Tag Archives: Coaching

Pygmalion Effect – A Leader’s Attitude and Expectation Set the Tone

In the book, Extreme Ownership, Leif Babin (a U.S. Navy SEAL officer who was a SEAL instructor overseeing the Junior Officer Training Course in the Naval Special Warfare Training Center) shared a story about the performances of two boat crews during Hell Week. Boat Crew II (which dominated and had a strong leader) and Boat Crew VI (which came in last in almost every race and had an indifferent and inexperienced leader). A SEAL senior chief officer (one of the SEAL instructors) suggested that they swap out the boat crew leaders from the best and worst crews and see what happens. The turnaround was stunning: “Boat Crew VI, the same team in the same circumstances only under new leadership, went from the worst boat crew in the class to the best” (Willink & Babin, 2017, p. 48-49).

As Babin wrote (Willink & Babin, 2017, p. 49): “How is it possible that switching a single individual—only the leader—had completely turned around the performance of an entire group? The answer: leadership is the single greatest factor in any team’s performance. Whether a team succeeds or fails is all up to the leader. The leader’s attitude sets the tone for the entire team. The leader drives performance—or doesn’t. And this applies not just to the most senior leader of an overall team, but to the junior leaders of teams within the team.”

This is a classic example of the Pygmalion Effect. 

The APA Dictionary of Psychology (VandenBos, 2007) defines Pygmalion effect as: “a consequence or reaction in which the expectations of a leader or superior engender behavior from followers or subordinates that is consistent with these expectations: a form of self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, raising manager expectations of the performance of subordinate employees has been found to enhance the performance of those employees” (p. 868).

“The idea here is that if an employee feels that a manager has confidence in him, his self-esteem will increase, as will his performance” (Aamodt, 2010, p. 330). Indeed, leaders often get the performance they expect from their employees.

In a classic Harvard Business Review article (originally published in 1969, reprinted in 1988), Livingston wrote (1988, p. 122): 

  • What managers expect of subordinates and the way they treat them largely determine their performance and career progress.
  • A unique characteristic of superior managers is the ability to create high performance expectations that subordinates fulfill.
  • Less effective managers fail to develop similar expectations, and as a consequence, the productivity of their subordinates suffers.
  • Subordinates, more often than not, appear to do what they believe they are expected to do.

“[S]uperior managers have greater confidence than other managers in their own ability to develop the talents of their subordinates” (Livingston, 1988, p. 126). Superior managers don’t give up on themselves and they definitely do not give up easily on their subordinates (Livingston, 1988).

“Managers not only shape the expectations and productivity of subordinates but also influence their attitudes toward their jobs and themselves. If managers are unskilled, they leave scars on the careers of young people, cut deeply into their self-esteem, and distort their image of themselves as human beings. But if they are skillful and have high expectations, subordinates’ self-confidence will grow, their capabilities will develop, and their productivity will be high” (Livingston, 1988, p. 130).

Takeaway: Leadership is, singularly, the most crucial factor in a team’s performance. What managers expect of their subordinates and the way they treat them significantly determine their performance and career progress. Superior managers create high performance expectations that subordinates fulfill. The best managers have confidence in themselves and in their ability to develop the talents of their subordinates.

Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership Development Advisor

References

Aamodt, M. G. (2010). Industrial/organizational psychology: An applied approach (6th ed.). Wadsworth.

Livingston, J. S. (1969/1988). Pygmalion in management. Harvard Business Review, 66(5), 121-130.

VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2007). APA dictionary of psychology. American Psychological Association.

Willink, J., & Babin, L. (2017). Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs Lead and Win. St. Martin’s Press.

Coaching vs. Therapy – Referring Coaching Clients with Mental Illness

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal, titled “Executive Coach or Therapist? It’s Getting Harder to Tell the Difference” (Bindley, 2019) again renews the debate about the blurred line between where coaching ends and where therapy begins.

But why are personal issues coming up when coaches are hired by companies to do executive coaching (performance improvement or development)?

Here’s a good reason — According to a Hardvard Business Review (HBR) survey of 140 leading coaches, even though organizations don’t hire coaches to deal with personal problems or issues in the lives of their executives, 76 percent of the time when an executive coach is engaged, personal issues are also addressed (Coutu & Kauffman, 2009).

That is a staggering percentage!

I’ve written before about coaching and mental illness, but wanted to do a second post with new coaching guidelines from the International Coach Federation. I also wanted to include some statistics about the prevalence of mental illness among U.S. adults in the workplace.

International Coach Federation – Referral Guidelines
The International Coach Federation (ICF) is quite clear in its guidelines to coaches about when and how to refer a coaching client to therapy (Hullinger & DiGirolamo, 2018). There’s a white paper as well as a one page reference sheet explaining why, when, how to refer, and even signs for referral.

The ICF guidelines for referral talked about the importance of coaches staying within their scope of work and within their level/area of expertise. “A mental health professional is equipped to diagnose and help the individual develop coping skills to manage deep emotions related to difficult situations” (Hullinger & DiGirolamo, 2018, p. 4-5).

Distinction between Coaching and Therapy
“Coaching focuses on visioning, success, the present, and moving into the future. Therapy emphasizes psychopathology, emotions, and the past in order to understand the present. The purpose of coaching is frequently about performance improvement, learning, or development in some area of life while therapy often dives into deep-seated emotional issues to work on personal healing or trauma recovery. Coaching tends to work with well-functioning individuals whereas therapy work tends to be for individuals with some level of dysfunction or disorder” (Hullinger & DiGirolamo, 2018, p. 6).

When Clients Need & Deserve Counseling, Not Coaching
In a Hardvard Business Review (HBR) survey of 140 leading coaches, Coutu and Kauffman (2009) found that although companies don’t hire coaches to address personal issues in executives’ lives, “more often than not, personal matters creep in.” They discovered that 76 percent of the time when an executive coach is engaged, personal issues are also addressed.

Similarly, in the same HBR article, Anthony Grant (a coaching psychologist and professor at the University of Sydney) shared that studies conducted by the University of Sydney have found that between 25% and 50% of those seeking coaching have clinically significant levels of anxiety, stress, or depression.

Dr. Grant wrote: “I’m not suggesting that most executives who engage coaches have mental health disorders. But some might, and coaching those who have unrecognized mental health problems can be counterproductive and even dangerous. The vast majority of executives are unlikely to ask for treatment or therapy and may even be unaware that they have problems requiring it. That’s worrisome because contrary to popular belief, it’s not always easy to recognize depression or anxiety without proper training. . . .Given that some executives will have mental health problems, firms should require that coaches have some training in mental health issues – for example, an understanding of when to refer clients to professional therapists for help.”

Harder, Wagner, and Rash (2014), wrote that workplace depression is under-diagnosed. One reason might be because of the fear or stigma associated with mental illnesses. The workplace prevalence of depression is estimated at 9-11%, yet only approximately 2% of employees receive diagnosis and treatment. Despite this data being more than 20 years old, it speaks to the worrisome problem of a mental illness not being diagnosed and treated.

Any Mental Illness Prevalence and Treatment
According to a United States National Survey on Drug Use and Health, in 2018, approximately 47.6 million adults aged 18 or older had any mental illness (AMI)* in the past year. This number represents 19.1 percent of U.S. adults. *[AMI is defined as having any mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder in the past year that met DSM-IV criteria (excluding developmental disorders and SUDs [substance use disorders (alcohol or illicit drugs)].

Among the 47.6 million adults in 2018 with AMI, fewer than half (20.6 million, or 43.3 percent) received mental health services in the past year!

Depression Prevalence and Treatment
Of the 17.7 million adults aged 18 or older in 2018 who had a
past year major depressive episode (MDE), 64.8 percent (or 11.5 million adults) received treatment for depression, but 35.2 percent (or 6.2 million adults) did not receive treatment for depression.

Depression in the Workplace
One study estimates that 6.4% of working U.S. adults have depression in a given year (Kessler et al., 2006).

Recognize & Remember Your Limitations
It is absolutely imperative that coaches acknowledge their limitations and lack of training and expertise in dealing with mental health issues.

Recognize When Clients Need Counseling
“[C]oaches [must] recognize and know how to manage a client who shows up with a mental health issue that goes outside the scope of coaching. . . .Some clients who seek coaching may exhibit severe mental health problems that need to be addressed in therapy, sometimes referred to as counseling. Coaches need to be aware of their limits and recognize when a client needs more than what coaching can provide” (Hullinger & DiGirolamo, 2018, p. 4).

Recognize When to Refer to Mental Health Professionals
“Common issues that warrant a referral to therapy include anxiety, depression, eating disorders, post-traumatic stress (PTSD), substance abuse, suicidal ideation, and thought disorders” (Hullinger & DiGirolamo, 2018, p. 11).

Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership Development Advisor

References

Bindley, K. (2019, September 20). Executive Coach or Therapist? It’s Getting Harder to Tell the Difference. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/executive-coach-or-therapist-its-getting-harder-to-tell-the-difference-11568971811

Coutu, D., & Kauffman, C. (2009, January). What Can Coaches Do for You? Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2009/01/what-can-coaches-do-for-you

Harder, H. G., Wagner, S. L., & Rash, J. A. (2014). Mental Illness in the Workplace. Gower.

Hullinger, A. M. and DiGirolamo, J. A. (2018). Referring a client to therapy: A set of guidelines. International Coach Federation. https://coachfederation.org/app/uploads/2018/05/Whitepaper-Client-Referral.pdf.

Kessler, R. C., Akiskal, H. S., Ames, M., Birnbaum, H., Greenberg, P., Hirschfeld, R. M., … Wang, P. S. (2006). Prevalence and effects of mood disorders on work performance in a nationally representative sample of U.S. workers. The American journal of psychiatry, 163(9), 1561–1568.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2019, August). Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-reports/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018.pdf

Book Review – Compass: Your Guide For Leadership Development And Coaching


[From CCL’s description of the book]: An essential book on leadership development and coaching, Compass is the go-to reference to help you—and the people you develop—provide the leadership needed in any circumstance to galvanize teams, groups and entire organizations. It is ideal for leaders and managers looking to develop competency in themselves and others. A vital guide for training and development professionals—both inside an organization and external consultants— use Compass as a coaching tool and a blueprint for leader development plans.

Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) is a top-ranked, world-renowned leadership development provider. It has nearly 50 years of experience working with tens of thousands of organizations in more than 160 countries across 6 continents, helping more than a million leaders at all levels.

Compass: Your Guide for Leadership Development and Coaching (Scisco, Biech, & Hallenbeck, 2017) is similar to FYI: For Your Improvement: A Development and Coaching Guide (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2009). Both are coaching & development guides. However, beyond the fact that both books left in blank chapters as placeholders because “those numbers are reserved for future editions” (2017, p. vi), the similarities end there.

