Summary of "STUPIDLY SIMPLE COACHING IDEAS"

Back in the good old days, Scott Simmerman had posted the following message to readers of the Training and Development Listserve - TRDEV.

==============================================================

Coaching - there has been a lot written about it and some of the experts have made the models pretty complicated, and thus expensive - "certification required."

At the same time, it's obvious that there are a lot of simple approaches that work well, don't cost much, are readily accepted and that generate behavior change.

For example, the simple reframe of ASKING the other person what they might do differently as opposed to TELLING them what they should do is much more effective in generating active involvement and commitment.

If people will share ideas and practical approaches to this, I'll most happily summarize this back to the list in a couple of weeks. These can be posts to the list or private posts to me, as you prefer.

BTW, my own approach is to show an illustration to the team, get the group's involvement and then later approach an individual and ask for their personal ideas about what they might do to improve their performance. The cartoon serves to set up a positive language of future results based on the recognition that the current behavior works, but could be improved.

We all know that there are so many good ideas within the TRDEV list -- how about sharing some of them,


Here are the responses we received, with the authors listed at the top. If anything, only a bit of reformatting was done to make the comments more readable:


From Mike Robinson, Triad Consulting <MRobinson_8@compuserve.com>:

I tell bosses the first steps toward Empowerment are just that, "asking what a person would do instead of telling them the answer."

Since many 'bosses' are former do'ers, (and often good at doing), they tend to backslide into doing again...so we define their new roles and mission (very Covey-esque)... and I keep on them about their activities with this delegation.

Is doing the BEST (not just good) use of their time? Does it move them toward accomplishing THEIR personal mission? The answer is generally (or always!) "No." and it gets them to look more closely at how they can change their personal behavior to support the improvement of others.

This is not rocket science -- it just gets them to "step back from the wagon" and see the obvious, which is a first step in the improvement of their own performance.

 


From Donna Lummis <dlummis@TOWSON.EDU>

As a manager, I have often marveled at one simple coaching technique that works wonders. Focusing on what was done well. I always start a coaching session this way. Tell me what you did well. It is often difficult for people to focus on this, but I make them stick with it without immediately jumping to what they did "wrong". And, of course, I have positive reinforcements to share with them from my observations. This helps create a foundation for exploring what they would do different next time. (Followed by a role-play, but that's a whole different post.)

Something simple, but powerful.

Donna Lummis
Technology Training Manager
Computing and Network Services @ Towson University
Phone: (410) 830-4130 Fax: (410) 830-2661

 

"The virtue of a computer in the classroom is that it requires a user, not a watcher."

- Diane Ravitch

 


from Ailsa Turrell <ailsat@netspeed.com.au>

I think the most important things are:

to put the focus on helping people improve future performance rather than their poor past performance.

to ask questions rather than tell them the answers and to listen to the answers so that you know what questions to ask next.

to get them to practise until they feel comfortable and confident.

to encourage them to be self aware and to take responsibility for their own behaviour and decisions.

to help them see that they have more than one option.

to ask them what they are going to do, when, how, whether that will help them meet their goal, what help they will need, who from, what problems they may encounter, how they will overcome them, etc.

Hope this helps. I look forward to seeing your summary.

Ailsa Turrell - Canberra, Australia

ailsat@netspeed.com.au and ailsa.turrell@hic.gov.au

 


From John Sleigh <jsleigh@ENTERNET.COM.AU>

I have been involved in the design of new employee induction programs for coal miners and have developed them using the following model:

I ask all of the department heads and supervisors (I think of them as influencers) to come up with an idea that if it were implemented would make their job significantly easier.

I don't use Subject Matter Experts or coaches or any other terminology, the aim is simply to introduce new employees to a foreign environment.

When the influencers have come up with their ideas, I help them package it into a 30 minute or one hour session, which they then deliver. I co-ordinated the program on site for the first 200 employees over two years and there was no difficulty getting the involvement of the influencers. When I left it was neatly packaged so that it could continue as needed. By that time the initial recruitment was complete, so subsequent use of that package was expected to be minimal.

However, the system was then used for safety talks

The objectives are:

To make the influencers think about their job, and how it could be made easier

To introduce the new employees to the influencers in a setting other than "Meet the Boss"

To raise the profile of key performance issues.

