In evaluating feedback from 3 levels of decision-making (CEOs, managers and workers) on the “most important” qualities and skills a CEO should possess, some five groups of results are in total opposition:
1) team-building skills (71% of chief executives and only 22% of workers stressed
that quality as “important”);
2) technical competence (the extreme opposite situation – 72% of workers and only
7% of chief executives believe this quality to be important);
3) respect to subordinates and tactful behavior (51% of workers and only 21% of
executives);
4) conflict resolution skills (33% of workers and only 14% of executives) and
5) imposing, solid appearance (26% of workers and 14% of executives)
This suggests that the perceived image of the ideal CEO by workers and middle managers is different: ‘their’ CEO should be a rather ‘soft’ generalist with solid knowledge of both finance and operations, and able to evaluate individual worker performance.
2. In the context of continuous turbulent markets and a painful transition from centralized to decentralized economy, the transitional economies are facing the question on the quality of their human resources and most importantly, of their leaders. One of the possible answers, besides institutionalized/government or regional sponsored programs of leadership promotion and development is the executive coaching process. Estimates show that around 250,000 people have benefited from executive coaching since its inception as a profession in 1980 and in the last couple of years the number of people using these services doubled. What is the essence of Executive Coaching?
In a single metaphoric sentence: “Give a man a fish and he’ll eat it in a day. Learn him to fish and he’ll find food all life long”.
Executive coaching is a one-on-one partnership to develop between a qualified coach and a person willing to engage in a series of dynamic, confidential sessions, which trace a profound connection at the level of values, principles and vision. It can lead to extraordinary results through the process of discovery and planning of objectives through specific stages. Generally speaking, people have already answers, but cannot express or conceptualize them so a coach’s main task is to ‘ask questions’.
Executive coaching is a science, a technology as well as a relationship builder with others, focused on the human potential development. It is a process to enrich the coachee as well as the coach. Most coaching engagements are intended to help managers make progress on specific developmental needs. EC can have specific targets:
- Manage specific behavioral changes one may want to pursue
- Leverage strengths to improve work efficiency
- Identify development needs
- Improve leadership style; develop, articulate or renew a vision in a organization
- Develop skills to take on an executive position or embrace new responsibilities
- Develop skills to be able to manage across geographic, demographic or cultural frontiers
- Improve idea implementation, the art of influencing others, building and leading teams
Also, the recent organizational hierarchical and functional changes (flatter organizations, employees empowerment to independent work and increased use of cross-functional and project teams) have triggered the interest for in-house coaching: the ability to provide feedback on an individual’s performance whilst supporting the person to reach full potential. Coaching can build self-sufficiency, engender trust, confidence, all of them enhancing the individual and ultimately, the organization’s performance.
What the Executive Coaching is not?
Executive coaching is not teaching, training, facilitating, therapy, mentorship, strategic or career consulting.
Limitations of the Executive Coaching process
Coaching is about success, about recognizing opportunities and realizing possibilities. Through coaching one can accelerate learning and progress in the most desired direction to follow. Coaching is about one’s willingness to self-improvement. So the most important asset to a coaching engagement is the receptivity to new ideas and openness to different ways of tackling problems/solutions. Even with leaders engaging in the process, there are still limitations such as reluctance to behavioral change and unwillingness to admit a behavioral problem or ability to assess it objectively. What EC cannot do is fix all leadership problems. EC is not recommended if:
- the person is not willing, not confident or motivated (for himself or other people) to make a sincere effort to change; the person is not open to new behaviors/new ideas
- the person has been written-off by the company
- the person lacks either intelligence or functional skills on the job
- wrong strategy, direction, vision in a person
- the person lacks integrity or is unethical
Additionally, coaching benefits people if the coach is someone who gained deserved respect and from the part of coachee, if there is a positive attitude, understanding and readiness to get the most from the work with a coach.
3. Having already boomed in the USA, EC is at its beginning in Europe. Possible explanations for this development are the cultural obstacles to overcome, especially in transitional economies. Even if there is a growing interest and level of acceptance for EC, reluctance to the value and practical applicability of the process is still under close scrutiny.
Even if international organizations establish their subsidiaries around the world, because the service is flourishing (one example: the newly opened AIMS International office in Bucuresti and Timisoara) managers from transitional economies still view EC as a way to ‘fix’ something that goes wrong and sometimes confuse coaching for consulting or therapy. Another cultural obstacle is the way Europeans really are: somewhat more privy, less ready to share personal issues to others than Americans. Also, the relationship can be damaged if the coachee fights for controlling the coaching process, is defending/justifying past decisions/behavior, is reluctant to pass on the truth about a situation or is competing with the coach. Other obstacles are the worry about confidentiality as well as the unworkable relationships by not matching the background, personality and coaching style between the coach and coachee. This can lead to misconceptions and lack of confidence. The coach has to be comfortable himself/herself with the industry and have experience in dealing with that specific need.
