David Clutterbuck led an excellent session on some upcoming research on the relationship between coaching, talent management and succession planning.

At the heart of the issue is what the talent is being developed for? And what do we mean by talent?

Interestingly the evidence would suggest that line managers are very poor at identifying talent and that direct reports are more effective at identifying talent. Even more useful is an approach that encourages people to put themselves forward and that perhaps coaching is best focussed around supporting this decision process for the individual.

Another observation was that traditional succession planning and talent management tended to perpetuate models of behaviour and performance relationships – and that there was a generational gap issue with baby boomers imprinting their own experience and expectations on new-millennials.

There was a discussion about organisational capture and imprinting – there is a train of thought that excuses the failure of talent management and succession planning on the basis that individuals naturally tend to evolve to a set of expected managerial behaviours as they mature. However the alternate view is that poor succession planning will perpetuate poor succession planning – if you truly want to break the mould then the succession planning and talent management has to be done in the style which you wish to espouse for the future.

So there is a future in coaching succession planners!

Sometimes as coaches we get stuck with our client. Our client is stuck and we get stuck. At that stage the temptation is for the client to ask for a solution 'what do you think?' or for the coach to offer a solution.

But pause..resist temptation, what is being brought into the room at that place and time? How can we use the 'stuckness' as an opportunity? How far is the 'stuckness' representative of the sort of issues and dilemmas faced by the client? There is nothing wrong with the coach bringing the fact into the room that both of you are stuck. Indeed it can be powerful. What is the pattern that has created the impasse?

The next stage is to interrupt the pattern. Try going 'second' order - but at the same time do something symbolically different that interrupts the pattern of the coaching but might also interrupt the pattern of being and doing that the client has been inhabited to get them to the point of stuckness.

Consider changing the physical environment and activity levels - go for a walk, shift into a different environment that provides very different cues and context. Moving from an office to a hotel might not cut it. Use exercises such as drawing how being stuck really feels; imaging how someone else they respect and whose opinion they value was in the room and observing the stuckness. Or just choose someone else - Obama, Beckham, Mandela.

The aim is to interrupt the pattern and use the disruption not just to help unstick and move on but also to reflect on what the process and outcome has to say about the nature of the old pattern and the potential for the new pattern.

This train of thought was prompted by an excellent presentation by Lindsay Wittenberg at the EMCC Uk annual conference. It made me realise that I was not unsticking difficult moments as well as I should or could. Thanks Lindsay

Attended the Broader Perspectives conference run by School of Coaching. Some great presentations and good to hear Nancy Kline for the first time on Thinking Environments.

The hypothesis - that current models of team development are essentially linear and the result of investigation through the lens of outmoded management theory (taylorism). It is possible that Complex Adaptive Systems theory has new perspectives to offer that offer useful insights and new grounding. However it also challenges the notion of coach or facilitator as an independent external agent.

David  Webster shared some research into team coaching and development, in particular how he feels that we need to develop new models to understand team development. He made the interesting point that Tuckman's work (Forming, storming etc) was developed from therapeutic groups and even Tuckman pointed out that it had no external validation in the team development context. 

My observation is that much of the existing cannon of research is either an overflow from therapeutic models and research or a product of the prevailing managerialist orthodoxy. Even the punctuated equilibrium model  and soft systems are essentially linear - reflections of the hierarchical taylorist perspective. It also assumes that the intervention of the coach or facilitator is essentially externalised and independent of the process itself - a catalyst.

A possible fruitful line of enquiry and lens for thinking is the Complex Adaptive Systems approach.  So will let you know how I get on.

I have been reflecting on an excellent opening presentation by David Rock (http://www.davidrock.net/) at the EMCC annual conference. He described his work on the neuroscience underpinnings of coaching and behaviour change. His description of the way the brain focuses on problems and excludes other signals and contexts driven by some very basic reptilian brain functions was illuminating. The message for coaches was to help the client reframe the issue as something other than a problem at an early a stage as possible. Another point was the power of naming the experienced emotion as a way of reasserting the dominance of the pre-frontal cortex over the limbic system. Naming brings the experience into the rational, logical part of the brain where it can be examined and insights gained.

A session on transformational learning triggered a connection – we were being asked to frame reflection in the context of problem or experience. However the ‘problem’ word creates a closing down of the options and narrows the focus – it can be the beginning of the downward spiral rather than the upward spiral.

The connection is to frame the conversation in terms of how the individual has experienced the issue. The next stage is to help the client describe how the experience might be different and better. What does the client need to change in themselves? What is the impact of those changes on others? What are the internal and external manifestations? What is the different way of doing and being that needs to happen in the room and subsequently?

The neuroscience of leadership – excellent article by David Rock and Jeffrey Shwartz

So you are sitting with your client and dropping into the conversation you are listening to you hear the phrase ‘I think’ or ‘we think’ or even ‘they think’. You are hearing a client framing an uncertain assumption. Are they possibly building an entire set of positions and feelings on a very subjective and restricted interpretation. Maybe it is time to challenge, to find the tipping point in the session – how does what you are hearing fit with the other data you have been accumulating? Is it time to test what is meant by the use in this context of that word ‘think’? And how do you help turn ‘think’ into ‘know’? And what exactly do we mean by ‘know’ – how much precision can we attribute to that confident statement? On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is complete uncertainty and 10 is complete empirically robust certainty where does the client place themselves?