A major difference and one that I really appreciate is how CCL’s Compass titles and groups the various sections versus how Korn & Ferry’s FYI titles and groups theirs.

The major sections in FYI (5th ed.) include:

    • Unskilled – The “before picture” shows where you stand against the target.
    • Skilled – The “after picture” gives you a target of what success looks like when a competency or skill is done well.
    • Overused Skill – The possible negative consequences of using a skill too much or with too much force.
    • Some Causes – Common reasons why people struggle with this particular leadership competency
    • The Map – Why the competency is important.
    • Some Remedies – 10 tips/remedies for building the competency.
    • Some Develop-in-Place Assignments – Job tasks that require application of certain competencies. There’s almost always a develop-in-place assignment that you can select in your current job to address your development need.

The major sections in Compass are:

  • Overview – Provides context to why the competency is important, what effects its mastery can produce, and the consequences of not developing the competency.
  • Leadership in Action – Tells a story drawn from real-life accounts of leaders displaying their skill in the competency area.
  • What High Performance Looks Like – Lists descriptive words and phrases for how leaders appear to others when performing the competency well.
  • What’s in Your Way? – Presents common obstacles to development.
  • Coach Yourself – Poses reflective questions designed to spur thinking about the areas of focus in which the competency can be developed
  • Improve Now – Are quick changes” for developing skills.
  • Developmental Opportunities – Tactics and suggestions for developing skills.

In Compass, each competency starts off on a positive note with the “What High Performance Looks Like” section (leaders who are skilled in this competency will do these things). FYI, on the other hand, starts off negatively by drawing the reader’s attention to the top section in each competency called, “Unskilled” (leaders who are unskilled in this competency will do these things).

I find it much more helpful to know the positive skills & behaviors (in Compass) I should be striving for in order to improve myself rather than see a long list of undesired behaviors & skills (in FYI) that I should be avoiding.

Compass offers a lot of content (that’s well-organized and more interesting to read than FYI) for each competency chapter. I especially like the “What High Performance Looks Like” section, the “What’s in Your Way?” section, the “Coach Yourself” section, and the “Improve Now” section.

Compass is divided into four parts:

  1. The Fundamental Four: CCL believes that there are four competencies every leader needs to develop – communication, influence, learning agility, and self-awareness.
  2. Competencies for Impact and Achievement: These are 48 additional competencies derived from CCL research and practice.
  3. Career Derailers: Five career derailers that CCL research has identified as damaging to careers and what you can do to avoid derailing your career.
  4. What’s Next: Is a guide to setting development goals based on a CCL approach.

Whereas FYI is written and reads like a series of “lists,” Compass is written in a narrative style and reads more like a short blog post or article for each competency, making it much more interesting and easier to digest and recall. I gave a hard copy of the FYI book (a 3rd edition) to a good friend of mine, but never told him to “read” it, only to use it as a reference guide whenever he needs it (either for his own development or the development of his team). For CCL’s Compass book, I would highly recommend that you actually sit down and read through the competency chapters.

  • Korn & Ferry’s FYI (5th edition), features 67 Competencies*, 19 Career Stallers* and Stoppers, and 7 Global Focus Areas.
  • CCL’s Compass contains 52 Competencies and 5 Career Derailers.

Interesting factoid: Mike Lombardo worked at the Center for Creative Leadership for 15 years. Lombardo collaborated with Bob Eichinger and Morgan McCall on the book, Lessons of Experience: How Successful Executives Develop on the Job. Lombardo and Eichinger later started their own consulting firm, Lominger (which produced the FYI book). Lominger was later acquired by Korn & Ferry.

*Both the Competencies and the Career Stallers & Stoppers used in the FYI book came, in part, from studies at the Center for Creative Leadership (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2009).

For a comparison, I selected the decision making competency. Compass calls it “decision making” while FYI labels it “decision quality.” In the overview section of the competency on decision making, Compass offers a nice overview and links it to Captain “Sully” Sullenberger and the 208-second decision-making process he took to safely land the disabled US Airways Flight 1549 on the Hudson River. In the “Leadership in Action” section, Compass provides a more detailed account of what happened to Flight 1549 that led to Captain Sullenberger’s quick and decisive decision making on January 15, 2009.

In the “What High Performance Looks Like” section of Compass, descriptions for how a leader appear to others when performing the decision making competency well include:

Leaders who make their decisions using sound judgment:

  • grasp the crux of an issue despite having ambiguous information
  • accurately differentiate between important and unimportant issues
  • are quick learners
  • can quickly set priorities
  • have the courage to make decisions without full information

In the “What’s in Your Way?” section, Scisco, Biech, and Hallenbeck (2017) write:

“Leaders who don’t base their decisions on sound judgment put themselves, their teams, and possibly their organizations at risk. Those negative outcomes are even more likely when a leader’s judgement is compromised by a weak ethical stance or when a leader simply lacks the courage to decide to act–even without complete information” (p. 162).

Review the following list and note the items that you believe might be holding you back from becoming a better decision maker (Scisco, Biech, & Hallenbeck, 2017, p. 162):

  • You don’t like to ask for input from others but prefer to go it alone.
  • You fall prey to “analysis paralysis”–incessantly poring over information and approaches without making progress.
  • You value complicated solutions over simple, elegant ones.
  • You’re uncomfortable with ambiguity and anxious about making decisions without full information.
  • Once you’ve made a decision, you insist it’s the right one even in the face of contrary evidence.

In the “Coach Yourself” section of Compass, Scisco, Biech, and Hallenbeck (2017) advise asking yourself these questions:

  • “Do you make decisions quickly or do you delay for fear of getting it wrong?”
  • “How comfortable are you in ambiguous situations?”
  • “How do you react in a crisis?”

Another competency that both Compass and FYI share is Interpersonal Savvy.

In examining the Interpersonal Savvy competency chapter in FYI, I saw a laundry list of questions and advice that sounded more like a lecture. The exception is “The Map” section which offers a nice write-up of each competency. In my opinion, two of the biggest weaknesses of the FYI book are: (1) There’s a lack of a narrative writing style (like in “The Map” section) and often the writing is rather choppy, and (2) The recommendations (called “Remedies”) are overly repetitive. (e.g., “Be a better listener. Interpersonally skilled people are very good at listening. They listen to understand and take in information to select their response. They listen without interrupting.”).

Contrast this with the Compass book. In the Interpersonal Savvy competency chapter, listen is mentioned just twice (under What High Performance Looks Like – “listen well” and under What’s in Your Way – “you prefer to talk rather than listen”).

In the overview section of the Interpersonal Savvy competency in Compass, the authors write:

“You might have great ideas and be highly accomplished, but if you struggle to connect with other people you won’t be successful leading them. You need interpersonal skills to recognize and assess what others need. These skills involve not only listening to others, but also include noticing social cues that communicate how others are thinking and feeling, even if they don’t say so outright” (Scisco, Biech, & Hallenbeck, 2017, p. 261).

In the “What’s in Your Way?” section of the Interpersonal Savvy competency, Scisco, Biech, and Hallenbeck (2017) write:

“If you struggle to develop interpersonal savvy, you might not pick up on cues to how others are thinking and feeling until small misunderstandings grow into problems and conflicts. Others may not feel personally connected to you and may avoid coming to you with issues or may hesitate to give you helpful feedback” (p. 263).

Here’s what a competency chapter looks like in Compass. Note: I took screenshots of the Learning Agility competency chapter in a Google Books preview since I couldn’t get a good photo without bending and/or breaking the spine of my hard copy.

Summary: I never thought I would say this, but I have just found a worthy successor to my FYI book! Backed by research and practice from the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL), a top-ranked, world-renowned provider of leadership development, Compass: Your Guide for Leadership Development and Coaching is an incredibly useful and instantly actionable book. If you are an individual contributor, a leader or manager, or a consultant or coach, you will find the “What High Performance Looks Like” section, the “What’s in Your Way?” section, the “Coach Yourself” section, and the “Improve Now” section to be especially relevant to helping you determine the skills you need to improve or the skills you want to develop in others. The layout and design, along with the decent font size and use of icons, make reading and locating information in the Compass book effortless. Finally, the real-life stories of leaders demonstrating their skills in one of the competency areas (in the “Leadership in Action” section) make Compass truly enjoyable to read!

Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership Development Advisor

References

Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2009). FYI: For Your Improvement: A Guide for Development and Coaching (5th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Lominger International.

Scisco, P., Biech, E., & Hallenbeck, G. (2017). Compass: Your Guide for Leadership Development and Coaching. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership Press.

Disclosure: I purchased a hard copy of Compass: Your Guide for Leadership Development and Coaching on my own.

How to Manage Better by Matching Leadership Style to Development Level

“Oversupervising or undersupervising—that is, giving people
too much or too little direction—has a negative impact on people’s development. That’s why it’s so important to match leadership style to development level” (Blanchard, 2010, p. 76).

I was eating at a sandwich shop about a week ago. It was still too early for lunch but since I was hungry and they happened to be opened, I went inside. The staff was busy preparing for the busy day and, even though they weren’t officially opened yet, they allowed me to go ahead and placed my order since I was using a credit card.

I got my sandwich and decided to sit and eat inside the restaurant. While I was there, the manager was busy talking to a visitor (from what I could gather, it sounded like an interview). At one point, one of the staff informed the manager that they were expecting a huge order of sandwiches and that she would need his help in order to get all the orders prepped and ready for delivery.

The manager quickly told the employee to just do it by herself. This brought up feelings of anger and resentment from the employee, as evidenced by her yelling at the manager:

“You’re a f***king, a**hole! I’m just one person and you expect me to do everything by myself and it’s not fair!”

Noticing that there was one customer in the restaurant (me), the manager quietly shot back, “It’s your job so just do it.”

As I headed out the door, I looked at the young lady and wished her a nice day. Of course, that was too late at that point because her entire day had been ruined because of this very poor interaction with her supervisor.

Obviously, no direct report or employee should ever talk to a manager in that manner or vice versa. But their interactions reflected at least three things. First, it tells me that this is not the first time that the employee has been allowed to speak like that. Second, it demonstrates that the manager uses a command and control style of management, wherein he (the boss) barks orders and expects his staff to just do it. In this manager’s mind, he’s the boss, he tells his staff what to do, and they carry out his orders. Third, and finally, it shows that the manager only uses the one leadership style that he knows to lead and manage his staff.

In Leading at a Higher Level (2010), Blanchard and his co-authors wrote (p. 76), “To bring out the best in others, leadership must match the development level of the person being led.”

