Welcome to Business Management
Saturday, June 28, 2008
The Overlapping of Executive Coaching Suggested Methods
There is also agreement regarding the desirable assessment techniques and instrumentation, including 360-degree feedback questionnaires, behavioral interviews, and psychological instruments, such as personality and leadership style inventories (Brotman et al., 1998; Kiel, Rimmer, Williams & Doyle, 1996; Kilburg, 1996a; Luthans & Peterson, 2003; Peterson, 1996; Richard, 1999; Rogers, Rogers & Metlay, 2002; Saporito, 1996; Thach, 2002; Tobias, 1996).
A review of the literature depicted a similar overlapping with respect to suggested core competencies that executive coaches should posses if they desire to hone their skills and reach the upper echelon of clientele. The recommended core competencies constitute a skill set weighted toward being a trusted and approachable coach who can establish long-lasting relationships with a variety of people throughout an organization. Core competencies are comprised of skills, aptitudes, knowledge and methods (McClelland, 1973; Spencer & Spencer, 1993).
A collective listing of the suggested core competencies from the literature, based upon anecdotal evidence and supposition, include:
1. Approachable: puts others at ease; warm, pleasant, and gracious; sensitive to and patient with the interpersonal anxieties of others; builds rapport well; and is a good listener (Bluckert, 2005a; Brotman, 1998; Kilburg, 1996).
2. Associates comfortably with top management: deals well with senior executives; understands the thinking patterns of top executives; uses business acumen and pattern language; and develops appropriate methods (Brotman, 1998; Wasylyshyn, 2003).
3. Compassion: authentically cares about people; concerned about their life issues; available and ready to help; offers empathy when needed (Bluckert, 2005; Brotman, 1998; Lazar & Bergquist, 2004).
4. Creativity: develops innovative and distinctive ideas; effortlessly connects problem issues into distinctive action plans (Brotman et al., 1998).
5. Client focused: able to meet the desires of the client and client, develops trusting and respectful effective client/client relationships (Bluckert, 2005; Brotman, 1998; Linkage, 2006).
6. Integrity and trust: trustworthy; confidant; can speak the truth in a diplomatic and supportive manner (Bluckert, 2005a; Brotman, 1998; Lazar & Bergquist, 2004; Peterson, 1996).
7. Intellectual horsepower: is smart, intellectual, and capable; functions well in an analytical setting (Brotman, 1998; Kilburg, 1997; Linkage, 2006).
8. Interpersonal savvy (Relates well to all people): develops rapport, actively listens, builds trusting, and respectful relationships (Bluckert, 2005; Brotman, 1998; Wasylyshyn).
9. Powerful listening: uses active listening; fully hear the client; reiterates client's opinions despite disagreement (Bluckert, 2005, Brotman, 1998; Killburg, 1996; Trudeau, 2004; Wasylyshyn, 2005).
10. Deals with paradox: able to be fully present with the client; uses a strong and empathetic approach when needed; self-confident yet humble (Brotman, 1998; Tobias, 1996).
11. Politically savvy: diplomatic; uses sensitivity in an organizational setting; strategically plans and thinks; identifies corporate politics as a necessary function and adapts well to it (Blackman, 2006; Brotman, 1998; Wasylyshyn, 2003).
Executive Coaching Research - Part I
As executive coaching gains a stronghold on tried and true developmental practices, the requirement for rigorous research on core competencies and related training of them has emerged. Researchers must also assist in resolving or clarifying the disparity that has developed between the variety of protocols, methods, and techniques in executive coaching and offer a means to validate practitioners' claims (Brotman et al., 1998; Wasylyshyn, 2003).
Kleinberg (1996), who is an executive coach with a background in psychology, argues that executive coaches who do not possess rigorous psychological training deliver more inefficiency than proficiency. In the event an executive is experiencing psychological difficulties, which have gone undiagnosed or untreated, coaching may add insult to injury. Additionally, many self-styled executive coaches know little about business and/or coaching. Executive coaching provides executives with the opportunity to develop their leadership skills along with interpersonal skills, and become more skillful in leading teams of people through organizational upheaval and business transformation (Neimes, 2002).
Kilburg's (1996a) classic review of the literature revealed that there existed more than ten years ago a paucity of empirical data, as applied to the art and practice of executive coaching, to support the techniques and approaches coaches use. Today, the breadth of research does not equal the coaching industry demand (Kampa-Kokesh & Anderson, 2001; Kilburg, 2004; Wasylyshyn, 2003).