At one start up operation (BHP's Crinum Mine) the program developed into a three week long induction program with over 40 people providing information, integrated in the traditional orientation activities of site visits, hands on operator training and familiarization with procedures and operations.

That mine has achieved outstanding performance measures on safety, productivity and industrial relations by comparison with its neighbors, who draw from the same labor pool and operate under similar environmental and geological conditions.

As part of that program the management team comes over each Friday during the three weeks and asks the question: "what have you found out this week?" The unstructured conversation which follows has encouraged them to believe that this is the right approach.

So, Scott and list servers, my simple response to your question is: Encourage people who know stuff to tell others about it, and provide the mechanisms for it to be done well.

 

__/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/

Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum

I think I think,

therefore I think I am

__/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/ __/

 

John Sleigh
191 Stuart Street Blakehurst NSW 2221 Australia
Phone +61 2 9547 0713 Fax + 61 2 9547 0716

Email: johnsleigh@msn.com.au
Http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/JohnSleigh


From Sivasailam Thiagarajan <thiagi@THIAGI.COM>

Scott:

What a brilliant idea to collect elegant, parsimonious (aka Stupidly Simple) coaching ideas. Here's my two rupees' worth:

I use a quick-and-dirty human performance technology analysis. Working with the coachee, we figure out a whole set of reasons why the coachee is unable to deliver on commonly-agreed on goals. Then we sort them into environmental, motivational, and skill-knowledge causes for the performance deficit.

As the manager, I take responsibility for causes that are outside the coachee's control and within my control. After working out a "contract" on these, we move on to things that the coachee can control by adjusting his or her attitude and acquiring new skills and knowledge.

Thiagi
Sivasailam Thiagarajan
4423 East Trailridge Road
Bloomington, IN 47408
Telephone: 812.332.1478 FAX: 812.332.5701

e-mail: thiagi@thiagi.com
http://www.thiagi.com


From: Richard Pearlstein <PearlstR@USA.REDCROSS.ORG>

Folks,

This is a useful thread. I especially enjoyed Dr. Thiagarajan's "two rupees' worth." Thiagi, as manager, uses a quick HPT analysis, working with the coachee to analyze reasons for performance deficits. He contracts with the coachee, with the coachee owning responsibility for changes within his/her control, and he, the manager, owning responsibility for those not in the coachee's control.

Great idea and explanation, Thiagi!

One thing about Thiagi's suggestion puzzles me, though. He concluded:

>. . . we move on to things that the coachee can control by adjusting his
> or her attitude and acquiring new skills and knowledge.

I get the skill acquisition part, and I know how to help the coach/coachee work together on this. But, and I'm seriously playful here, Thiagi, how do you help with attitude adjustment? Moral suasion? Beer or other drugs? Really-oughta-wannas? Review of consequences for various kinds of behaviors possibly associated with various attitudes?

I will gladly pay Thiagi two shiny Delaware quarters for useful insights into attitude adjustment.

The above opinions are mine, and not necessarily my employer's, though they should be.

Rich Pearlstein, Ph.D.
Director, Training Performance Improvement
Charles Drew Biomedical Institute
American Red Cross


From R. John Howe <rjh@FENIX2.DOL-ESA.GOV>

Dear folks -

I'm lunching off Mr. Sleigh's response in this thread not at all to respond to his post but rather to offer some quite different thoughts about

coaching.

I've been reading a bit in cognitive psychology, which often distinguishes "declarative" knowledge, that which an exemplary performer can state on demand, from "procedural" knowledge and skill, the latter being of the more deeply internalized, second-nature type.

There seems some evidence that not only can exemplary performers not describe accurately what they are doing while performing at the procedural level but attempts to do so actually lower the level of performance in some areas.

These theoretical distinctions and the research findings based on them suggest to me that:

1. We should be cautious about adopting learning designs heavily reliant on coaching. It may be that coaches don't have all that much access to their repertoire, especially at deeper skill levels.

2. When we do so, we should make sure the coach stays closer to the doing (demonstration) than to the telling. Or better yet that the demonstration is followed quickly by learner efforts to emulate that the coach then critiques. (Although these critiques too might well be suspect in procedural skill areas.)