In the Situational Leadership II model, there are two dimensions to leadership style:

  1. Directive Behavior—setting goals; telling and showing people what to do, when, and how to do it; and providing frequent feedback on results
  2. Supportive Behavior—listening, facilitating self-reliant problem solving, encouraging, and asking for input

Blanchard’s Situational Leadership II (SLII®) teaches leaders to diagnose the needs of an individual or a team and then use the appropriate leadership style to respond to the development needs of the person and the situation. The model is based on the belief that if a leader can develop the talent to skillfully diagnose an employee’s development level on a specific goal or task, then he or she can decide, what directive or supportive behaviors are needed to develop that employee. Once the employee’s development level is diagnosed, the leader then matches his/her leadership style to that development level for that task. A matching leadership style helps individuals move through the development continuum from enthusiastic beginner to disillusioned learner, to capable but cautious performer to self-reliant achiever.

Effective leadership occurs when leaders match their style to the competence and commitment of the followers. Effective leaders are those who can recognize what followers need and then adapt their own style to meet those needs. For individuals at

  • D1 (low competence/high commitment)—use a Directing (S1) leadership style.
  • D2 (low to some competence/low commitment)—use a Coaching (S2) leadership style.
  • D3 (moderate to high competence/variable commitment)—use a Supporting (S3) leadership style.
  • D4 (high competence/high commitment)—use a Delegating (S4) leadership style.

There are four leadership styles: Directing, Coaching, Supporting, and Delegating. Each style is a different combination of directive and supportive behavior.

  • S1—Directing = high direction/low support
  • S2—Coaching = high direction/high support
  • S3—Supporting = high support/low direction
  • S4—Delegating = low direction/low support

The four leadership styles differ in three ways: the amount of direction the leader provides, the amount of support the leader provides, and the amount of associate involvement in decision making.

To determine what is needed in a particular situation, a leader must evaluate her or his followers and assess how competent and committed they are to perform a given goal. Based on the assumption that followers’ skills and motivation vary over time, situational leadership suggests that leaders should change the degree to which they are directive or supportive to meet the changing needs of followers.

Back to my story about the upset employee who was yelling at her boss. If we follow Blanchard’s Situational Leadership (2010, 2019), we will first diagnose the development level of the employee. Second, we will use a leadership style to match the development level of the employee. Third, we will partner with the employee for performance (or align with the employee and set goals)*. [*In the 3rd edition (2019), Blanchard and team moved the third step to the first step.]

Diagnose Development Level: The employee is most likely at the D2 or D3 level. She is fairly to moderately competent but struggles with her commitment.

  • D2 (low to some competence/low commitment)—use a Coaching (S2) leadership style.
  • D3 (moderate to high competence/variable commitment)—use a Supporting (S3) leadership style.

Match Leadership Style: We arrive at two recommended leadership styles that the manager could have used to interact with her:

  • S2—Coaching = high direction/high support
  • S3—Supporting = high support/low direction

The employee might be at the D2 level, wherein she is somewhat new and although she knows the basics, she still in unsure about her own abilities to master the other skills to be successful in her role. If this is the case, she would need a coaching leadership style, which is high on direction but also high on support. The manager will want to “provide a lot of praise and support at this stage because you want to build [her] confidence, restore [her] commitment, and encourage [her] initiative” (Blanchard, 2019, p. 59).

The employee could be at the D3 level, in which she knows her day-to-day responsibilities well but sometimes doubts herself and questions her own ability to perform on her own without needing the manager’s help or the support of others. For employees at the D3 level, the manager should use an S3 (Supporting) leadership style, wherein the manager will support her efforts, listen to her concerns and suggestions, while also being there to support her. The manager will encourage and praise but not direct, since this style is more collaborative (Blanchard, 2019).

Partnering for Performance: Blanchard’s Situational Leadership II (SLII®) emphasize the importance of the manager aligning with his/her direct report for performance. Blanchard calls these alignment conversations, “where you agree on goals, development level, and leadership style.” Be sure that your employees understand and know what you are doing when you try to match your leadership style to their development level and what agreement has been made between the manager and employee about what needs to be done and when (Blanchard, 2019).

In command and control, “the manager tells us what to think and do, while partnering for performance suggests that how we achieve the vision is left open for discussion and input by everyone involved” (Blanchard, 2019, p. 40).

In determining what style to use with what development level, just remember that, “Leaders need to do what the people they supervise currently can’t do for themselves” (Blanchard, 2019, p. 57).

Here are three important caveats.

Caveat #1: “In reality, development level applies not to the person, but to the person’s competence and commitment to do a specific goal or task. In other words, an individual is not at any one development level overall. Development level varies from goal to goal and task to task. An individual can be at one level of development on one goal or task and be at a different level of development on another goal or task.” (Blanchard, 2010, p. 81).

Caveat #2: The manager at this particular sandwich shop did not know how to use any other style of leadership other than directing. And even then, he was terrible at it. However, with the proper training, he can be taught the different development levels and leadership styles, and can learn (with practice) how to match his newly learned leadership style to the employee’s development level on a specific goal or task. Only after that can he then have alignment conversations, where both he and the employee will agree on the expected performance behaviors and goals.

Caveat #3: “Just as leaders must move from command and control to a partnering relationship with their people, so too must those who are being led move from ‘waiting to be told’ to taking the initiative to lead themselves” (Blanchard et al., 2019, p. 70).

“If the key role of situational leaders is to become partners with their people, the new role of people is to become partners with their leaders” (Blanchard, 2010, p. 92).

Let’s return to the employee and manager at the sandwich shop. Although we would want the manager to learn the skills to be adaptable in leading and managing the employee (i.e., diagnose development of employee, match leadership style, partnering for performance), the onus is also on the employee to become empowered, and learn to be more self-directed and self-lead so that she is not constantly looking to or asking the manager for directions.

“If empowerment is to be successful, organizations and leaders must develop self leaders in the workforce who have the skills to take initiative” (Blanchard, 2019, p. 70).

“All people have peak performance potential—you just need to know where they are coming from and meet them there” (Blanchard, 2019, p. 65).

Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership Development Advisor

References

Blanchard, K. (2019). Leading at a higher level (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Blanchard, K. (2010). Leading at a higher level (Revised and Expanded ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.

Overplanning Is No Substitute For Getting Sh*t Done

Overplanning is defined as planning excessively or in more detail than is necessary.

No Amount of Planning Can Ever Replace Just Getting Stuff Done

In an article on Medium.com, Lidich (a Serial Entrepreneur, Product Architect, and Co-Founder at Airdyme.io) recounted how, in his previous startup, he and his team spent so much time planning that they forgot the importance of execution!

Don’t Not Plan, But Don’t Overplan

In FYI: For Your Improvement (a guide for coaching and development), Lombardo and Eichinger talked about planning (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2000). When a person is skilled, he can (p. 281):

• Accurately scope out length and difficulty of tasks and projects
• Set objectives and goals
• Break down work into the process steps
• Develop schedules and task/people assignments
• Anticipate and adjust for problems and roadblocks
• Measure performance against goals
• Evaluate results

However, when planning is overused, it can result in (p. 281):

• Being overly dependent on rules, regulations, procedures, and structure
• Leaving out the human element of the work
• Being inflexible and having trouble with rapid change

Don’t Sacrifice Execution for Overplanning

In Lidich’s case, he allowed planning to trump execution. Lidich and his team excessively planned, analyzed, and overanalyzed without ever making sure that they actually had a product. They debated, analyzed, and even had mockups but, ultimately, they never managed to get a viable product to market. As he lamented, “We had mockups that never became products, and product ideas that never found a way into our product portfolio.”

Getting Sh*t Done On an Island

When I worked abroad on an island in the Pacific Ocean, I suggested to my colleagues that we should launch a crisis training workshop. Almost as soon as I uttered those words, several of them went into an analysis mindset to consider all the ways that the idea would not work.

So I decided to just do it. I reasoned that even if it failed, at least I tried something – anything, which is better than sitting around debating why something may or may not work!

It would be irresponsible to say that I did not plan at all. Of course, my partner and I planned. But I didn’t focus solely on the planning phase because I knew that the execution phase was much more important and valuable.

And while it was chaotic and disorganized, the end result was that we helped educate and train hundreds of teachers and school administrators on how to better manage crisis situations in their schools.

Ooh, The Colors Are So Pretty!

In one company, a young professional spent so much time on his project plan, even going so far as color-coding events and dates, that he failed to execute to get the job done. He had spent so much time designing and perfecting the plan that when it came time to actually deliver on that plan, he was exhausted and didn’t understand why his plan failed. Here’s the no-brainer answer: The plan didn’t fail. The execution of the plan failed.

Act Learn Build Repeat

Paul Brown (a former writer and editor at Business Week, Inc. and Financial World), writes, “In the face of the unknown, the Act Learn Build Repeat models works best.”

Brown makes a good point, which is that if we focus on planning, there’s an “assumption that you can forecast the future with a high level of certainty.” He argues that planning works “really well when things in the future are going to be similar to the immediate past.”

“Researching, planning and gathering resources doesn’t help you much when the world is changing as fast as it is these days. You can come up with a plan that is perfect—for a world that passed you by while you were spending all that time planning.” –Paul Brown

Takeaway: Failures are inevitable when you overly devote time, energy, and resources toward planning while ignoring or neglecting execution. I cannot emphasize this enough: stop excessively planning and just get things done! Too many organizations and too many leaders and workers are relying mainly on whiteboarding, project-tracking, and doing things that “look” like actual work. They forget that simply drawing a house doesn’t mean that the house gets “built.” No, that would require doing the actual work rather than just planning it out on paper. Remember, planning is good, but doing is better! I love this wisdom from Paul B. Brown: “You can come up with a plan that is perfect—for a world that passed you by while you were spending all that time planning.”

Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership Development Advisor

References

Brown, P. B. (2013, May 19). If You Want To Be Successful, Don’t Spend Too Much Time Planning: A Case Study. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/actiontrumpseverything/2013/05/19/if-you-want-to-be-successful-dont-spend-too-much-time-planning-a-case-study/#2d1242cc6618

Lidich, V. (2019, March 26). Why Execution Is More Important Than Planning. Retrieved from https://medium.com/swlh/why-execution-is-more-important-than-planning-31877e278c5d

Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2000). FYI: For Your Improvement: A Development and Coaching Guide (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Lominger Limited, Inc.

Fully Engaged – When Great Days at Work Feel Like MAGIC

According to DecisionWise (2018), “Employee engagement is an emotional state where we feel passionate, energetic, and committed to our work. In turn, we fully invest our best selves—our hearts, spirits, minds, and hands—in the work we do.”

“This translates into employees who give their hearts, spirits, minds, and hands to deliver a high level of performance to the organization.” -DecisionWise (2016)

Results of research involving over 32 million survey responses by DecisionWise (2018) revealed and validated that employee engagement is based on fulfilling five basic human needs in our work.