Judge and Cowell (1997) presented a snapshot of those who have become coaches, how they are coaching, who is being coached, and why they are being coached. In a survey of 60 professional coaches, the authors suggested that executive coaching is a derivative of executive development programs.
Regarding the coach's experience through the conduit of methodology, Judge and Cowell (1997) made an interesting yet unsubstantiated statement: "One factor that differentiates coaches is the level of assessment they perform. The best coaches conduct 360-degree assessments of the executives, which includes surveying and interviewing all the people with whom the executive interacts regularly" (p. 74).
Other means of data gathering experienced by the coaches in the study included observation in the workplace, peer assessment, and gaining input from clients (Peterson, 1996). Some coaches, presumably not the best, interviewed clients in relation to leadership, behavioral issues, and the performance of informal assessments. The researchers noted that this less robust methodology might have been sufficient depending upon the client's ability for accurate self-assessment.
Executive Coaching Research, Part II
Brotman (1998) echoed Judge and Cowell's (1997) research findings. As might be expected within the context of development, the authors reported that the higher a person is promoted, the more likely they will participate in executive coaching. In addition, the researchers discovered that educational experiences of the executive coaches varied greatly. The greatest amount of participants had a bachelor's degree, but the undergraduate degrees varied widely in specialty. Those with master's degrees were concentrated in business and the social sciences. The study also revealed that over 40% had doctoral degrees.
Age and gender demographics did not show the same variance. Most of the coaches (approximately 60%) were male, and 80% were between 35 and 55 years old. Very few were younger than 35 (which seems reasonable considering the experiential element). Other investigators obtained similar findings during their research into the executive coaching demographics (Edwards, 2003; Goldsmith and Lyons, 2006; Kilburg, 1996).
Hollenbeck and McCall (1999) proposed that executive coaching effectiveness has tended to be appraised anecdotally rather than by empirical evidence. Fortunately, the small body of empirical research has been growing.
In 2001, Kampa-Kokesh and Anderson published their landmark literature review, in which they found only seven existing empirical studies: Olivero and Kopelman (1997) investigated the outcomes of executive coaching in a public sector agency; Judge and Cowell (1997) surveyed executive coaching practices; Gegner (1997) studied the effectiveness of executive coaching through quantitative and qualitative methods; Hall, Otazo, and Hollenbeck (1999) interviewed both executives and coaches regarding executive coaching practice, effectiveness, and future directions; the fifth study investigated the effect of eye movement desensitization reprocessing (EMDR) as a technique used in executive coaching; Laske (1999) explored the transformative effects of executive coaching on an executive's professional agenda; and Garman, Whiston and Zlatoper (2000) examined public perceptions of executive coaching.
Executive Coaching Research, Part III
Kleinberg used thematic analysis tests (TAT) and qualitative, semi-structured interviews to explore the responses of 13 U.S. executive coaches in relation to their coaching experience. The interviews were coded into emergent patterns and themes using thematic analysis. The findings were categorized under three fields: descriptive and factual, thematic essences of the executive coaches, and cross sectional. Descriptive findings included work experiences; recipients of coaching/range of outcomes from coaching; coach qualifications and training; use of coaches' resources; and process and outcomes of executive coaching. Thematic findings included: how the coaches described themselves; beliefs about expertise and success; life experiences; communication; use of theory and interpretation; individual characteristics of the executive coaches; and confidentiality and trust.
Although possessing some validity for an executive coaching model, Kleinberg's conclusions presented several obstacles to generalizability. First, the sample size was small, as was the case in Orenstein's (2002) study. Kleinberg had 13 self-identified U.S. executive coaches who responded to questions that he hoped would provide him with an understanding of what theories might be present in the emerging field of coaching.
Second, was Kleinberg's projection or desire for the participants to say that their methods possessed both scholarly and practitioner-based theory and application. The result of this project may have been asking people to make judgments about professional issues beyond their current or conscious level of knowledge and understanding. Third, the Pygmalion effect may help explain why the participants in this research project were able to report such a wide range of positive outcomes for their clients.
There is a paradox with the use of the qualitative research design. Qualitative research yields detailed information about experiences, interactions, quality, story lines, themes, patterns and behaviors, etc. (Spencer & Spencer, 1993). These types of findings are not inherent in quantitative research designs. Kleinberg (2001) suggested it was difficult for him to determine whether the questions asked of research participants yielded the information that he was looking for.