A certain openness can be traced in large companies (examples from Romania: the development of a permanent “Career center” in one of the largest mobile companies, CONNEX, to deliver permanent coaching programs and professional assessment and development, and SOFTWIN, the largest Romanian software company, which has implemented numerous in-house and also, outsourced coaching programs aimed at developing the leadership process and retain values in house) but for the process of in-house coaching, obstacles can be found in the culture of the organization itself: managers can feel protective of their sense of status and expertise and not be willing to pass it on. Another issue is the management line responsibility of the coach over the coachee. What can be done is obtain openness to a flexible coaching style, adaptable to suit the level of confidence/competence of the coachee in a cascade-effect, from top down to the lowest level of an organization. This can develop respectful one-on-one relationships with final gain in improving rewarding, assessing and developing teams.
4. Coaching is designed to establish and achieve clear goals, which aim at business effectiveness both in terms of better individual performance and organizational change.
In any organizations, and especially with the larger ones, top management is more than often a lonely business. Leaders often lack accurate feedback and might not be able to relate hierarchically downstream to obtain the recommendations for corrective action or simply ‘open up’ to colleagues to obtain that feedback. In this context, EC is a tool for personal leadership development.
As seen before, in transitional economies where leadership still centers around the authoritative style (with certain flavors of consultative) the feedback and need for behavioral change is needed more than ever. The only obstacle is the managers’ vision on EC by itself since they often perceive it as simple therapy, consulting and not as a leadership competency builder. As a powerful development tool, coaching has the capacity to motivate, focus leaders and fire-up from down to top entire organizations.
And I see here not only the value of coaching a top leader, but having coaching programs to start leadership development involving all managers at each level of an organization and obtain the ‘coach the coach’ format i.e. learn how to coach others. In this way a transformational change can take place in the organization by leveraging coaching at each level. Here are several direct organizational benefits to be obtained in the process: faster innovation and results; improved efficiency in recruiting, development and retaining valuable employees in the organization; developing of a powerful organizational culture and implementation of a vision throughout the company; better responsibility triggering in each employee vis-à-vis of creating a vision of the company and improving the decision process; improved communication and team efficiency throughout organization; building responsibility for a company’s success at each and every level in the organization.
REFERENCES:
Gurkov, Igor (1998): “Leadership in Russian Industries: Mutual Expectations, Requirements and Claims during Systemic Crisis”, paper presented at the 1st International Workshop on the Transition and Enterprise Restructuring in Eastern Europe, <http://www.cbs.dk/centres/cees/network/pdf/Gurkov.PDF>
Liuhto, Kari (1998): “The Transformation of The Management Effectiveness in The Post-Soviet Enterprises”, paper presented at the 1st International Workshop on Transition and Enterprise Restructuring in Eastern Europe, Center For East European Studies, Copenhagen Business School, August 20 - 22 1998, <www.cbs.dk/centres/cees/network/pdf/Liuhto.pdf>
Mario Buble & Marinko Markie (1998): “Leadership Styles in Small Enterprises of a Transition Country: an Empirical Research in Bosnia and Herzegovina” <http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/Research/1998/ICSB/d001.htm>
Wulf, Torsten (2002): “Managerial Challenges in Transitional Economies”, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg <http://www.hhl.de/en/files/ HHL_Managerial_Challenges_Part3.pdf>
Perianu, Mihaela (2003): “Executive Coaching”, AIMS Human Capital, General Manager <http://www.cariereonline.ro/no7/articol2.htm>
“What is Executive Coaching, Anyway” (CCL, 2001), “Customized Coaching Options Enhance Development of Individuals and Organizations” (CCL’s Update), “Executive Coaching- Overview”, “Coaching: A European Perspective” (CCL, 2002), “Executive Coaching: A Guru’s View” (CCL, 2001), “Who should it be? What to look for in a Coach?” (CCL, 2003), “When You’re the Coach: Advice from Marshall Goldsmith” (CCL, 2001), “Coaching’s coming home”, Center for Creative Leadership <http://www.ccl.org>
“Cum sa inveti si sa muncesti din placere”, Capital newspaper 12 Aprilie 2001, no. 15 <http://www.capital.ro>
“Career Management”, AIESEC Bucuresti, http://fwd.aiesec.ro
Mario Buble & Marinko Markie (1998) “Leadership Styles in Small Enterprises of a Transition Country: an Empirical Research in Bosnia and Herzegovina”
Igor Gurkov (1998) “Leadership in Russian Industries: Mutual Expectations, Requirements and Claims during Systemic Crisis”, paper presented at the 1st International Workshop on the Transition and Enterprise