5 MAGIC keys of employee engagement (DecisionWise)—
Meaning, Autonomy, Growth, Impact, and Connection

  1. Meaning – Your work has purpose beyond the work itself.
  2. Autonomy – The power to shape your work environment in
    ways that allow you to perform at your best.
  3. Growth – Being stretched and challenged in ways that
    result in personal and professional progress.
  4. Impact – Seeing positive, effective, and worthwhile
    outcomes and results from your work.
  5. Connection – The sense of belonging to something
    beyond yourself.

Once these five needs are met, our overall level of happiness increases.

Another employee engagement model is the “X Model” by BlessingWhite. According to the X Model of Engagement, full engagement occurs when an individual is at a point of maximum satisfaction and is also providing maximum contribution. Employees who are truly engaged are at “the apex” where personal and organizational interests align.

“These employees are at “the apex” where personal and organizational interests align. They contribute fully to the success of the organization and find great satisfaction in their work. They are known for their discretionary effort and commitment.” -BlessingWhite (2011)

BlessingWhite says we should not think in terms of engagement, but rather about great days at work.

BlessingWhite describes it in this manner: “Great days at work happen when individuals are giving all they can to the organization and when their personal satisfaction is maximized. Great days are what full engagement looks like.” -BlessingWhite (2018)

In my current role as a Leadership Development Manager, I’m extremely privileged to have the chance to work with amazing leaders at my company. In fact, the President of our company remarked about how lucky I am to be able to meet and interact with all managers (who manage our 344 auto collision repair shops in 24 states in the U.S.), their directors, and VPs — all total, and if I also count our corporate leaders, approximately 550 leaders of the company! It’s an extraordinary honor to be able to work with and help so many leaders, to love what I do, and to be acknowledged and praised for it (by those I’m trying to help) in the process.

It’s so humbling and I am quick to share that I’m very lucky to be a part of this leadership development experience, to work with incredibly talented and dedicated people, and that it takes an entire village of fully engaged professionals (from almost every department in the company [e.g., C-level, Operations, Finance, Advertising, Human Resources, Training, etc.]) to make this work.

There’s no question in my heart or mind that what I’m doing right now is what I’ve been dreaming about doing. I feel extremely engaged and have many, many great days at work. I am fulfilled because the five basic human needs (M-A-G-I-C) in my work are met. There’s (M)eaning because my work has purpose beyond the work itself. I’m given (A)utonomy to shape my work environment in ways that allow me to perform at my best. I’m experiencing (G)rowth because I’m stretched and challenged in ways that result in personal and professional progress. I see the (I)mpact — the positive, effective, and worthwhile outcomes and results from my work — of my efforts. And, there’s a sense of (C)onnection, a sense that I belong to something beyond myself.

As a highly engaged employee, I’m enthusiastic about my job and I am committed to my work and my organization. For me, there’s no better or more accurate gauge of employee engagement than me feeling energetic and excited, being absorbed in the work that I do, and remaining devoted to the organization I work for. I am extremely blessed to work with outstanding professionals ― talented, dedicated, kind, and caring people who find meaning and magic in their work.

My hope is that people see in me a caring, talented, and devoted professional, one who takes great pride in his work. What’s more, my wish is that they also see that I’m someone who is more concerned with the success of the team than with getting credit for my contributions; that I work hard and do whatever is necessary to help my team succeed; and that I’m emotionally intelligent enough to know how my words and actions impact others (Lencioni, 2016).

I love this quote:

“Don’t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive.” ―Howard Thurman

Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership Development Advisor

References

BlessingWhite. (2018). Great Days at Work. https://blessingwhite.com/great-days-at-work/

BlessingWhite. (2011). BlessingWhite’s Employee Engagement Model.

BlessingWhite. The X-Model of Employee Engagement.
https://blessingwhite.com/the-x-model-of-employee-engagement/

DecisionWise. (2016, June 1). MAGIC – Five Keys to Unlock the Power of Employee Engagement. https://www.decision-wise.com/infographic-magic-five-keys-to-unlock-the-power-of-employee-engagement/

DecisionWise. (2018). Engagement MAGIC: Five Keys to Unlock the Power of Employee Engagement. https://www.decision-wise.com/engagement-magic

DecisionWise. (2018, October 16). The Five Keys of Employee Engagement. https://www.decision-wise.com/the-five-keys-of-employee-engagement/

DecisionWise. (2018, December 18). What We’ve Learned About Engagement. https://www.decision-wise.com/what-weve-learned-about-engagement/

Lencioni, P. (2016). The Ideal Team Player: How to Recognize and Cultivate the Three Essential Virtues. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

Being Inconsistent Can Cost You Your Credibility

Being inconsistent is not just about words versus actions, but also in what you say consistently (across time) and how you act consistently (across time). In other words, at any given moment and especially depending on the person or group you are interacting with, an observer might find that you are a completely different person. You cater to certain individuals while dismissing others. You value one person solely based on his/her title and position in the organization above another person.

In the past decade, regardless of the type of organization (nonprofit, educational institution, or for-profit company), I have consistently observed this type of inconsistency rear its ugly head (i.e., emerge).

I’ve written before about people with a “situational value system” on the WorkPlacePsychology.Net site. Indeed, that post is, by far, the most visited and shared of any other post on this site. I think it resonates so strongly with many people because they know of or have been treated by someone who acts in that manner (i.e., inconsistently).

Leaders, never forget that others, especially those who report to you, are watching your every word and deed. When you are inconsistent, you lose your credibility. “Being wishy-washy or inconsistent in your viewpoints inhibits credibility” (Whetten & Cameron, 2016, p. 441). In fact, voters in many countries rank their politicians very low in credibility because politicians are often inconsistent with what they say and will change what they say based on the audience they are addressing.

John Maxwell wrote this: “For years I have taught leaders that in their interactions with others they create ‘accounts’ of trustworthiness. Every interaction with another person either makes deposits in that person’s account or makes withdrawals from it. The best way to make regular ongoing deposits is by modeling good character consistently. Why? Because people are convinced more by what a leader does than by what a leader says. . . .People see what you do. Leadership confusion occurs when your words and your walk do not match. If that incongruity continues, not only will you confuse your people—you will lose your people” (Maxwell, 2018, p. 54-55).

“It has been said that you don’t really know people until you have observed them when they interact with a child, when the car has a flat tire, when the boss is away, and when they think no one will ever know. But people with integrity never have to worry about that. No matter where they are, who they are with, or what kind of situation they find themselves in, they are consistent and live by their principles” (Maxwell, 2007, p. 343).

Takeaway: The book, Harvard Business Review Manager’s Handbook: The 17 Skills Leaders Need To Stand Out, says it this way: “Being consistent means that your actions align with the values you profess. . . .Keep your promises and model ethical behavior from day one, even if it means making an unpopular decision . . . .By behaving consistently, you teach people that they can interpret your actions in a straightforward way, without worrying about your intentions” (p. 25).

Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership Development Advisor

References

Maxwell, J. C. (2007). The Maxwell Daily Reader: 365 Days of Insight to Develop the Leader Within You and Influence Those Around You. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Maxwell, J. C. (2018). Developing the Leader Within You 2.0. Nashville, TN: HarpersCollins.

The Harvard Business Review Manager’s Handbook: The 17 Skills Leaders Need To Stand Out. (2017). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2016). Developing management skills (9th ed.). Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited.

Going Through Your No’s Before Getting to Your Yes

One year ago on December 20, 2017, I flew half way across the U.S. to interview for a position at a very famous tech company in northern California. I had to miss my daughter’s Christmas program because this was one of those opportunities that you just didn’t pass up. When the recruiter reached out to me and, later, when the hiring manager invited me to come interview at their corporate headquarters near the Christmas holiday, I jumped at it.

To provide some context, I had just been laid off from my role at another company a mere one and a half week prior and the wound, shock, and pain of losing one’s job was still very fresh in my mind.

I was very excited because this was a great opportunity to work for a world-class (and very famous) tech company.

One day before my daughter’s Christmas program, I took an afternoon flight from Dallas to northern California, ate dinner there at the hotel the company had booked for me, checked my email for instructions from the company, called my wife, and went to bed. It had been a long day.

My five interviews would start around mid-lunch and last until the late afternoon. I showed up and, throughout the day, met several key leaders, all of whom the hiring manager had lined up. One in particular stood out and the impression he left will be difficult to forget.

This Vice President showed up in sweat pants, and, as he’s reclining back in his chair as if he were lounging in his own living room, told me that he didn’t want to be there and that he was supposed to be out Christmas shopping for his kids. I’m not kidding. He actually said that.

Some of you reading this may think, well maybe he was testing you. Yes, that did occur to me. But I’m too old for people to play games and “test” me. If, as part of his interview, the VP thought he would test my confidence in my abilities and eagerness for the role, then he was sorely disappointed. As I shared with the recruiter (who told me not to show up in a suit), I am confident without needing to puff up my chest and pounding on it. And, I do not subscribe to the idea of showing up for a job interview in casual wear.

If this is the type of employee they were looking for then we were definitely misaligned.

So I knew at that point that no matter what I said or did that this VP had already made up his mind that I was wasting his time, and I knew that this would not be the type of boss I would want to work with or for.

Shortly after finishing my multiple interviews, I took an Uber to the airport and hoped on my flight home, having spent 24 hours there. While waiting for my flight, I called my wife and told her about the experience with the VP and I shared with her that I don’t think they would offer me the job and how terrible I felt missing out on our daughter’s Christmas program just to waste my time and go through that whole ordeal.

My wife told me that if my experience with the VP is indicative of what the company is like then she did not think I would enjoy working there. She was right. Also, I wouldn’t have known any of this from just reading their website or watching videos about the company. More than anything, I wanted to see for myself that this company and the leaders and employees working there were like any other company — and that was exactly what I discovered.

Fast forward to exactly a year later, on December 20, 2018, and this time around I was able to attend my daughter’s Christmas program with my wife. Not only am I now in my “dream job,” but the autonomy I’m given, the incredible relationships with my bosses and coworkers, and the culture of my current company are all so much more than I could have ever hoped for.

I think the hardest part about waiting for a yes is that you have to hear lots and lots of no’s. As a matter of fact, you hear so many no’s that after a while, you just expect to hear it. But what makes waiting so unbearable is that it is a long, drawn-out process, with no end in sight.

Little did I know at the time, but this first no (from that tech company) was only the beginning of a lengthy waiting period for me, with lots of no’s to follow.

During this period of prepping, interviewing, waiting, getting no’s, and applying lessons learned for the next round of interviews (or learning to wait for them), I found a good summary of what I was experiencing and what I needed to hear from Joel Osteen’s (2013) writings:

“On the way to yes there will be no’s. You have to go through the no’s to get to your yeses. The mistake many people make is that they become discouraged by the no’s and they quit trying.”