Kleinberg maintained that there is virtually no way of identifying people known as "expert" executive coaches for research purposes due to the wide range of standards and beliefs about what this actually means. Kleinberg suggested researchers' first need to define parameters that define what "expert" means. The coaches in his research were self-identified as such. Only one participant had extensive training (10 years in the fields of phenomenology, ontology, and communication, in addition to a doctoral degree). Additional limitations identified by Kleinberg were personal attitudes, health concerns (illness, low energy), life concerns, time commitments shared by coaches, which might have affected respondents' willingness to share additional information during the interviews.
Executive Coaching Research, Part IV
Overall, productivity (60% favorable) and employee satisfaction (53%) were cited as most significantly affected by the coaching. Respondents defined productivity in this context as relating to their personal or to their work group productivity and half (50%) documented annualized financial benefits, but could not quantify them. Based upon multi-source feedback, corporate management believed the ROI from executive coaching was of significant value to the overall corporate profitability.
This study is worth citing for several reasons. First, the executives were from a Fortune 500 company. Second, the evaluating company and author was an independent third party. The executives had recognizable potential in that they were already identified for an executive development program. The employees reacted positively to executive coaching, believing that the interventions brought both corporate and personal benefits. Finally, the author had leadership positions in several professional groups that have excellent reputations in the training and development community.
In a more recent study, Orenstein (2002) challenged the prevailing understanding of executive coaching as an exclusively individual intervention. Orenstein believes executive coaching is a complex and demanding process that encompasses multidimensional interrelationships among the client, the organization (client) and the coach. She uses four premises that guide the process, including, (a) the role of the unconscious in individual and group behavior, (b) the interaction between the individual and the organization, (c) multilevel organizational forces, and (d) the coach's use of self as a tool.
In one of the largest studies involving executive coaching, Smither, London, Flautt, Vargas, and Kucine (2003) evaluated the effect of executive coaching by using multisource feedback ratings from executives in a global corporation. The focal point of their research was to discover the impact of executive coaching as it related to actual behavioral change and improvement. The study involved over 1,300 senior managers who had received multisource feedback on their performance with the results being made available to the researchers. Just over 400 of the managers (29.7% of the original group) were assigned to work with executive coaches.
Smither (2003) had several hypotheses related to executives who worked with coaches. They proposed that those who received coaching would be more likely to set specific goals, share their feedback (asking for ways to improve), and improve in their future multisource ratings. The study's outcome demonstrated that clients who worked with executive coaches were more likely to set goals that were specific and garner ideas from their supervisors for personal improvement. Additionally, managers who were coached improved more than the non-coached managers in their ratings from both direct reports and supervisors.
As a result, of the study, Smither (2003) made an important observation: practitioners may wonder whether the small, albeit positive, effect sizes observed in the current study are sufficient to justify the investment in executive coaching. Because the standard deviation of job performance in dollars is likely to be large for senior managers, even small improvements in performance may be associated with meaningful economic benefits. In the end, the authors think that judgments about the practical (e.g., economic) value of executive coaching must await further research.
Executive Coaching Research, Part VI
It has been suggested in the literature that variables to success using executive coaching include the coach's experience, education, coach training, and methods used (Blackman, 2006; Joo, 2005; Kampa-Kokesh, & Anderson, 2001; Stevens, 2005; Turner, 2006; Wasylyshyn, 2003). The same researchers found that superior executive coaches have been found to use varying protocols, assessments, and relationship-building techniques. As mentioned earlier, these coaches have enjoyed successful practices, despite their anecdotal approaches.
Many, if not most of the superior executive coaches, rely upon an academic background to propel them into the higher echelon of coaching. Many up-and-coming executive coaches, who possess graduate degrees, and have completed training with coaching institutions, do not experience similar accomplishment. With the desire in the coaching industry to rely upon empirically validated training, it becomes important to understand the core competencies developed and possessed by superior executive coaches.
One of the more intriguing areas of potential research for the expanded use of executive coaching concerns Wasylyshyn's (2003) assertion that executive coaches should be well versed in the use of soft skills. According to Wasylyshyn, with regard to psychology, there are certain general psychological skills essential for effective executive coaching, including interpersonal effectiveness, listening, empathy for widely differing groups, patience, adaptability, analytical problem solving, creativity, and humor. Those executive coaches who have found it difficult to break into the upper echelon of corporate coaching and do not possess a psychological background have been found to lack proficiency with soft skills.