Those are my two "stupidly simple" contributions to this thread.

R. John Howe
Chief, Branch of Training and Development
Employment Standards Administration
U.S. Department of Labor
Washington, D.C.


From: Robert Bacal <rbacal@ESCAPE.CA>

 R. John Howe wrote:

Dear folks -

I'm lunching off Mr. Sleigh's response in this thread not at all to respond to his post but rather to offer some quite different thoughts about coaching.

I've been reading a bit in cognitive psychology, which often distinguishes "declarative" knowledge, that which an exemplary performer can state on demand, from "procedural" knowledge and skill, the latter being of the more deeply internalized, second-nature type.

 

My understanding is that procedural knowledge is not necessarily internalized as you say. It becomes so over time so it depends where we are in the learning/performance curve. What happens is that over time the behaviors in a chain of action (procedural knowledge) get chunked together to become one "piece". In addition we tend to lose the unnecessary verbal descriptors of the "procedures". That's because we are limited capacity processors, and our brains automatically strive to reduce complexity and processing load.

There seems some evidence that not only can exemplary performers not describe accurately what they are doing while performing at the procedural level but attempts to do so actually lower the level of performance in some areas.

Absolutely. I do a little experiment in my classes to demonstrate this. Have people write their regular signature. Then get them with their pens ready and ask them to write their regular signatures, but dropping out every second letter. Try it.

These theoretical distinctions and the research findings based on them suggest to me that:

1. We should be cautious about adopting learning designs heavily reliant on coaching. It may be that coaches don't have all that much access to their repertoire, especially at deeper skill levels.

Not an accurate conclusion. It is difficult to deconstruct procedural knowledge but it can be done and is done. Some people, though simply CAN'T, probably most of us cannot in some domains but can in others. That's one reason why working with SME's can be so difficult.

 

2. When we do so, we should make sure the coach stays closer to the doing (demonstration) than to the telling. Or better yet that the demonstration is followed quickly by learner efforts to emulate that the coach then critiques. (Although these critiques too might well be suspect in procedural skill areas.)

 

Generally, demonstration without "cueing" (that's explaining what the person should be watching/paying attention to), is very inefficient. The ideal is BOTH. That's one reason why I do not believe that trainers can train properly unless they have advanced knowledge, procedural and otherwise, and are able to deconstruct their knowledge, translate it back into words, explain it, etc.


From Toni Dougherty, <doughertyt@comcell.com>

There seems some evidence that not only can exemplary performers not describe accurately what they are doing while performing at the procedural level but attempts to do so actually lower the level of performance in some areas.

These theoretical distinctions and the research findings based on them suggest to me that:

1. We should be cautious about adopting learning designs heavily reliant on coaching. It may be that coaches don't have all that much access to their repertoire, especially at deeper skill levels.

2. When we do so, we should make sure the coach stays closer to the doing (demonstration) than to the telling.

Interesting thought. Coaching new sales reps is the responsibility of everyone in our Telemarketing department and they often do this with Observation and one on one. But I found when I was selling that listening to a rep serepticiously gained me more insight on what they did well, than sitting next to them or having them tell me. I use to think that Top performers didn't want to give up their secrets because that would compromise them and maybe result in unwanted competition.

When I talk about serepticious listening I don't mean monitoring as is often used by Supervisors here. I would sit at my desk within ear shot of the top performer and watch and listen to what they did. Try and pick up key phrases and incorporate them into my presentation. Watch actions. Note short cuts. In Telemarketing time is money.

I haven't yet been able to incorporate this idea in an organized manner into the training of new reps because once it is incorporated it looses its effectiveness. I would like to develop the skill within the sales force to develop the ability to constantly reevaluate what they are doing and to look around themselves to pick out the best skills of the best sales people without picking out the bad skills. In other words Self Coaching. Actually a better way to learn.

Any ideas on how to incorporate serepticious learning without giving up the secret of what is trying to be accomplished?