“What if you could see into your future and discovered you would receive twenty no’s before you came to your yes? Then you’d be prepared to handle it when you faced a disappointment or a setback. If you knew your yes was only twenty no’s away, you wouldn’t give up if a loan didn’t go through, or you didn’t get a big sales contract you’d hoped to land. You would just check it off and say, ‘All right. That’s one no out of the way. Now I’m only nineteen away from my yes.’ Rather than being discouraged, you would be encouraged every time you heard a no.”

Going through all the no’s was difficult, long, painful, and, at times, too much to bear, and I sometimes wondered if it would ever end. But I see very clearly now that the many, many no’s helped me hone my interviewing skills, my ability to interact with a variety of individuals over the phone and in person, and my skills at working on short term assignments and projects. And all of these things, with the right people (who’ll give you a chance) and the right timing, led me to finally getting that “yes.”

Takeaways: Sometimes, what you think you want and what you so desperately seek can be indefinitely delayed (with many no’s), and what you end up getting (finally getting your yes) is so much better than had you gotten your initial wish (getting that yes right away).

Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership Development Advisor

Reference

Osteen, J. (2013). Break Out!: 5 Keys to Go Beyond Your Barriers and Live an Extraordinary Life. New York: FaithWords.

Layoffs (Usually) Don’t Work and Why They Harm More Than Help

“Layoffs are mostly bad for companies, harmful for the economy, and devastating for employees.” -Newsweek (2010)

In December 2017, I (along with many of my colleagues) got laid off by the parent company that had acquired our smaller company in 2014.

I think what struck many of us was that this larger company was (and still is) very wealthy and extremely profitable (constantly emphasizing this point in their town hall meetings) and they repeatedly reassured us that our jobs would be safe and that we were now part of this much better, larger, wealthier, more powerful enterprise.

Thus, when they began implementing mass layoffs, and eventually laying off almost everyone in the company, it came as quite a shock.

Although I am very fortunate to have landed an incredible new role, at an amazing company nine months later, some of my former colleagues are still looking.

Having gone through this layoff experience, I want to share this article in hopes of bringing attention to the harmful effects of layoffs to not only the employees who are let go, but also the companies that implemented the layoffs.

Downsizing Defined

Downsizing is the planned elimination of jobs or positions (Cascio, 2016).

“Whether we call it ‘rightsizing,’ ‘downsizing,’ ‘layoffs,’ or ‘reductions in force,’ there’s no denying that U.S. corporations have been reducing the size of their workforces at alarming rates since the late 1980s” (Levy, 2017, p. 384).

The Consequences of Losing Your Job

This passage from Aamodt’s Industrial/Organizational textbook is a powerful reminder of the dramatic and devastating effect of losing one’s job:

“From a health perspective, victims of downsizing report increases in headaches, stomach upsets, sleeping problems, cholesterol levels, physical illness, hospitalization rates, heart trouble, hypertension, ulcers, vision problems, and shortness of breath. Emotionally, victims report high levels of stress, increased drug and alcohol abuse, more marital problems, and feelings of depression, unhappiness, anger, frustration, and dissatisfaction with life. Socially, victims are reluctant to share their feelings with friends, avoid family and friends due to feelings of embarrassment and shame, and avoid social situations and entertainment requiring money” (Aamodt, 2010, p. 540).

Coping with job loss or the danger of losing one’s job is a major source of stress (Riggio, 2013). Landy & Conte (2013) explained that because a worker may continue to have strong affective, continuance, or normative commitments to the organization, a job loss can be devastating. “[R]esearch has consistently found job loss to be among the 10 most stressful events in a person’s life” (Levy, 2017, p. 383).

Mental, Physical, & Psychological Costs of Job Loss

The effects of job loss include (Landy & Conte, 2013, citing Warr):

  • Poor psychological health
  • Depression, insomnia, irritability, lack of confidence, inability to concentrate, and general anxiety

The reasons for these effects on one’s psyche are (Landy & Conte, 2013, citing Warr):

  • loss of job reduces income and daily variety
  • loss of job suspends the typical goal setting guiding day-to-day activities
  • loss of job results in fewer decisions to be made because there’s little to decide about
  • decisions that are made tend to be trivial (when to get up, when to look for work, etc.)
  • because of loss of job, new skills are not developed and current skills begin to atrophy
  • as a result of loss of job, social relations are radically changed

Emotional and Financial Cost of Job Loss

In a New York Times article about the emotional and financial toll of being unemployed, Luo and Thee-Brenan (2009), shared a New York Times/CBS News poll of unemployed adults (708 unemployed adults between Dec. 5 to Dec. 10, 2009). Here’s what they found about unemployed Americans:

EMOTIONALLY

  • 69% are more stressed.
  • 55% have had trouble sleeping.
  • 48% have experienced emotional or mental health issues (e.g., anxiety or depression).
  • 46% have felt ashamed or embarrassed about being unemployed.

FINANCIALLY

  • 53% have borrowed money from family members or friends since losing their jobs.
  • 54% have reduced visits to doctor or medical treatments.
  • 47% is without health care coverage.

The Psychological Effects of Unemployment

“[U]nemployment is psychologically devastating based upon a loss of discretionary control. . . The act of choosing is severely restricted by unemployment. Attempting to solve problems with limited resources frequently means that the quality of the solution is poorer, which can engender a sense of failure and lowered self-esteem. Thus the loss of financial resources limits choices, thereby enhancing feelings of limited control over one’s life. In turn, lowered psychological health follows from this condition” (Muchinsky, 2006, p. 373).

Hidden Costs of Downsizing

Many organizations believe that cutting costs via downsizing/workforce reduction (eliminating or combining related or redundant positions in order to improve cost & efficiency) is a viable option.

“Corporate downsizing has become a conventional response by contemporary organizations that find themselves burdened with economic inefficiencies. For most organizations the single biggest expense is the salaries and benefits paid to their employees. By eliminating jobs, they reduce payroll costs. By eliminating many jobs (4,000 – 10,000 jobs in some very large companies), they can save vast sums of money. But then comes the problem of getting all the work accomplished by the people who remain. Consequences of restructuring the organization may include greater use of computerization or automation of work, less oversight by supervisory/managerial personnel, greater use of overtime among hourly paid workers, and longer workweeks among salaried employees. . . Although downsizing has forced organizations to operate with greater efficiency, some organizations are discovering they cannot reclaim the productive output they had achieved with a larger workforce. In short, the loss of jobs did not strengthen their economic position but instead weakened it.” (Muchinsky, 2006, p. 271).

“[D]ownsizing has negative impacts on employee morale and health, workgroup creativity and communication, and workforce quality” (Heneman & Judge, 2005, pp. 703-704).

Some hidden costs of downsizing include (Snell & Bohlander, 2013, p. 17):

  • Severance and rehiring costs
  • Accrued vacation and sick day payouts
  • Pension and benefit payouts
  • Potential lawsuits from aggrieved workers
  • The loss of institutional memory and trust in management
  • A lack of staffers when the economy rebounds
  • Survivors who are risk averse, paranoid, and focused on corporate politics

Costs of Layoffs to Companies

Layoffs are more costly than many organizations realize (Cascio & Boudreau, 2011). In tracking the performance of organizations that downsized versus those that did not downsize, Cascio (2009) discovered that, “As a group, the downsizers never outperform the nondownsizers. Companies that simply reduce headcounts, without making other changes, rarely achieve the long-term success they desire” (p. 1).

In fact, direct costs of laying off highly paid tech employees in Europe, Japan, and the U.S., were about $100,000 per layoff (Cascio, 2009, p. 12).

Companies lay off employees expecting that they would reap the economic benefits as a result of cutting costs (of not having to pay employee salaries & benefits). However, “many of the anticipated benefits of employment downsizing do not materialize” (Cascio, 2009, p. 2).

While it’s true that, with downsizing, companies have a smaller payroll, Cascio contends (2009) that downsized organizations might also lose business (from a reduced salesforce), develop fewer new products (because they are less research & development staff), and experienced reduced productivity (when high-performing employees leave due to lost of or low morale).

“[L]arge layoffs tend to result in a substantial decline in employee morale and commitment and a significant increase in stress. And for the bottom line, research indicates that companies with very deep layoffs underperform the market by as much as eight percent over the ensuing three years” (Cascio, 2009, p. 2).

When Downsizing is The Answer

Cascio notes that downsizing “can be an appropriate tool in some cases” (2009, p. 2) and that it makes sense when it’s “part of a broader workforce strategy designed to align closely with the overall strategy of the business” (2009, p. 2).

“For example, a new business strategy that pursues different products or services and new types of customers may motivate firms to lay off employees with obsolete skill sets and hire new employees with the skills to implement the revised business strategy. In this case and some others, downsizing does make sense” (Cascio, 2009, p. 2).

Alternatives to Downsizing

When senior leaders in the organization believe the downturn in business is permanent, instead of downsizing, Cascio (2009) suggests retraining employees to develop new lines of business. If the leaders believe the downturn in business is temporary, there are many options to cut costs (see the graphic, “Alternatives to Employment Downsizing for Temporary Downturns”). For example, popular cost-saving strategies include: Freezing or reducing hiring; Cutting travel and entertainment; Reducing pay or raises; Scaling back employee events; Conducting targeted layoffs, and so on (Cascio, 2009).

Takeaway: As professor Paul M. Muchinsky wrote (2006, p. 374), “Work provides a sense of meaning and purpose to life, and the removal of that purpose lowers the quality of life.” Downsizing is not a cost-cutting cure-all and it does not guarantee that short-term savings will surpass long-term costs. Downsizing is sometimes necessary, but it is important that organizational leaders understand and consider the short- and long-term costs, as well as the many alternatives to downsizing that are available (Cascio, 2009).

Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership + Talent Development Advisor

References

Aamodt, M. G. (2010). Industrial/organizational psychology: An applied approach (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Cascio, W. F. (2009). Employment Downsizing and Its Alternatives: Strategies for Long-Term Success. Alexandria, VA: SHRM Foundation.

Cascio, W. F. (2016). Managing Human Resources: Productivity, quality of Work Life, Profits (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Cascio, W. F., & Boudreau, J. (2011). Investing in People: Financial Impact of Human Resource Initiatives (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Heneman, H. G., III, & Judge, T. A. (2005). Staffing organizations (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Landy, F. J. & Conte, J. M. (2013). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Levy, P. E. (2017). Industrial/organizational psychology: Understanding the workplace (5th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

Luo, M. & Thee-Brenan, M. (2009, December 14). Poll reveals trauma of joblessness in U.S. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/us/15poll.html

Muchinsky, P. M. (2006). Psychology applied to work (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Newsweek. (2010, February 4). The Case Against Layoffs: They Often Backfire. http://www.newsweek.com/case-against-layoffs-they-often-backfire-75039

Riggio, R. E. (2013). Introduction to industrial/organizational psychology (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Snell, S., & Bohlander, G. (2013). Managing Human Resources (16th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western, Cengage Learning.