With the aforementioned research findings considered together, this may assist the executive coach in adopting core competencies and practices possessed by superior coaches. This ability may render executive coaching more useful and effective by helping to establish a closer coach/client relationship quicker through a system of core competencies that incorporates effective interpersonal skills and assessment techniques.
Friday, June 27, 2008
IT’s The End Of An Era As Gates Logs Out
And what a career it has been. Gates has been an animating force behind the PC revolution, helping to build a huge global industry and engineer blockbuster products like Windows and Office, used every day in offices and homes around the world.
The Harvard dropout was the wealthiest person on the planet for years worth more than $100 billion in 1999 though his fortune is now about half that because of the decline of Microsoft’s shares and his continued donations to his foundation, which is focused on global health and education.
Despite his success, Gates is moving on as the company he co-founded in 1975 is struggling to find its way. The center of gravity in technology has shifted from PCs to
Net, altering the old rules
of competition that
were so lucratively
mastered by Microsoft.
For millions of users, cellphones are beginning to edge out PCs as the tool of choice for many computing tasks. And Google, the frontrunner in the current wave of internet computing, has wrested the mantle of h i g h - t e ch leadership from Microsoft.
A l - though Gates will spend one day a week at the company, it will be up to his successors, led by Steven A Ballmer, the chief executive, to master the challenges of the internet or watch Microsoft’s wealth and stature in the industry steadily erode. Bill’s legacy is Windows and Office, and that will be a rich franchise for years to come, but its not the future, said David B Yoffie, a professor at the Harvard Business School.
Still, the Gates legacy is impressive. In addition to software itself, Gates and his company have shaped how people think about competition in many industries where technology plays a central role. Today, there are more than one billion copies of Windows operating system on PCs around the world. Industry experts and economists say that Windows is not necessarily the best or most admired software for running the basic operations of a PC Apple’s Macintosh can claim the most devout fan club. But Gates grasped and deployed two related concepts on a scale no one ever had in the past: the power of network effects and the value of establishing a technology platform. Put simply, the network effect describes a phenomenon in which the value of a product goes up as more people use it. Email messaging and telephones are classic examples. A technology platform is a set of tools or services that others can use to build their own products or services. The more people who use the tools, the more popular the platform can become. Gates took advantage of both notions and combined them to build Microsoft’s dominance in PCs, spreading its influence with PC makers and software developers.
Today, there are many thousands of software applications that run on the Windows platform, not just word processing and spreadsheets but also specialized programs in doctors offices, factory floors and retail stores a broad network on a nearly ubiquitous technology platform. “Gates saw software as a separate market from hardware before anyone else, but his great insight was recognizing power of the network effects surrounding the software,” said Michael A Cusumano, a professor at the MIT’s Sloan School of Management. “That,” Professor Cusumano added, “was the essential difference in the paths of Microsoft and Apple, the early leader in personal computing.” Apple focused on making outstanding products alone, while Microsoft nurtured a growing ecosystem of outside software developers who use, and are dependent on, Microsoft’s technology”, he said. “The result,” he added, “is that, while Apple continues to make outstanding products, more than 90% of personal computers run Microsoft software.” In the early years, it was unclear how much Gates was pursuing each opportunity as it came, as opposed to carrying out a grand strategy. “He certainly had large ambitions. When he was a Harvard undergraduate, Gates lamented that so many of his fellow students pursued a narrow track for success instead of being willing to take big risks to do big things,” recalled Michael Katz, a Harvard contemporary who is now a professor at New York University. In a Harvard Business School study, published in 1994, Gates spoke of MS’s strategy in terms of network effects and technology standards that, combined, enabled the company to command mkts. NYT NEWS SERVICES
Friday, June 20, 2008
Barriers to a Successful Business
If you are a student of people like I am then you know that there are certain traits that lead to success. I personally love going to malls, finding a quiet place to sit, and just watch people walk by. I often try to imagine what makes them tick, what decisions they are wrestling with, and what challenges life has thrown their way. Businesses are much harder to watch, but the successful ones all seem to have common characteristics too. The author of the book, Good To Great, went much further than just sitting in a mall watching. He and his team spent months and months investigating what it takes to be a great business. What he found can be read in his book, but I want to dig into why many, dare I say, "Most" businesses don't succeed.