I have tried to incorporate check lists with specific sales situations or skills ( see Linda Richardson's book called "Sales Coaching, Making the Great Leap from Sales Manager to Sales Coach" I use an altered version of the Sales Critique Checklist.) and asked the new trainees to look for these skills in their observations even go over the sheets with the reps they are observing to suggest ideas. We then discuss after observation what they have seen. This isn't so much to get the ideas but to try and incorporate the skill of observation and self coaching. It really hasn't worked for me. Maybe because the trainees are too new to the situation and are so overwhelmed with the overall training, self coaching is the last thing on their mind. Or maybe as John Howe indicated the sales reps are not capable of verbalizing what they do successfully.

Sorry getting too wordy here. I'll stop now and see if anyone else has a suggestion on how to accomplish this.

Toni Dougherty *
doughertyt@comcell.com

"A salesman is one who sell goods that won't come back to customers who will".


From Carter McNamara <mcnam007@TC.UMN.EDU>

This topic is wonderful! It reminds me that, for many techniques, 20% of the effort can glean 80% of results. A very useful outcome of this "rule" is that "stupidly simple" techniques are usually very accessible to clients -- that is, clients can adopt the basic techniques themselves, thereby savings a great deal of money and using the techniques often as they need.

When Reginald Revans' developed the action learning process (generally a peer-coaching process) about 50 years ago, he kept very high priority on keeping the process straightforward and accessible. He often expressed concern that practitioners would add numerous and subtle aspects to the action learning process (including renaming the process, associating trademarks, etc.), thereby mystifying the process and making clients dependent on high-priced consultants -- and insidiously disempowering clients from the having confidence to conduct action learning groups themselves.


From: Steve Ewing <sjewing@CYBERUS.CA>

Subject: Re: Stupidly Simple Coaching Ideas

I agree with R. John Howe's comments that exemplary performers do not always describe accurately what they do and have a couple of concrete examples.

While showing the employees at a paper mill how to do task analysis we documented an expert's description on how to dismantle a complex machine. To assemble the machine the expert said you just did the steps in reverse. We then stepped through the operation and it became very evident that this would result in major damage, as there were significant differences in the assembly order. The expert was part of the team and realized that, while he did the job properly, he had always thought of it as the same steps "backwards".

In a second example we were doing task analysis on the overhaul requirements for a military vehicle and found that the best approach was to pair an expert vehicle mechanic with a training developer. (She declared her level of competence came from reading "Auto repairs for Dummies".) To check the procedure she had to carryout it out herself. As a result she continually questioned the mechanic whenever his procedural steps didn't make sense to her. The resultant task analysis was extremely effective and the rough videotape we used to record their analysis was subsequently used by the military trade school to develop lesson plans for their basic trades training. The expert analysis was incomplete because there were many steps that he just did automatically. A case of "everyone knows they have to do that". As many of us have learned at great cost you cannot "assume" the student knows

-----Original Message-----

(edited version of John's post)

There seems some evidence that not only can exemplary performers not describe accurately what they are doing while performing at the procedural level but attempts to do so actually lower the level of performance in some areas.

We should make sure the coach stays closer to the doing (demonstration) than to the telling. Or better yet that the demonstration is followed quickly by learner efforts to emulate that the coach then critiques. (Although these critiques too might well be suspect in procedural skill areas.)

R. John Howe


This is a response from the Teamnet listserve that also seemed relevant and I got Denton's permission to post herein:

From Denton Hess <dithm13@xprt.net>

In response to Scott Simmerman's question:

> How do we address, in a positive and supportive way, the people on our teams in need of improvement? Any "stupidly simple coaching tricks" or similar?

 

Check out the http://www.lifeatwork.com/journal/article.html?id=91 article (Note: active link deleted - it stopped working).

Sometimes with individuals you just have to take 2-3 hours several times and talk and talk until you get the problems resolved and bring them around. I think it is important to NOT make ultimatums with people you want to keep around. It is all to easy to escalate a conversation to end in an argument. Take your time and just keep trying to talk it out. Change the subject a few times if you have to (like Columbo), and when the tension is gone, return to the problem areas. Use tact. Perhaps the following may give you some fresh ideas as well:

Another problem area is idle complaining. Someone, and I don't know who to credit, said, "Bitching is America's number one pass time". As teams we need to nip this complete waste of time in the bud. Sometimes you need to blow off steam by complaining, but it is important to use the opportunity to find a solution to the problem.