The Three S’s (See, Surround, Set) to Overcoming Failure

SEE: See mistakes as learning opportunities and see yourself not as a victim

One of my former college students shared this: “I have always seen every mistake I make as a learning opportunity in my life which provides me with less stress over the situation as well as allows my future choices to be based on more information, and gives me more options for my ultimate success.”

I think this is such a great approach to life! Some people live their lives with regret. They always look back and wonder what if they had done it differently and always ask “what if?” This student’s attitude, instead, is to learn from the mistakes she’s made and use those as teaching tools to help guide her future decision-making. I love that! Because no matter how hard we try, we can’t change our past, but we can decide what our future will be like by the choices we make today!

SURROUND: Surround yourself with positive people, positive thoughts, and positive things

Another former student shared, “Life is not easy, but a positive attitude, healthy mind and body can help all of us overcome anything.” This is spot on! At one time or another we have all had negative thoughts or felt hopeless because of the curve balls life throws at us. I think the times when I have truly “failed” were those in which I gave up mentally and told myself ok I can’t do this. From those life lessons, I learned to continually surround myself with positive people (like people who lift others up), to think positive thoughts (like being grateful), and do positive things (like being kind or helping others). Individually and collectively these things help to improve my outlook on life and direct me in a positive path toward a brighter future.

SET: Set small, bite-size goals

Early on in my academic studies, I set myself up to fail by having generic long-term goals (e.g., when I finish my Master’s I’m going to buy a new car). Success was never within reach and failure was almost always a certainty because I neglected to do what I call the daily grunt work (things like studying for my tests or doing my homework or making sure that I worked on my final paper). Because I didn’t do the “smaller” things consistently (i.e. work hard each day or each week), I spent an extra year to year-and-a-half in my Master’s program. Ouch! Painful life lesson learned the hard way!

For my PhD program, I was very mindful that, in addition to setting BIG goals (like getting my PhD), I also set SMALLER goals (the steps I need to reach my BIG goal), and I would break the smaller goals into even smaller ones (I call them “bite-size goals” – tiny, incremental steps needed to reach my small goal and eventually my BIG goal). That way, each time I reached one of these bite-size goals, I would pat myself on the back for a job well done. These tiny, gradual steps helped me stay focus and kept me on track all the way until I finished my program and completed my dissertation and defense.

So does this mean that I will never fail again? Heck no! In fact, I plan on failing. I expect to fail because I’m human. But the next time I fail, I will use the three S’s (See, Surround, Set) to help me overcome my failure and press on.

Takeaway: Failure is not fatal and it’s never final. Everybody fails. It’s just part of living a human life. The key is to get back up! Own your mistakes and learn from them so you don’t repeat them over and over. Surround yourself with positive people, think positive thoughts, and do positive things. Finally, set small, bite-size goals. Remember, you can’t change your past, but you can determine what your future will look like by the choices and actions you make today!

Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership + Talent Development Advisor

An “Action Bias” Can Be Counterproductive

In a Wall Street Journal article, Staats (2018) writes, “we have an action bias: We would rather be seen doing something than doing nothing.”

In a 2007 study, researchers analyzed 286 professional soccer penalty kicks. They discovered that goalkeepers almost always jump right or left because the norm is to jump — a preference for action (”action bias”). The goalkeepers jumped to the left 49.3% of the time, to the right 44.4% of the time, but stayed in the center only 6.3% of the time. Analysis revealed that the kicks went to the left 32.2%, to the right 39.2% and to the center 28.7% of the time. This means that the goalkeepers were much more likely to stop a kick if they had just stayed put.

In 93.7% of the kicks, the goalkeepers elected to jump to the right or left. When goalkeepers stayed in the center, they had a 33.3% chance of stopping a penalty kick, whereas they had 14.2% chance if they jumped to the left or 12.6% chance if they jumped to the right. Even though it would have been better (based on the current distribution of kicks in the study) for the goalkeepers to stay in the center, they almost always jumped to one of the sides (Bar-Eli, Azar, Ritov, Keidar-Levin, & Schein, 2007).

When the researchers asked why, the goalkeepers responded that they would regret allowing a goal more if they remained in the center than if they dived to the right or left. Put it another way, the goalkeepers wanted to be seen to be doing something, even if that something was wrong (Staats, 2018).

“[G]oalkeepers feel worse about a goal being scored following inaction (staying in the center) than following action (jumping), which can lead them to jump to the sides more often than is optimal” (Bar-Eli, Azar, Ritov, Keidar-Levin, & Schein, 2007).

There are two important lessons to learn from this that can be applied to the workplace. The first lesson is from FYI: For Your Improvement, a guide for coaching and development. In it, Lombardo and Eichinger (2009) remind us about being overly action-oriented, and that one consequence of overusing or over relying on an action-oriented mentality is that we tend to push for solutions without doing an adequate analysis.

The second lesson is about exercising good impulse control. The ability to think before you act, being deliberate, and surveying a situation is part of impulse control (the ability to resist or delay the impulse to act), an important factor in the Bar-On Model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (Bar-On, 2006; Multi-Health Systems, 2011). Individuals who lack or are low in impulse control will often act now and think later. They tend to be overactive, impatient, and leap before they look.

Impulse control is one of the more difficult emotional intelligence skills to develop as a teenager or adult if you don’t develop it earlier on in life. This is because surrendering to our impulses is often reinforced in the short term by getting something we want, feeling a release of tension, or some other benefit (Kanoy, 2013).

“Individuals with effective impulse control, by contrast, have the capacity to think first rather than responding reflexively. It allows them mental space for weighing alternatives and assessing options so that their actions and expressions are reasoned and well considered. This leads to wise decision-making and responsible behavior” (Stein & Book, 2006, p. 206-207).

In her LinkedIn Learning video titled, “Transitioning from Manager to Leader,” Sara Canaday (a leadership speaker and executive coach), said:

“Leaders think carefully about the impact of their decisions on the company, the bottom line, the customers, the employees, even the competitors. What’s the immediate impact? What are the long-term implications and consequences? Leaders are decisive and courageous in their decision-making but they also know when to strategically pause if a delay provides an advantage. Sometimes, there’s genius in waiting [emphasis added]. For new information, for a competitor’s announcement, for a technological advance, that pause could prove to be priceless.”

Takeaway: There are times when it is absolutely critical to slow down—even stop—and understand the situation. When you do that, you’ll learn sometimes the smartest move is to actually not move at all.

Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership + Talent Development Advisor

References

Bar-Eli, M., Azar, O. H., Ritov, I., Keidar-Levin, Y., & Schein, G. (2007). Action Bias Among Elite Soccer Goalkeepers: The Case of Penalty Kicks. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(5), 606-621.

Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18, supl., 13-25.

Kanoy, K. (2013). The Everything Parent’s Guide to Emotional Intelligence in Children. Avon, MA: Adams Media.

Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2009). FYI: For Your Improvement: A Guide for Development and Coaching (5th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Lominger International.

Multi-Health Systems. (2011). EQ-i 2.0 Emotional Quotient Inventory 2.0 User’s Handbook. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.

Staats, B. R. (2018, July 6). Don’t Just Dive Into Action: Stop to Think First. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-just-dive-into-action-stop-to-think-first-1530888843

Stein, S. J., & Book, H. E. (2006). The EQ Edge: Emotional intelligence and your success. Mississauga, ON: Jossey-Bass.

Self-Actualization: Realizing Your Potential

“For of all sad words of tongue or pen, The saddest are these: ‘It might have been!’” -John Greenleaf Whittier (1807-1892)

When I read these lines by John Greenleaf Whittier, I imagine the sorrow and regret that he must have felt about what might have been. Even though the lines are part of Whittier’s poem about love (titled “Maud Muller”), the overarching theme of regret can be applicable to any areas of life.

Bronnie Ware is an Australian woman who spent many years working in palliative care. Her patients were those who had returned home to die. Bronnie was with them for the last three to twelve weeks of their lives. She shared what she learned about their regrets in a 2009 blog post, which was later turned into a book. The most common regret of her dying patients was “I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.”

“When people realise that their life is almost over and look back clearly on it, it is easy to see how many dreams have gone unfulfilled. Most people had not honoured even a half of their dreams and had to die knowing that it was due to choices they had made, or not made” (Ware, 2009).

“Of all of the regrets and lessons shared with me as I sat beside their beds, the regrets of not having lived a life true to themselves was the most common one of all. It was also the one that caused the most frustration, as the client’s realisation came too late” (Ware, 2012, p. 39).

The concept of self-actualization is not new. Abraham Maslow, although he did not coin the term (that honor belongs to Kurt Goldstein), introduced to the public and made famous the notion of our human need for self-actualization. Maslow described self-actualization as follows:

“A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately at peace with himself. What a man can be, he must be. He must be true to his own nature. This need we may call self-actualization” (Maslow, 1954, p. 46).

“[Self-actualization] refers to man’s desire for self-fulfillment, namely, to the tendency for him to become actualized in what he is potentially. This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one idiosyncratically is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming” (Maslow, 1954, p. 46).

Self-actualization is the willingness to persistently try to improve oneself and engage in the pursuit of personally relevant and meaningful objectives that lead to a rich and enjoyable life (Multi-Health Systems, 2011).

“Self-actualization is the process of striving to actualize one’s potential capacity, abilities and talents. It requires the ability and drive to set and achieve goals, and it is characterized by being involved in and feeling committed to various interests and pursuits. Self-actualization is thought to be a life-long effort leading to an enriched and meaningful life. It is not merely performance but an attempt to do one’s best” (Bar-On, 2006, p. 20).

“Self-actualization is affiliated with feelings of self-satisfaction. Individuals with healthy self-actualization are pleased with their place on life’s highway with respect to their personal, occupational, and financial destinations” (Stein & Book, 2011, p. 76).

In FYI: For Your Improvement (a guide for coaching and development), Lombardo and Eichinger talked about the importance of self-development:

“The bottom line is, those who learn, grow and change continuously across their careers are the most successful. Whatever skills you have now are unlikely to be enough in the future. Acquiring new skills is the best insurance you can get for an uncertain future. Some of us won’t face our limitations; we make excuses, blame it on the boss or the job or the organization. Others are defensive and fight any corrective feedback. Some are just reluctant to do anything about our problems. Some of us want a quick fix; we don’t have time for development. Some of us simply don’t know what to do” (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2000, p. 322).

Individuals who are skilled in self-development (1) commit to and actively work to continuously improve him/herself, (2) understand that different situations and levels may require different skills and approaches, (3) work to deploy strengths, and (4) work on compensating for weakness and limits (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2000).