First, lets take a look at what a barrier is. A simple definition is something that keeps you from reaching that sought after goal. Barriers come in many forms and hinder even the most successful. Such as:
o Harry Truman failed so often in business and politics that he once wrote a letter to his wife, Bess, in which he said, "I can't possibly lose forever."
o Early in her career, Lucille Ball was fired by a producer who told her, "You're not meant for show business. Go home."
o After an early performance at the Grand Ole Opry, Elvis Presley was told that he should stick to driving a truck since he obviously had no future as a singer.
o Rudy Kipling was fired from his first job as a newspaper reporter because his editor told him, "You don't know how to use the English language."
o After completing his first novel, Stephen King decided it was terrible and threw it into the trash. His wife fished it out and sent it to a publisher. Thus started a very long and successful writing career.
The question that I hope you will answer by the end of this article is, "How do I overcome the barriers that I am facing today, and the barriers I will face in the future?" After reading this statement you might be thinking, "Wait a minute, this article is supposed to be about barriers to a successful business." Believe it or not, it is this business man's opinion that the real barriers to a successful business lies within the mind.
Yes, common barriers to a successful business can be the location of the business, the amount of capital and funding it has, the experience of the staff, and how much in demand the product is. But... I believe that the following ten barriers will keep your business on the sideline even if you have the best possible location, all the money in the world, a team that is known as a "dream team", and a product as great as an umbrella in the rainy season.
Barrier #1: Lack of focus - Recently at a golf tournament his name was sitting where it is found most often, at the top of the leader board. He was playing great golf and the "pack" was trying every shot in their bags to catch him. He continually stepped up and hit one magnificent golf shot after another. Then I noticed something. After each shot, while the crowd was roaring cheers to their great hero, this golfer stayed focused on his game. During the entire round he rarely took off his "game-face". It was this focus that enabled him to hit those great golf shots, to win the tournament, and will very possibly be what makes Tiger Woods the best professional golfer the PGA has ever seen. Just like Tiger, in order for you to reach your goals personally, as well as professionally, you must stay focused.
Barrier #2: Mind Set - When you get up in the morning do you set in your mind to end the day with several victories? It is easy to say, "Yes," but do you really set out to sell more than you ever have, work smarter in order to accomplish what were only dreams a few years ago, or purposefully develop a team that will help you reach the summit in your profession? The problem is negativity, and negative thoughts. Before you stop reading consider this. Recently I was playing in a doubles tennis tournament with a person that I had never played with. We were playing the best team in the tournament and I wanted to win badly. The reason we lost was not lack of skill or even luck, it was my partner and his negative mental attitude. Literally, his mind cost us the match. How much is your mind costing you?
Barrier #3: Belief system - I don't believe things always happen just because you say they will happen. I do however believe that there is power in words. Just like your mind set, your belief system must be positive in order to have positive results. It is just like the little train climbing the mountain, "I think I can, I think I can, I know I can." You stand a better chance of accomplishing your dreams if you surround yourself with positive people, mentally feed on positive thoughts, and speak positive words.
Barrier #4: Making excuses - Recently I was working with a business person that said she really wanted to accomplish great things. During our dialog we began digging into why she had not accomplished the first steps of this journey. What she said actually shocked me. She began making one excuse after another as to why she had not accomplished even the most basic of her goals. When I called her on this she didn't have much to say. She realized that she was going to have to take steps in new and unfamiliar territory if she would ever accomplish her dreams. What excuses are you making today that are holding you and your business back?
Barrier #5: Fear - We have all experienced it, and to some degree are controlled by it. How do I know this about you? Think back to when you were a kid. At some point you probably didn't like to go in dark rooms or walk down dark streets where scary sounds seemed to come with every step. The feeling you felt then will cause you to reach for the light switch today. In my 20+ years of leadership experience, I have found that there are at least four common fears that affect even the most seasoned leader. More than likely, at least one of these fears affects you each and every time you relate to a person on a leadership level.
Before, you read these fears, please prepare your mind to read them openly and honestly. This article is not meant to delve deeply into the psychology of each fear, but to share how they influence you as a leader. The fears I see most often in the lives of leaders are:
* Rejection. I have never met a person that likes to be rejected. Leaders that have had bad experiences with rejection will guard themselves from being rejected. Most often I see this as the turtle syndrome. The leader is afraid to stick his head out of the shell and take a risk, develop a new program, hire a new employee, or ask someone to take on a certain task. As a leader you have to realize that there are risks involved, and those risks come with rejection. You must stop, look at your options, decide on what to do, and then take action.