For those of you who navigate at sea (before the advent of GPS) one of the more accurate ways of finding your position when within sight of shore was to take a series of bearings on known features, turn them into back-bearings and then plot the result on the map. Normally a minimum of three points are required for a good fix. However inevitably, given the motion of the ship, weather conditions, the compass and other variables the result was not a neat intersection of three lines at a single point.  Instead there was a triangular area of sorts created by the three lines. You ‘knew’ that the ship was somewhere within that triangle – or otherwise known as a cocked hat because of its resemblance to the naval headgear worn at the time. Hence the term ‘knocked into a cocked hat’.

So how do we help the client take the bearings that help him change the balance from ‘think’ to ‘know’? The most common approach for work based behavioural and performance issues is the 360 degree questionnaire. However for other issues, perhaps the performance of a project or the views of a colleague, this is unlikely to be appropriate or possible. However there is a simple 360 degree exercise you can run during a session.

So a suggestion. Explain the cocked hat model to the client (at least they might learn something fun from the session for their next pub quiz). Get the client to frame the ‘I think’ statement as a broader open second order hypothesis. Instead of ‘I think this project is struggling’ turn it into a second order question such as ‘how do I understand better how this project is performing?’ Avoid the temptation to ask the first order question that simply reinforces the initial assumption ‘how do I find out why this project is performing poorly?’

Get the client to identify the points from which he/she needs to plot the position. These may be other people (peers, internal workforce, and clients), performance data and also themselves. Try and push for a good spread – good positions are derived when the reference points are well spread. Place a token on the floor or table which represents the hypothesis. Place further tokens that represent the other points that have been identified around the hypothesis. Get the client to position them in relation to the hypothesis token and each other. Maybe you have the time for the client to draw a quick picture of on each token. Is there any significance in the placing? Does a series of closely placed tokens mean that you need to find one with a more distinctive position away from the others? Where does the client’s own token sit in relation to the other tokens?

Then get the client to physically move to each token. Get them to sit quietly for a moment and visualise and then describe the individual they are representing. Ask them to describe how the individual might see and answer the hypothesis; how they are related to it, what they may feel about it and what ‘data’ (qualitative and quantitative) they might have to contribute. Use a brief but intensive ‘T’ model of questioning at each point.

After each position ask the client what they might need to ask of the individual whose token they are at to help them better understand that particular perspective on the issue. Get them to jot down the key points on a sheet or post-it next to each token before they move on to the next position.

Finally get the client to move to hypothesis token. Get them to summarise the position and questions to be asked for each of the other tokens. Make sure they face each token as they do so.

On a scale of 1 to 10 how more certain will they be about the project performance and its issues when they have talked to their reference points? What is the cost of not asking those questions? What are the benefits of asking those questions?

Of course you can use this technique to test the ‘know’ statement as well. In this case ask for the confidence rating at the start – on a scale of 1 to 10 how certain is the ‘know’. And do the same at the end. Do not be surprised if the rating is lower - indeed a lower rating can be celebrated, as it shows insight and the willingness to stand back and walk around an issue.

I would be interested in hearing from anyone who uses this technique. Let me know how it goes. Anything you could suggest to improve it?

The death of Sir Edmund Hillary gave a number of leader writers in the papers pause for reflection. The Times was magisterial as ever. One quote stands out from an article well worth reading in it's entirety.

In the final episode of David Attenborough's seminal Life on Earth series, which he devoted to homo sapiens, he called us “compulsive communicators”. We are. But we are also compulsively inquisitive, and restless. When humans lose the urge to roam they will have lost a large part of their humanity.

As coaches surely our role is to help our clients find the time and space to be inquisitive and restless?

Each individual has to identify and tackle their personal 'Everest' at work or at home or at play. When we stand on the peak we might often see further challenges ahead but we are confident in the knowledge that having made this first successful ascent we are equipped with the capability and capacity to make the next ascent. And as Hillary and Tenzing's example shows we are very rarely alone when we do.

Working with a senior executive or chief executive? As he/she talks about themselves and their business listen for how they use the first person singular (I) and first person plural (we) in the conversation. They are like signposts in a coaching session – but you need to explore where those signposts are actually pointing and then help the individual as they seek to find the best balance between the two.

If the individual is relatively new into post then you might expect ‘I’ to be the predominant personal pronoun. It is very much about the personal journey of exploration and discovery as they enter a new environment and culture and begin to seek to make sense of it and impose their own mark within it. Challenge them to begin to use ‘we’ within the coaching conversation. What does ‘we’ mean in this context? What does it take to move from ‘I’ to ‘we’? What are the respective impacts of the use ‘I’ and ‘we’ on colleagues and subordinates?  What will be the right balance between ‘we’ and ‘I’ and how will they know?