As an introduction, my group is a high tech, week end night shift equipment maintenance group. The main things we do are:

We constantly strive to build solid professional relationships within our immediate team, coworkers, and vendors (inclusion of vendors is vital to your success). As the Lead, I do this by continually having group discussions in our Weekly Team Meetings concerning how we are going to improve our solid professional relationships (inside and outside of the company), create excellent communication, and improve our organizational processes (the procedures we use to get our work done and secure resources). We also have instant huddles as the need arises. Anyone within my group can call a huddle. We present the problem and let the team figure it out. All ideas that we light on as a group get disseminated in my weekly passdown to my immediate group and the management layer above us.

The first topic (and in my opinion the most important) in everyone of my weekly reports is MORALE. After some soul searching I determined it to be the number one problem of my group, and I doggedly attack the roots of this problem with my team every work day.

According to http://www.teamresources.com/ , there are six components you have to have to have a high performance Team, (which in my opinion implies good morale):

1. Common Purpose

2. Clear Rolls

3. Accepted Leadership

4. Effective Processes

5. Solid Relationships

6. Excellent communication.

 

When I inherited my group, I found that the first 3 things on the list were ok, but the last three were real problem areas, in fact they just stunk. We went to work hard on them.

In the area of solid relationships:

1) We make a point of complimenting each other when someone has done a nice effort.

2) We agreed to hang grumpy attitudes at the door instead of our brains.

3) We talk as respectfully as possible to all those around us.

Some of the things we have come up with in the area of improving communication:

1) We Include vendors in emails where we discuss problems we are having with their equipment and we make sure we include all persons who have any kind of stewardship or ownership, in the communication.

2) We maintain an industry contact list with Emails, phone numbers, and FAX numbers, along with internal resources in the company we can call on at reasonable hours.

I shared the Team Resources chart with my group and we went to work on areas 4, 5, and 6, about 3 months ago. For our efforts, we as a group went from being the weakest, poorest producing shift to the strongest shift and blew management's expectations about us right out of the water, . We now enjoy respect and admiration from our co-workers and it is only getting better with time. As a byproduct we are instilling better morale on the other shifts by encouraging the above from them. We have agreed that we have the responsibility to be good examples to everyone around us, and that we live in a fish bowl and that nothing we do goes unnoticed.

Since my immediate group is a Service organization by nature I have found the customer service tips at: (this link no longer works - sorry),

to be helpful. I would encourage you to check these sites out. . The results of my teams work have been most gratifying. It is a pleasure to go to work. Communication is much improved, better relationships are becoming the norm, there is much less apathy, and a esprit de corps has developed which is wonderful to be involved in.

 

"What the loss of my eyes had not accomplished was brought on by fear."

- Jacques Lusseyran

 

"Addicts learn only how to protect their addictions."

- Tom Hueurman

 

Until the Day, Denton Hess

 

- ----- Original Message -----

Subject: From "E-word" to Coaching

How do we address, in a positive and supportive way, the people on our teams in need of improvement? Any "stupidly simple coaching tricks" or similar?

 


From Hill Kemp, formerly at www.coreroi.com

Note: This is a reposting of an item I put up on Teamnet a few weeks ago you requested. I will post it again to Teamnet. If so I apologize in advance for the dual post.

I have been brainstorming on the internet and elsewhere about the characteristics that distinguish an ideal, successful coach from others in a work group population. The list below is a compilation of that brainstorming. The list is in no particular order.

The list in total can seem to describe some kind of coaching "superstar". That is not the intent. By being exhaustive in listing key descriptors, it can help the selection process but more importantly, establish areas where any particular candidate might need to develop, train or grow as a coach. The 'coachee' can be an individual and/or a team.

Key descriptors of an IDEAL, SUCCESSFUL coach:

1. Self-Aware - knows their own style/approach well enough to filter their own responses and keep focused on their coachee's needs.

2. A passion to help others learn, grow, and perform.

3. Competent (versus necessarily expert) on the work content.

4. Exercises and encourages a disciplined approach to the work.

5. Trustworthy - has integrity and can be trusted with the vulnerabilities of the coachee.

6. Motivator/Inspirer - can evoke commitment and energy in others.

7. Persistence - able to persist with questions that move the coachee to discover their own inherent capabilities.

8. Patience. Although closely related to persistence, patience is different in that the coach has to be willing to and has to create the necessary space to let the person being coached develop at his/her capabilities and motivational level.