* Loss of control. This fear is often seen in powerful personality types. This is not to say that the leader is a control freak, but control is a "comfort zone" to this person. The fear of losing control is displayed in a leadership style often called "micromanagement." In other words, the leader is afraid to delegate responsibilities because if things get out of control he will not be able to take corrective action fast enough. What you must realize is that you are in control of very little. Life is basically out of your control. Managing people with a strong, controlling hand will not allow them to take on new problems nor will it challenge them to make progress in areas where they have never been before.
* Employee dependence. We all depend on people, from our families, to our doctors, to the garbage collectors that pick up our trash on a regular basis. Employee dependence is a fear that is much deeper than simply depending on someone. The fear comes each day when the leader senses that something may be wrong with his "key" person. The leader then begins to wonder about the loyalty of this person. Asking mental questions like, "What if this person quits? How would I make it without him? What can I do to make sure she is happy in her job? What will my boss do if this person goes over my head with a problem?" On and on the questions go. The grip of this fear is strong, but must be eliminated. As the old saying says, "If you hold on too tight, it will slip through your fingers."
* Financial challenges. Take a day this week and go to your local bookstore and count how many books are written on financial matters. You will probably find that there are more books on this one subject than any other. Leaders are always facing challenges, but financial fears have a way of gripping like no other. New programs or ventures take capital. Employees needed to expand and grow increases the salary budget. Additional equipment to increase overall efficiency requires funds to be spent. The strength of financial fears often causes the leader to begin accepting the status quo; and will often cause the leader to give up on his dreams.
These are four fears that I often see in leaders. I encourage you to plan some time in your schedule this week and think through this. If you find that one, or more, of these fears have a grip on your life then allow your mind to reveal the root cause. Finding the root cause today will begin a healing process that will result in you being a better leader tomorrow.
Barrier #6: Being satisfied - It has been said if you are not going up you are going down. I don't know if that is totally true, but I do know that being satisfied for any length of time in your business will cause your success level to go down. Your competition will catch up with you, your staff will get bored, and profits will begin leveling out.
Barrier #7: Busyness - Many authors more published than I have written on this topic. They have filled many pages and books on this subject. I will make one brief statement that will have what I hope is a great impact on the future of your business. That statement is, "You need to begin tomorrow working 'on' your business, not just 'in' your business." What that means is that you need to look at your business from 35,000 feet and begin to develop strategies that will produce financial growth, staff satisfaction, and organizational goals achieved.
Barrier #8: Trading greatness for being good enough- Referring again to the book "Good to Great" you must fight the temptation to just be good enough. I have never been fond of white-water rafting, probably because I don't like cold water. The sport consists of a raft, fast moving cold water, raft riders, and a raft leader/guide. I once saw a picture of a group of girls out for some white-water rafting fun. The girls in the picture were all smiling and waving to the camera while the leader's eyes were straining to see down stream. No doubt he was looking for the next big rock, up coming turns in the river, or other challenges that they would have to navigate.
To move your organization to a great one you must keep "going" towards the organization's mission and vision. A great organization is one that overcomes the obstacles and turns in its path.
Barrier #9: Removing the glass ceiling- Many people, as well as organizations, excel into greatness, but stay there only for a short time. It is this author's belief that there is something supernaturally built into every human being. That something is the desire to win, but at the same time the fear of losing. It seems that for many there is a glass ceiling that holds them down, keeping them from reaching new levels of success. What is your glass ceiling?
Barrier #10: Giving up - When you get a minute do a word study on the word: Gambaru. It is a word with a rich meaning that runs deep in some cultures around the world. Gambaru simply means to not give up. A short definition, but you and I both know it is not that simple. When things get tough and the future of your career, life, or business looks like it will not make it you must not give up. You must jump out of bed each day, full of vim and vigor, ready to conquer what ever comes your way. You simply just can't give up!!!!
Jeff Earlywine began his speaking and consulting career while working on his undergraduate Business degree. His experiences have led him to work in many difference areas of business and non-profit organizations.
Jeff has been coaching and training people for most of his life. He has coached multi-millionaires in areas such as personal finance, business operations, accounting systems, and legal issues.
