becomes possible or impossible. When we ignore or suppress the feeling content of a situation we cut ourselves off from an important source of data about what is going on for both parties. I’ve often found in my coaching practice, for example, that the emotional content has been a more accurate predictor of intent rather than the sophisticated rationalisations and justifications we often show up with.

Here’s a link to Daniel Goleman talking (55 min) at the Google University about the productive use of the ‘pink and fluffy’ stuff and the emotional subtext of our conversations.

Contracting for the internal coach – issues in coaching

The complexity of the role of the internal coach hit home to me again last week. I was talking to Derek –not his real name — a newly appointed internal coach who was struggling with the many competing demands on his time and the conflicting ‘pulls’ he was experiencing from different stakeholders.

To me this all came back to contracting – the practice of clarifying upfront what can be expected of the coach and the coaching relationship. Rightly, this is given emphasis in the external coaching world, with subsequent problems often tracked back to a failure to contract adequately. However contracting can often be underplayed in the organisational context where it can be assumed that roles are clear or conversations about ‘ways of working’ unnecessary.

Derek’s life would have been simpler if it were just one client he had to worry about – his problem was that he had not one but multiple clients – his coachees, his boss, his divisional Director, the HRD etc… you get the picture. None of these agreed or indeed were very clear about what they needed of Derek and his role was in danger of becoming confused with the line manager or worse…some sort of organisational stealth police. Not good and can be avoided with some honest conversations upfront.

Here’s some ‘how to’ advice on contracting – click here for more info.

Response-ability: developing the pause ‘muscle’

Driving home the other night I witnessed a hilarious and simultaneously alarming instance of road rage. Cut up by another driver, I watched an aggrieved motorist get out of his car and beat the bonnet* of his persecutor’s car with his hat, whilst roaring his displeasure. A very ‘Basil Fawlty’ moment – spleen was vented but not a lot else was accomplished.

This reminded me about the value of the pause – the ability to stop, take stock and choose our response to a given situation – response-ability if you like. Instead of operating on ‘automatic pilot’ triggered by an event or situation we can engage the rational part of our mind long enough to make a more considered response. We may still choose to beat the bonnet but at least we are choosing not reacting.

The ‘pause’ is therefore central to our EQ and is a muscle we need to develop especially for stressful times. Peter Senge** has a very useful exercise called ‘Moments of Awareness’ which you can use to build your ‘pause’ muscle. It goes like this:

Pause and ask yourself:

What is happening right now?
What do I want right now?
What am I doing right now to stop me getting what I want?

Make a choice.
Take a breath ….. move on

* Translation: Car bonnet = Car hood
** Senge, P. et al (1994) The fifth discipline fieldbook, London: Nicholas Brearley Publishing Ltd, pp216-8.

Trust – the new engagement?

What creates engagement? This seems to be the Holy Grail question at the moment, as business and industry search for ever more creative ways to improve the scores on the annual engagement survey.

What we do know is that the relationship between manager and subordinate is key. If you don’t get on with your boss then the chances are you won’t be as engaged as you could be at work. All the sophisticated reward and recognition schemes devised by HR are fighting an uphill battle in their attempt to win over the hearts and minds of the workforce if the leader-team relationship has gone sour.

Key to the manager- subordinate relationship to me is ‘Trust’ – does the manager display genuine trust in their team or are they merely waiting to catch their team doing something wrong? Is the team member hanging on to ancient grievances about their boss, waiting for the moment when they can re-enact them, and prove to themselves once more that the manager is out to get them.

Trust is not something we typically talk about at work – but like all relationships is the bed rock of how we get on with folks. So maybe we should talk less about engagement at work and find the courage to do something about trust.