9. Willing to take a 'back seat' on the coachee's accomplishments.

10. Vision Driven- able to be guided by vision on two levels: the long-term view, based on an assessment of capabilities, of who the coachee can become and the short-term view of the right next steps/challenges to move them forward today.


From Ken Coleman <kec9003@cpmc3.cpmc.columbia.edu>

Hey, Scott,

A colleague and I just designed and implemented a short coaching course for managers here at the Hospital. We relied on several role plays but we also tried to place coaching in a context by comparing it with "traditional" managing and with other interventions such as therapy, consulting and training. We also noted that coaching does not work for everyone in every situation.

One of our watchwords during the course was:

Coaching focuses on forward movement, not backward blame. We also tried to get the participants to move away from asking, "why."

Certainly, coaching lasers in on behavior. At the same time I'm not sure that the coach has to step around the coachee's values and past experiences. To the contrary, coaching helps the coachee access his or her own values, experiences, etc. The trick for the coach, then, is to "use" the coachee's values and experiences in the pursuit of improved performance, stronger leadership, better communication, whatever.

Looking forward to the archive.

Ken Coleman
Organizational Effectiveness Specialist
Office of Organizational Learning
NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital
622 West 168th Street
PH2, Room 222
New York, NY 10032
(212) 342-2123

 

 

That concludes the comments and reactions to the initial post.


Here are some other ideas collected in the past that might be of relevance -- they are as gathered and free of encumberances:

 

Coaching Best Practices

Important Problems include no accountability, desired behavior is not reinforced and managers talking about coaching but not doing a good job of it themselves.

There must be ownership. As Scott Simmerman says, "Nobody ever washes a rental car." Senior managers must be actively and visibly involved in the implementation and maintenance in order for them to support it. They must also see a value in improving their human capital investment.

Performance change is more likely when there is "Pain By Instruments" for not changing. Examples used were 360 degree feedback, comparison to norms and competencies, management objectives being changed, etc.

A mentor is a coach on proficiencies or a resource to find someone who is proficient on a particular skill or competency

Have people develop specific action plans for implementation and do followup on those plans.

Add a section on coaching to your compensation program's performance management package - make it one of the evaluated objectives

One company did one on one coaching among the 300 top managers - each was paired with another person in the top team and they worked on coaching and mentoring each other

 

From Gregg Blake -

The Five Principles of Coaching

· Provide support to others

· Listen and respond with empathy

· Ask for help and assistance

· Share thoughts and feelings and rationale

· Maintain self-esteem

Note: this is from a hospital system and spells out PLASMa

 

Focus on communications and implementation. Don't just talk about coaching in the classroom but package a program that has followup built in. One proven idea was to set up an on-line coaching system to share ideas, successes, approaches and problems. It operated almost like a list-serve and was designed to generate interactivity.Get senior management actively involved and not just supporting the program financially. Have them involved in the training and not just giving the introductory speech. Get them involved in followup and in recognition of improvements.

Measure the impacts of the coaching by aligning it with corporate objectives and goals. Set up effective feedback systems.

Combine the coaching with systems thinking and/or performance management approaches so that participants are potentially changing the way things work instead of simply expecting different results with no significant changes in goals, expectations, feedback or rewards.

Have each coaching trainee assigned to a coaching mentor who has successfully demonstrated the desired behaviors. Make this a one-on-one situation with some reporting to top management.

Include coaching in your checklists of core competencies and behaviors. Do this by job areas or job levels.

Give people an outside viewpoint and objectivity to the program and its impacts. Have participants see another company's impacts and performance improvement opportunities.

Be sure that people truly understand the economic and productivity impacts of coaching improved performance. They often do not understand the Big Picture.