Jim Rohn wrote (1997, p. 263-264): “All life forms inherently strive toward their maximum potential except human beings. Why wouldn’t we strive to become all we can be, to fulfill our potentials? Because we have been given the dignity of choice. It makes us different than alligators and trees and birds. The dignity of choice makes us different than all other life forms. And here’s the choice: to become part of what we could be, enough to get by; or to become all that we can be. My best advice for you is to choose the ‘all.’”

Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership + Talent Development Advisor

References

Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18, supl., 13-25.

Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2000). FYI: For Your Improvement: A Development and Coaching Guide (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Lominger Limited, Inc.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers.

Multi-Health Systems (MHS). (2011). EQ-i 2.0 User’s Handbook. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Rohn, J. (1997). Leading an Inspired Life. Niles, IL: Nightingale-Conant Corporation.

Stein, S. J., & Book, H. E. (2011). The EQ Edge: Emotional Intelligence and Your Success (3rd ed.). Mississauga, ON: Jossey-Bass.

Ware, B. (2009). Regrets of the Dying. https://bronnieware.com/blog/regrets-of-the-dying/

Ware, B. (2012). The Top Five Regrets of the Dying. A Life Transformed by the Dearly Departed. Carlsbad, CA: Hay House, Inc.

Self-Regard: Warts & All

I’ve been thinking a lot about emotional intelligence and the Bar-On Model of Emotional-Social Intelligence. According to the Bar-On model, “emotional-social intelligence is a cross-section of interrelated emotional and social competencies, skills and facilitators that determine how effectively we understand and express ourselves, understand others and relate with them, and cope with daily demands” (Bar-On, 2006, p. 14).

One particular factor of the Bar-On model, self-regard, has piqued my interest as I observe and reflect on human behaviors and interact with working professionals and other adults.

Self-regard is respecting oneself while understanding and accepting one’s strengths and weaknesses. Self-regard is often associated with feelings of inner strength and self-confidence (Multi-Health Systems, 2011).

“Self-regard is the ability to respect and accept yourself—essentially liking the way you are. To have healthy self-regard is to appreciate your perceived positive aspects and possibilities, as well as to accept your negative aspects and limitations and still feel good about yourself . . . This conceptual component of emotional intelligence is associated with general feelings of security, inner strength, self-assuredness, self-confidence, and self-adequacy” (Stein & Book, 2011, p. 68).

In The EQ Difference, Lynn (2005) describes different voices that are part of our internal dialogue. The ones that I believe apply to today’s post are the victim voice (you’re a victim, it’s never your fault), the failure voice (you’re a failure), the self-doubt voice (“a future-focused pessimist waiting to kill your tomorrow” [p. 64]), the famine voice (there never is & never will be enough), the comparison voice (compares everything with what others have), the envy voice (being jealous you don’t have what others have), and the bad luck voice (everyone else gets good luck, except you).

If you struggle with self-regard (i.e., feelings of inner strength and self-confidence), you may notice that a number of these internal “voices,” not only appear but, dominate your mind.

We all, to some extent and on some level, have one or more of these internal dialogues going on in our mind. The difference is that individuals with well-developed self-regard know their strengths and weaknesses, and still like themselves, warts and all [an expression meaning including qualities or features that aren’t attractive or appealing] (Stein & Book, 2011). And, by doing so, they’ve learned to quiet the sometimes noisy voices in their heads.

“Because individuals with healthy self-regard know their strengths and weaknesses and feel good about themselves, they have no trouble openly and appropriately acknowledging when they have made mistakes, are wrong, or don’t know all the answers. Feeling sure of oneself is dependent upon self-respect and self-esteem, which are based on a fairly well-developed sense of identity. People with good self-regard feel fulfilled and satisfied with themselves” (Stein & Book, 2011, p. 68).

What about self-regard and leadership? Individuals with low self-regard tend to doubt their own abilities and second guess their decisions, and this doubt holds them back from effectively and confidently leading a team (Multi-Health Systems, 2014).

In FYI: For Your Improvement (a guide for coaching and development), Lombardo and Eichinger talked about the importance of self-knowledge and why knowing yourself is vital to success in work and in life:

“Deploying yourself against life and work is greatly helped by really knowing what you’re good, average and bad at, what you’re untested in, and what you overdo or overuse. Known weaknesses don’t get you in as much trouble as blind spots. You can loop around and compensate for a known weakness. A blind spot is the worst thing you can have. You can really get into performance or career trouble with a blind spot, because you don’t know or are unwilling to admit you’re not good at it” (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2000, p. 328).

When you like yourself—warts and all—and hold yourself in high self-regard, you know your strengths, weaknesses, and limits. You seek feedback and are able to learn from mistakes. You’re open to criticisms, receptive to discussing your shortcomings, and are not defensive (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2000).

People with high self-regard, those with inner strength and self-confidence, don’t (1) blame others for their own mistakes, (2) go out of their way to hurt or discredit people, (3) feel the need to put others down to feel better about themself, or (4) inflate themselves or act like a know-it-all in order to prove their worth.

“The real champions in life are so humble and gracious. They just continue doing what they do without all the posturing. If you’ve got the real thing, you don’t have to flaunt a loud imitation.” -Denis Waitley

Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership + Talent Development Advisor

References

Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18, supl., 13-25.

Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2000). FYI: For Your Improvement: A Development and Coaching Guide (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Lominger Limited, Inc.

Lynn, A. B. (2005). The EQ Difference: A Powerful Plan for Putting Emotional Intelligence to Work. New York, NY: AMACOM.

Multi-Health Systems (MHS). (2011). EQ-i 2.0 User’s Handbook. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Multi-Health Systems (MHS). (2014). EQ 360 Leadership Report. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Stein, S. J., & Book, H. E. (2011). The EQ Edge: Emotional Intelligence and Your Success (3rd ed.). Mississauga, ON: Jossey-Bass.

Why Organizations Need More Star Followers and Less Yes People

Many of us miss a key point about the importance of followership. Indeed, most people hold a negative view of followership (Kelley, 2008). They can’t imagine anything good or positive that might come from the role of a follower.

However, conversations about leadership must include followership “because leaders neither exist nor act in a vacuum without followers” (Kelley, 2008, p. 5). To me, there can be no leader if there are no followers, and people will not follow you if you lack the ability to influence them to work toward a goal.

Robert E. Kelley (2008), who is credited with pioneering the concept of followership, describes five styles of followership:

1) The sheep: they’re passive and look to the leader to guide & motivate them.
2) The yes-people: they’re positive and always on the leader’s side; but also look to the leader for direction & vision.
3) The alienated: they think for themselves, but are negative; skeptical/cynical; they view themselves as mavericks.
4) The pragmatics: they’re fence straddlers; they take a wait-and-see approach; they will go where the momentum is heading.
5) The star followers: they think independently; are active & positive. They do not accept the leader’s decision without evaluating it for themselves first. If they agree with the leader, the star followers will throw their full support behind the decision. If they disagree with the leader, star followers will offer constructive options/alternatives. They are often referred to as the go-to person or the leader’s right-hand person.

Kelley (2008) wrote that one question he asks of executives is, “If you could have an ideal mix of the five followership styles in your organization, what percentage of each style would you prefer?” He’s often amazed at how leaders say they want all yes-people.

“Their reasons are that (1) yes-people are “doers” who are willing to do the grunt work and who get the job done with little fuss; (2) yes-people have limited aspirations and will neither pressure the leader for promotions nor quit for better jobs elsewhere; and (3) yes-people are loyal and dependable” (Kelley, 2008, p. 13).

Kelley said it is rare to find leaders who prefer all “star followers.”

“Most executives fear that they can neither keep star followers challenged by the job nor satisfied with their role in the organization. They believe that star followers will grow bored and disillusioned, seeking greener pastures and leading to high turnover” (Kelley, 2008, p. 13).

Ironically, it is the star followers who help the organization perform better and more efficiently. In fact, we can make a very strong case that, “organizations with more star followers perform better because the star followers need not depend on the leader for direction or motivation. This reduces the transaction costs that hinder organizational success” (Kelley, 2008, p. 13).

Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership + Talent Development Advisor

Reference

Kelley, R. E. (2008). Rethinking Followership. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership (pp. 5-15). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

GROW Coaching Model: The Fascinating Backstory

One of the most popular coaching models in the world is the G.R.O.W. Model (Whitmore, 2017). GROW is one of the earliest (perhaps even the original) business coaching models.

THE INNER GAME and THE BIRTH OF MODERN COACHING

Tim Gallwey and his Inner Game method are credited for giving birth to modern-day coaching (Whitmore, 2017). Gallwey’s Inner Game approach was extremely influential to the developers of the GROW Model. In fact, according to the late Sir John Whitmore, “All the leading exponents of business coaching today graduated from this [Tim Gallwey’s Inner Game business (tennis & skiing training)] and have been profoundly influenced by the Gallwey school of coaching” (Whitmore, 2017, p. 15).

The Inner Game approach is simple (Gallwey, 2018): By quieting self-interference, we are more able to tap into our natural abilities with greater ease. It is about overcoming the self-imposed obstacles that prevent us from accessing our full potential.

Gallwey (2008) said we don’t reach peak performance because our Self 1 (the teller/the ego-mind) is constantly thinking, judging, worrying, fearing, regretting, and being distracted and this interferes with the natural capabilities of our Self 2 (the doer/the physical body, including brain, memory bank & nervous system). “It is the constant ‘thinking’ activity of Self 1, the ego-mind, which causes interference with the natural capabilities of Self 2. Harmony between the two selves exists when this mind is quiet and focused. Only then can peak performance be reached” (Gallwey, 2008, p. 14).

The Inner Game is “the game that takes place in the mind of the player, and it is played against such obstacles as lapses in concentration, nervousness, self-doubt and self-condemnation. In short, it is played to overcome all habits of mind which inhibit excellence in performance” (Gallwey, 2008, p. xvii).

“The Inner Game approach suggests that humans can not only achieve the outcomes they commit themselves to but can do so in a way that is fulfilling to them, and learn in the process. I [Tim Gallwey] call this capacity Mobility. The coach’s role is to facilitate the mobility of the client, whether individual or in a team, by increasing awareness, choice and trust. In short, this enables the client to be more conscious in thought and action while being hampered less by unconscious habits that interfere.” (https://www.coaching-at-work.com/2010/04/26/inside-out/)

JOHN WHITMORE, THE INNER GAME, and “COACHING”

John Whitmore provided some context to his relationship with Tim Gallwey, Inner Game, and the decision to use the word “coaching” rather than “Inner Game” in their coaching:

“I trained with Tim and, under license, I started the Inner Game organization in England, which in the first instance was not a business at all, it was a ski school and a tennis school, and that was all I was interested in. Very quickly, business people who came on our ski courses recognized how valuable this could be for business . . .” (Mura, 2003, p. 108).

