Executive Coaches are like any other breed of professional: some are good, some are not. But because the potential impact of an executive coach can be so significant, their defects, blind-spots and shortcomings need to be rigorously understood before hiring them.
The deficiencies of executive coaches often result from over-reliance on a particular approach or focus. Here are 10 of them: 1. Certification — contrary to what the certifying bodies would have us believe (presumably to maintain revenues), there is no reliable linkage between certification and competence. The best coaching happens spontaneously, in the moment, so the kind of guidelines and methodologies that can be formalised, tested and policed by these bodies will detract from the coaching experience if adhered to. There are bad coaches that are certified and good coaches that are not — and vice versa. Certification does not exempt the client from selecting their coach with care. 2. Fix-It Coaches — some coaches see clients as broken, and themselves as the solution. This can be symptomatic of the coach taking a mechanistic view of their clients which will limit the impact they can have. Or, in some cases, the coach is looking to fix others as a subliminal displacement activity to fixing themselves. Neither is effective. The truth is that none of us are broken (even though it can and does feel like it at times) and attempts to repair another simply validate the mistaken impression. Instead the coach needs to facilitate a higher perspective from which the client can see things as they really are. 3. Structured Processes — these usually appear in the form of acronyms and signal that the coach is wedded to an algorithmic process — if this, then that… The problem with using such a methodology is that it prevents the coach and client making meaningful contact with each other with the structure or framework sitting squarely in between them, and is the coach’s reference point. One of the prime responsibilities of a coach is to bring the client’s frame of reference quickly and firmly back to themselves, to discover their own inner resources and strength. This is the true meaning of integrity which can only be undermined by constantly referencing external frameworks. 4. Mindset — mindset is a good focus for executive coaching as mindset conditions behaviour. However, when the coach becomes intent on modifying the client’s mindset to produce a better one, that creates a problem as the better mindset is invariably the coach’s mindset. This works well for training, but coaching has a very different agenda, looking instead to connect the client with their own insights and inspiration, which exist beyond the realm of fixed beliefs. The word mindset means fixed mind — the antithesis of the brain’s neuroplasticity. 5. Motivation — these coaches believe that clients can be driven to change by telling them how wonderful they are, how much potential they have and that all they have to do is think positively to realise it. True motivation — more accurately called inspiration — can only come from self, never from another. External motivation is compulsion and compulsion is not sustainable. Rather, the true coach seeks not to motivate but to uncover the client’s own, inner inspiration as an inexhaustible supply of enthusiasm, energy and purpose. 6. Law Of Attraction — the law of attraction is such a beguiling proposition that coaches to whom it appeals build their offering around it. The problem here is that the coach may not have fully integrated the law into their own lives before selling the approach to their clients. It remains an aspiration rather than a reality to both coach and client. The law of attraction is as simple as it is powerful, and it is all too easy for our sophisticated intellects to get in the way of its operation. For many of us new perspectives need to be established before we can expect the law of attraction to do what it says on the tin. 7. Neuroscience — the burgeoning science of neurology is providing coaches with plenty of science with which to validate their models of the mind. But exploring the objective brain in terms of neuroscience is not equivalent to experiencing the subjective mind. Neuroscience (still in its infancy) can never replace the need to explore our own inner dynamics experientially. Given our 24/7 access to the most sophisticated structure in the known universe (our minds) should we not prioritise getting to know it just as well as we know the external world? 8. Dependency — some coaches are very good business people. Their instinct is to maximise revenue by extending the coaching relationship for as long as possible. This is fundamentally unhealthy and unethical — coaching needs to deliver independence and self-reference, regardless of the financial implications. Coaches need to focus on delivering value not generating income. When they do, new clients arrive through their good work being referred to others in need of a coach. 9. Specialisation — coaches that have had a short career or have specialised in a specific discipline (e.g. psychology) may not have the requisite breadth of experience to resonate with the client’s challenges and their context. Specialisation is fine but within a broad foundation that needs to include leadership. A CEO may well benefit from hiring a coach with no corporate or leadership experience, but the impact will be limited and neither may be aware of where those limits are. 10. Performance — many clients hire coaches to improve their performance. But, paradoxically, a focus on performance is counter-productive. The reason is simply that performance is an outcome, not a cause. Good coaches focus on the causal realm and ignore the symptoms in the knowledge they will look after themselves. For a good coach, performance is a distraction. The pressure to quantify the improvements in performance delivered by the coach can be intense, particularly in a corporate environment. The harsh reality is that any attempt is utterly meaningless given the myriad variables at play. Beware coaches that promise percentage returns on investment! So there we have ten coaching syndromes which potential buyers of coaching services would do well to be aware of. Emphasising these deficiencies begs the question: so what skill does a good coach actually need? Perhaps the most valuable skill that an executive coach can bring to their work is the ability to listen and reflect back – with crystal clarity and no judgement – the inner dynamics of their client. The most effective coaches are rather like mirrors, flat and polished. I regularly work with boards and senior management teams on Strategy, which as far as I'm concerned, essentially means working out: where we are; where we want to get to; how we're going to get there. It's a deceptively simple challenge - simple, not necessarily easy.