Do "Inside Out Coaching"

Not telling but Asking

Focus on growing people as human capital

Getting ideas from them

Multi-Rater feedback can provide good feedback - something must be done with the data though, positively and forward-looking

Coaching top management is difficult from the inside

There exist levels of coaching

normally done tops down

talking to coaching to confrontation

peer to peer - generate workplace support

Bottoms-up feedback can be influencing but difficult to do

needs rapport

positive supportive environment

culture of organization is important

 

Two-on-One Coaching

personality styles linked

mentoring

facilitation fit

fit for today

fir for tomorrow

future oriented

 

Develop a checklist

encouraged to explain the situation

GENERATE A LONG-TERM VIEW

excellent, experienced coaches desired

help them to see the light from various viewpoints - personal growth, family impacts, etc.

peer counseling and coaching as a starting point

identify goals and values

 

Focus on the coaching rather than the coachee

design and train in skills and influencing process

discuss how to be coached and set the stage

discuss different techniques for upward and downward coaching

Break down the barriers to coaching and to performance improvement

Technique -

choose

articulate the principles

model the behavior

have trainees apply the techniques

Choose coaching clients carefully - are they the right ones?

Set up key criteria - Blue Sheet and identify missing items, what to do, checklists and provide the various tools to generate pattern interruption and new behaviors of the coaches.

-----------------------

 

From: Simon Priest <spriest@ups.edu>

MANAGERIAL COMPETENCIES

(cross posted to multiple lists -- to avoid bounce backs, please check that your response is made only to lists to which you are subscribed -- thanks)

Most of the responses I received to my request "What are the Key MANAGERIAL competencies" seemed to be about semantics (and so I'll address my use of terms first). I offered to share my list of 56 generic ones with folks who shared their ideas with me/us. Lots of people asked for my list without offering any ideas of their own and a few willingly gave some ideas. Thanks for the latter!

So here it is (while the company CEO gave me permission to share this list,

I can't go into great detail about individual competencies on it -- sorry):

MANAGERIAL = any function of "handling" tasks or relationships in the role of manager, leader, or follower. This term does not just mean manager.

COMPETENCY = any skill, knowledge, attitude, behavior, confidence, ability, or experience used to effectively deal with the demands placed on people by their surrounding [work] environments.

GENERIC = useful, perhaps even critically important, to any person in the organization who has a managerial role/task or relationship (from executive to frontline -- these aren't just for middle managers).

Please note that these 56 were right for the corporation studied * (an EXTREMELY functional and relationship oriented company), but other organizations have had longer and shorter competency lists.

 

THINKING

Expanding memory capacity

Critically evaluating data

Looking for problems

Solving problems analytically

Innovating through creativity

Making decisions

Judging under uncertainty

 

COMMUNICATING

Writing

Presenting

Public Speaking

Actively Listening

Clarifying Messages

Giving Feedback

Receiving Feedback

 

MANAGING

Time

Meetings and discussions

Projects and priorities

Finances and budgets

Hiring and staffing

Leveraging technology

Disseminating information

 

LEADING

Flexing style

Resolving conflicts

Working from service perspective

Interpreting the vision

Setting new directions

Planning strategy

Leading by example

 

CHANGING

Dealing with ambiguity

Coping with complexity

Supervising multi-systems

Understanding drivers and politics

Identifying global and local trends

Being a catalyst for change

Willingness to take sensible risks

 

DEVELOPING TEAMS

Understanding group development

Fostering team building

Utilizing diversity

Debriefing experience

Celebrating success

Handling team alterations

Planning for input

 

DEVELOPING OTHERS

Appraising performance

Coaching and mentoring

Adjusting for varied learning styles

Not blaming

Guiding reflection

Offering and asking for assistance

Preparing others for change

 

DEVELOPING SELF

Caring for personal needs

Balancing work and life

Being self-directed and self-motivated

Having awareness of own personal styles

Planning own performance improvements

Disclosing non-negotiables

Improving interaction with others

 

I would add another 7 for FACILITATION (making 63).

Has anyone out there got any more to offer at this time?

What's missing? Thanks for sharing.... 

* Due to the ethics of research, the name of the organization studied must remain confidential. Due to the proprietary nature of this list, I am not permitted to publicly explain any competencies. Thanks for understanding.

REGARDS! Simon.


Please note that the email links for some of the people who have contributed to this list may no longer work. Apologies for that. Square Wheels are everywhere!

For the FUN of It!

Scott J. Simmerman, Ph.D.

 


back to
Coaching Ideas Main Page

back to Performance Management Company Home Page