If they are using ‘we’ already then what does this mean? Who are ‘we’ – describe or map them explicitly? Are these representative of the organisation and culture of the organisation or are there people missing from ‘we’?

A more experienced executive might well be using ‘we’ more often than ‘I’. They will have an established team and the culture and values will have permeated and embedded the individual – the process of cultural acclimatisation and alignment is complete. They will often be subordinating ‘I’ to ‘we’. Challenge them to test whether their colleagues and subordinates have the same perception of ‘we’. Is this just the ‘royal we’ – ‘I’ in disguise? Who is ‘we’- get them to be specific? You might find the individual hiding behind ‘we’ – this is what ‘we’ think; this is what ‘we’ do; this is ‘our’ approach to development. Make them use the ‘I’ in the conversation. How does this feel? What do ‘I’ need to do rather than what do ‘we’ need to do? At the extremes the ‘we’ executive may have subordinated him/herself entirely to the perceived greater good and be missing the opportunity for personal development and growth by allowing themselves to use ‘I’ from time to time.

Of course you may find that the experienced executive is actually using ‘I’ more often – in which case test what this means. How do they feel when using ‘we’? What lies beneath? Are they feeling isolated or out of alignment with the organisation? Have they reached a point where they realise that they need to be a little bit ‘selfish’ in terms of personal development and space if they are to continue to perform effectively? Or do they regard their peers and subordinates with some degree of paternalism or even contempt.

Sometimes ‘we’ is an excuse for inaction and powerlessness in the face of adversity. As the team huddles together like penguins in the chill Antarctic winds the helplessness of ‘we’ masks the personal responsibility for action that can be generated by ‘I’.

Do not overlook the power of the personal pronoun!

A few weeks ago my wife asked me to change the door on our fridge so it opened the 'other' way to fit in with a rearrangement of the kitchen. We have had this fridge for about 8 years and this was the first time we had changed the way the door opened.

The task was done and it looked fine. However everytime for the next month any of us came to the fridge to open it we went to the original side. Once or twice the door almost got wrenched off the fridge by an exasperated adult. This included me and I was the one that changed it.

Even now if I am on automatic pilot in the morning I reach for the wrong side. I still have to make a conscious effort to check myself and go for the correct side.

Our behaviour is moulded into patterns by repetition. Once we have learnt which side the fridge opens we no longer have to think about it but just do so automatically while our mind focuses on other things (coffee or tea this morning; I am sure there was a beer in here last time I looked). Change the pattern however and we have to break the mould and relearn. Unless we break the mould we will revert to the old pattern.

Relearning requires the development of insight into the pattern we have adopted, finding ways to break the mould that created the pattern and then setting up new patterns of behaviour.

My children created my 'awareness trigger' for me. They stuck a magnetic label on the correct side of the fridge in my eyeline. It works (at least until some visiting child moves it!)

What are your patterns - and what are the triggers you can use to break your mould?

For a coach working with senior executives who have many years of experience in different posts and organisations there often comes a point early in the discussion when it becomes clear that the issue is not just about a particular task or current job challenge.

The exploratory phase begins to reveal a wider sense of 'what am I doing here?' and 'do I really enjoy what I am doing?'. We all ask ourselves these questions from time to time (hopefully) but sometimes these questions become a persistent interference getting in the way of the job.

Sometimes this sense of unease is not explicit but begins to surface from the implicit as the discussion begins to evolve.

Often what we begin to find is that there is a loss of connection and alignment between three very important and personal elements:

• the job well done
• the career well spent
• the life well lived

In focussing purely on a succession of jobs well done we can risk losing sight of what the other two might mean for us. Too much divergence and dissonance builds up, creating real interference in commitment, achievement and enjoyment.

One CE had been through 7 significant organisational reconfigurations in 13 years. He had started out full of enthusiasm for the policies, opportunities and challenges. He saw the way that benefits might be delivered to patients and staff. He was proud of the difference his organisation could make to the lives of ordinary people in his area.

Several reconfigurations later he had become an expert on organisational transition - closing down one and leading and managing the processes to create the new organisation - he was proud of his adaptability and the skills he had acquired. He expected to be able to survive and thrive in complex political environments.

However as more reconfigurations followed he began to find he got less and less out of the process of change. He had become expert at the job of responding to new government policies and reconfiguration but was finding less satisfaction in the job and had less energy for the challenge. He was also less interesting to work with and for, becoming more withdrawn and cynical.

Work had become a series of jobs well done (expertly indeed) but when he stood back what he discovered was that the dissonance he felt was driven by a disconnect between the 'job well done' and the 'career well spent' - and indeed there was a risk that if the disconnect continued for much longer it might begin to interfere with some of the base characteristics of what he considered 'a life well lived'.

From this point of self awareness he was able to create a personal 'refresh' plan which allowed him to begin to reconnect and realign the three components.

For coaches the challenge is helping the individual recognise this and creating the safe and constructive context for it to be addressed. For the executive performance coach the challenge is to help the individual bring this full cycle to clear evidence of performance improvement in the job - whatever that job might turn out to be.