Occasionally, someone pipes up with: "Let's talk about Values!" at which point my heart sinks and I brace myself for the predictable string of platitudes that will almost certainly follow: "We're agile, customer-focused, lean, innovative, creative, we promote respect, excellence, integrity, a can-do attitude, we delight our customers..." and so on and so forth... Now I have nothing against Values - I think I probably have a few myself. What rings hollow is the notion that a leadership team can pluck a few words out of the air and sincerely believe that they can 'do some work on them' in a meeting. Or even instil a few new ones as part of the strategy. And then there is the failure to recognise the difference between aspirational values - those the organisation would like to adopt - and the real values - those that are actually lived and breathed. As I see it, statements around values are little more than lipstick on a pig - not only does it not improve the look of the pig, the pig is actually better off without it. So the idea that you can imbue an organisation with values by articulating them, reminding people of them, exhorting staff to adopt them, writing them on a wall in reception, strikes me as the acme of ignorance. The kind of values that seem to have real worth are embedded in the very fabric of the organisation. Let me give you an example: Last week I visited a small business, growing fast and doing world-leading technology. I arrived and let myself into the unmanned reception area. After a couple of minutes someone appeared and asked if I was being looked after, even though they were clearly busy doing something else. I gave the name of the person I was visiting and waited. Another person appeared who asked the same thing... and then another, and another. All different people, preoccupied with other tasks, asking if I was being looked after. Now that may not sound particularly noteworthy, but I have been in a similar situation many times when no one has bothered to even acknowledge me. For me, this was a clear demonstration of perhaps the most important value of the lot: CARE All those that I met clearly cared a great deal for the job they were doing, their colleagues and even people hanging around in reception. So how do you get an organisation to foster the right Values? Well, the only way that I've seen leaders successfully establish real Values in an organisation, is to stop talking about them... and to start living them. If you've got Time Management issues, the problem isn't Time Management.
Years ago I went on a Time Management course and came away rather perplexed and demoralised by all the things I had to do to use my time effectively. I started to implement them regardless, keeping time logs, prioritising tasks, setting and keeping to deadlines, not multi-tasking - I'm sure you could add to the list... The result: STRESS All the wonderful Time Management theory that promised an end to the problems that I was experiencing, just ended up creating a whole lot more: I would miss a time log input and beat myself up. I would focus on a single task to the detriment of other important stuff. I would think about Time Management instead of the task at hand. But worst of all, I would feel bad about what I was doing and how I was doing it, because it didn't conform to the received wisdom. Years later, I know why this happened:
So there we have it: Time Management doesn't work (in my experience). In fact it can be counter-productive and rather than reducing stress, can create even more. The question remains, if Time Management doesn't work... what does? Firstly I think it's helpful to acknowledge that many people experience serious issues around Time. They are inefficient, overwhelmed, exhausted, stressed-out, unproductive, and in great need of support. Some get sick. To provide some insight into the Time Management issues that they experience, I'm going to invoke non other than Albert Einstein: No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it So what, then, are the real causes for Time Management issues? Bearing in mind we're all different, here are some that I've come across in myself and others:
So if you have Time Management issues, before you enrol on that Time Management course, just consider the possibility that the solution might lay elsewhere. After years of attending all sorts of meetings in all manner of organisations, I reckon they all fall into 1 of 2 categories:
So how do you ensure that your next meeting doesn't end up like the one in the picture? Here are some Don'ts that will help you avoid them:
Large meetings are almost always ego-driven, playing into the status of hierarchy. One important person speaks and lots of lesser mortals listen to their pearls of wisdom. If there is news to be broadcast, do it electronically. If it's bad news, do it 1-2-1. If it's good news, have a party. Meetings are for discussion and a meeting of minds, not the injection of information into brains. Being punctual demonstrates respect. Meetings that overrun are the result of sloppy, ill-disciplined management. There is no excuse. Using Power Point is not a statutory obligation. You don't have to use it. If you've got great pictures then go ahead - even if they have nothing to do with your presentation. But please, never use it as an autocue and remember: bullets kill. Small groups inhibit grand-standing by those with big personalities and encourage the wall-flowers to engage. If you have 12 people in the meeting, set the scene and then split into 3 groups of 4 to discuss. Get the groups to cross-pollinate ideas at least every 30 minutes. Maintain Engagement by switching off electronic devices and not allowing comings and goings. You're either there or you're not, in or out, no halfway house. Tables usually just get in the way. They provide a nice support for laptops and a way of hiding phones. And how much water do you need anyway? They also mean that you get to engage with half a person when you really want to be talking to a whole person. If body language is irrelevant, why have a physical meeting at all? Keep Meetings Short. If you really have to go over an hour, give people breaks - it's not an endurance test. Now the one great exception to all this is when you want to tap into the collective experience and creativity of a large group. Then you can use a format called Open Space, which allows groups ranging from under 20, up to several hundred to engage at the same time and in the same space, effectively. Finally, don't stand (or sit) for bad meetings - do something about them. They are a curse of many organisations and breed through ignorance and apathy. Being in the same room isn't enough - the ultimate objective is: A Meeting of Minds |