“[Q]uite early on we recognized that there was a problem with the name, the Inner Game, because it sounded like some sort of American cult, something limited. So we wanted to use a generic term that described it more broadly, and that’s why we chose the word ‘coaching’” (Mura, 2003, p. 108).

In fact, when Whitmore and his colleagues “introduced coaching into business four decades ago, the word [coaching] was new in that context. . .” (Whitmore, 2017, p. 15-16).

THE 3 CO-DEVELOPERS OF THE ORIGINAL GROW MODEL

Many people don’t realize that three people were involved in developing the GROW model in the mid- to late-1980s: John Whitmore, Graham Alexander, and Alan Fine (Fine, 2018).

According to the InsideOut Development [Alan Fine’s company] website (2018) and email communications between the CEO of InsideOut Development [Fine’s company] and Sir John Whitmore, Whitmore, Alexander, and Fine co-created the original G.R.O.W. Model (A. Fine, personal communication, March 26, 2018).

As Whitmore recalled, they were already using the GROW sequence, just not giving it a name: “Some early UK coaches, including me [John Whitmore], had been using the GROW chronological sequence for some time before it was given that name. A staff member at a client site where Graham Alexander and I [Whitmore] were working wanted a metaphorical word to represent that sequence. The staff member suggested ‘GROW’, and we adopted it” (Whitmore, Kauffman, David, 2013, p. 245).

In the foreword to the book, Best Practice in Performance Coaching (Wilson, 2007), Whitmore explained: “I was just the first person to publish it [the GROW Model], in my book Coaching for Performance. It [The GROW Model] originally emerged in a discussion between several coaches with whom I was working at the time, including Graham Alexander, in the McKinsey office in London . . .” (p. xi).

I asked Alan Fine via email, “Were you one of the coaches that Whitmore was talking about when he said that the GROW Model originally emerged in a discussion between himself and several coaches?”

Here is Alan Fine’s response (A. Fine, personal communication, March 26, 2018): “I would think I was I can’t imagine who else he might be referring to. I would also make a distinction between the four-step model and the labels of the steps. My memory of it is that the four-step model emerged over time during our work at McKinsey and the labels of GROW were first devised by one of McKinsey’s communication specialists.”

The Performance Consultants website, co-founded by the late Sir John Whitmore, recounted the history of the GROW Model and how McKinsey, the renowned management consultancy, played a key role in asking Whitmore and his colleagues to come up with a coaching framework — which they did (Performance Consultants, 2015):

“In 1986 the management consulting firm McKinsey became their client. Many of the programmes they ran for McKinsey included experiential coaching work on tennis courts. The coaching was so successful at improving performance and unlocking potential that McKinsey asked them to come up with an underpinning framework of coaching – a model on which to hang what was happening on the courts and elsewhere in the programmes.

“So they videoed themselves and their colleagues coaching, they invited neurolinguistic programming (NLP) experts to look at what they did, they debriefed to try to discover what was happening and whether there was a model that played out in their unconscious competence. And yes, there was – whether on the tennis court or in a business setting.

“The acronym GROW came out of the four key stages they identified: Goal, Reality, Options, Will. They bounced it and a few other ideas off an internal communications person at McKinsey who said GROW would fly well, and liked it because it was simple and because it was actions and outcome focused.”

FYI: This story also appears in the 5th edition of Whitmore’s Coaching for Performance (2017) book on pages 97-98.

VARIATIONS OF THE GROW MODEL

According to Fine, shortly after he, Whitmore, and Alexander developed the GROW Model, they all went their separate ways, each utilizing his own approach to the GROW Model. For all major iterations of the G.R.O.W. Model, the first three letters are the same: “G” is the “Goal” the individual seeks to achieve; “R” is the “Realities” a person should consider in the context of the decision process; and “O” is the “Options” open to the decision maker (Fine, 2018). Only the last letter, “W”, is interpreted differently. John Whitmore defined it as “Will” (Whitmore, 2017), Graham Alexander defined it as “Wrap-up” (Alexander & Renshaw, 2005), although he also used “Wrap-up/way forward” (Alexander, 2006), and Alan Fine defined it as “Way Forward” (Fine, 2010).

As explained on the InsideOut Development (Fine’s company) website: “The Way Forward makes the decision process something tangible and actionable, where it becomes very clear to the person making the decision what should happen next,” Fine says. “In the absence of motivating clarity,” he argues, “people simply don’t take action.”

OUT OF THE STRUGGLE CAME “GROW”

Who would have thought that the backstory of the GROW Model included McKinsey, the management consulting firm? Just as interesting was that Whitmore and his colleagues tried to fit their model into McKinsey’s 7S Framework and, initially, called their early work the “7S Coaching Model” (Whitmore, 2017, p. 97). But this proved “tortuous” (Whitmore, 2017, p. 97). “In the end, [they] came up with the acronym GROW for the four key stages [they] identified” (Whitmore, 2017, p. 97).

CONFIRMING THE 3 CO-DEVELOPERS of GROW

Alan Fine, on his website, wrote that the GROW Model “was the result of the collaborative efforts of all three individuals,” meaning Fine, Whitmore, and Alexander. After contacting Alan Fine via email, I was able to confirm this after he forwarded me email communication in 2009 between John Whitmore and the InsideOut Development CEO acknowledging that the G.R.O.W. Model was, indeed, jointly developed by John Whitmore, Graham Alexander, and Alan Fine (A. Fine, personal communication, March 26, 2018).

Whereas Alan Fine credited and mentioned both John Whitmore and Graham Alexander in his book (You Already Know How to Be Great) and on his website, neither John Whitmore nor Graham Alexander mentioned Alan Fine in any of their writings or interviews (that I could find). Whitmore and Alexander acknowledged one another as co-developers but, curiously, they never mentioned Alan Fine, even though, according to Fine, the three of them worked together for three years. As Fine explained, “The three [Whitmore, Alexander, and Fine] worked together for three years in the early 1980s before co-developing the G.R.O.W. Model.”

It was challenging to investigate the backstory of how the GROW Model came to be developed. I was very curious after reading about the history of the GROW Model on Alan Fine company’s website and learning about Fine’s claim of being one of the three co-developers. But I could not find anything from either Whitmore or Alexander to confirm this. So I reached out to Alan Fine via email and received his response about two weeks later (which included email messages from the CEO of Fine’s company to the CEO of John Whitmore’s company, and John Whitmore’s reply). In his email response (dated July 14, 2009) to Kim Capps, CEO of InsideOut Development, Sir John Whitmore wrote (A. Fine, personal communication, March 26, 2018):

“I have no disagreement with the historical circumstances as now described in the first two paragraphs [of InsideOut Development’s History and Intellectual Property Rights (Related to the G.R.O.W. Model)”*].

*Note: InsideOut had emailed a GROW Model description to Whitmore’s company which stated that “The original G.R.O.W. model was created over twenty years ago in the UK by three individuals–John Whitmore, and Graham Alexander, and Alan Fine . . . The model was the result of the collaborative efforts of all three individuals, resulting in each having joint interest in the work . . . There was an informal understanding between the three of them that each would have equal ability to work with the original model but that no single person would claim any more credit or ownership of the basic original model than the others.”

This explanation from Fine’s website sums it up well:

“The three [Whitmore, Alexander, and Fine] parted ways with an understanding between them that each would have equal ability to work with the original model, but that no one would claim any more credit or ownership of the original model than the others. Because of that understanding, the three individuals were less aggressive, individually and collectively, than they could have been in protecting their early work.”

CURIOUSLY

John Whitmore’s book, Coaching for Performance (where he outlined the GROW Model) has now been published five times [1st ed. 1992; 2nd ed. 1996; 3rd ed. 2002; 4th ed. 2009; 5th ed. 2017]. However, he never mentioned Graham Alexander or Alan Fine as co-developers of the GROW Model. On the Acknowledgement page in the first, second, and third editions of the book, Whitmore did mention them, but by name only, never crediting them as co-developers of the GROW Model. And, in the fourth and fifth editions, there is no mention whatsoever of either Graham Alexander or Alan Fine.

THE MCKINSEY COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST

The most interesting piece of information I discovered in my research on the history of the GROW Model was that although Whitmore, Alexander, and Fine had been using their four-step sequence for some time, the actual label (“GROW”) to their model came about through their work with McKinsey, and more precisely, a McKinsey communications specialist (A. Fine, personal communication, March 26, 2018; Performance Consultants, 2015; Whitmore, Kauffman, David, 2013).

“Some early UK coaches, including me [John Whitmore], had been using the GROW chronological sequence for some time before it was given that name. A staff member at a client site [McKinsey] where Graham Alexander and I [Whitmore] were working wanted a metaphorical word to represent that sequence. The staff member suggested ‘GROW’, and we adopted it” (Whitmore, Kauffman, David, 2013, p. 245).

“[T]he labels of GROW were first devised by one of McKinsey’s communication specialists” (A. Fine, personal communication, March 26, 2018).

Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership + Talent Development Advisor

References

Alexander, G. (2006). Behavioural coaching — the GROW model. In J. Passmore (Ed.), Excellence in coaching: The industry guide (2nd ed., pp. 83-93). London: Kogan Page.

Alexander, G., & Renshaw, B. (2005). SuperCoaching: The Missing Ingredient for High Performance. London, UK: Random House.

Fine, A. (2010). You Already Know How to Be Great: A Simple Way to Remove Interference and Unlock Your Greatest Potential. New York: Penguin Group.

Fine, A. (2018). IP GROW Model InsideOut Development. https://www.insideoutdev.com/about-us/ip-grow-model/

Fine, A. (2018). What is the GROW Model. InsideOut Development. https://www.insideoutdev.com/about-us/what-is-the-grow-model/

Gallwey, W. T. (2018). About Tim Gallwey. http://theinnergame.com/about-tim-gallwey/

Gallwey, W. T. (2008). The Inner Game of Tennis: The Classic Guide to the Mental Side of Peak Performance. New York: Random House Trade Paperback.

Mura, A. (2003). Coaching for Performance: A Conversation with Sir John Whitmore Interview Conducted by Agnes Mura. International Journal of Coaching in Organizations, 1(4), 107-116.

Performance Consultants (2015). The GROW Model. https://www.performanceconsultants.com/grow-model

Whitmore, J. (2017). Coaching for Performance: The Principles and Practice of Coaching and Leadership (5th ed.). London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Whitmore, J., Kauffman, C., & David, S. A. (2013). GROW Grows Up: From Winning the Game to Pursuing Transpersonal Goals. In S. David, D. Clutterbuck, and D. Megginson (Eds.), Beyond Goals: Effective Strategies for Coaching and Mentoring (pp. 245-260). Farnham, Surrey: Gower Publishing.

Wilson, C. (2007). Best Practice in Performance Coaching: A Handbook for Leaders, Coaches, HR Professionals and Organizations. London: Kogan Page.