* MOTIVATING SPEAKER
Jeff has always had a very unique communication style. A style that challenges his audiences to grow to their potential. His down to earth stories will have them laughing one minute and stretching beyond belief the next.
* CONSULTANT
Jeff has spent over two decades consulting with hundreds of different organizations all across the nation. Serving as a consultant at The Injoy Group challenged him to be his best while he worked with the best. Jeff has assisted many organizations in Vision Casting, Strategic Planning, and Future Planning.
* EXECUTIVE
Jeff's unofficial title is, "Minister of Organization," and by this title you might know this is his greatest skill. That skill gave him the passion to organize many different departments in rapidly growing organizations. That skill also developed a staff capable of growing each of these departments after he was gone.
The Right Tools Aren't Enough, You Have to Plan For Operational Excellence
As manager of Performance Improvement for a 400 bed hospital, I had ten years to focus on pulling the organization together as a team. It was almost a dream world for operational excellence, with an executive staff that was behind the improvement process, the finances to support improvement efforts, and hospital managers and staff who were willing to work hard to learn and apply the right tools. In 1992 the hospital brought in Florida Power and Light's training team to help us build the process, using FP&L staff who had been instrumental in leading that organization to the first Deming Award earned by a U.S. corporation.
Those trainers brought serious tools, including everything from statistical process control to facilitator and team leader skills training. Besides learning these tools myself, 100 of my management colleagues spent close to 30 classroom hours - and countless hours of practical application - developing skills to lead this sort of process. One of our first efforts was to train 35 facilitators to work with the various teams throughout this medical organization. And we followed that by training 1200 staff members in the basics of effective team membership to support the efforts that we expected to grow from this organized approach.
A DESIGN FOR THE PROCESS
At the start, a Design Team was chartered, which included executive and director level staff, as well as hand-picked front line people who were committed to making the whole process work. Every bit of the process was carefully planned, because this was one effort we intended to make successful. Budgets, time allowances, purchase of materials, and even chartering of an oversight department (Performance Improvement) were detailed out, and the likely areas of need were identified for initial efforts. Even a performance-based incentive plan was established, one in which all full-time staff could share the monetary results that we hoped would result from this sort of all-out approach to improving
BUILDING TEAMS TO BUILD SUCCESS
Over the course of those ten years my department saw over 200 teams formed, and conducted an annual PI Olympics which showcased the efforts - and the outcomes - of each of those teams. Those team efforts were broad! We saw functional teams that evaluated the billing and accounting processes, management teams that took on leadership approaches, and dozens of cross-functional clinical teams improving everything from surgical cycle time to patient scheduling and transport. It was an eye-opening experience, and one that resulted not only in many improvements, but also saw employee morale soar, with turnover dropping to match the best in the state. Why was that? Because people love to be involved in a process that is obviously making a difference.
WHY IS SUCH AN APPROACH EFFECTIVE?
Operational excellence, continuous improvement, lean, six sigma, and performance improvement: all have evolved from the same basic approach, starting with the assumption that people working together will accomplish more than any single leader can ever hope to do. To be effective, the approach has to include common goals, goals that leadership has identified as being basic to the success of the organization. The goals have to be obvious to all players, and must emanate from a solid understanding of the needs of the external customers purchasing the services and products of the company.
LEADERSHIP HAS A CRITICAL ROLE
Management must agree to work with one mind toward those goals, and this is more difficult in larger organizations, because it's easy for large departmental or divisional goals to take the place of the highest level goals - those that insure the longevity and success of the organization itself.
Because of this issue, executive leaders have to take the time not only to develop the highest level goals, but also - and most importantly - to "make the connections" between those highest level goals and the activities that produce the supporting results in the various parts of the company. What does this mean? It means thinking through the contribution each department makes to the overall success of the corporate goals. Company staff, even the "lowest level" staff, are intelligent enough to re-aim their efforts for significant improvements IF they understand how their part contributes to the overall success of the corporate goals. Is that connection-planning too much to ask of executives? Believe me, such planning will provide results wildly out of proportion to the time taken for the effort.
RESULTS HAVE TO BE MEASURABLE
Finally, it's relatively easy to build momentum at the front end of an improvement initiative if there is common purpose among leadership and staff. But the process is doomed to failure if the measures for successful results have not been defined. That starts at the highest level, and is followed with careful development of supporting measures down through the whole organization. This isn't rocket science, but it does mean analyzing lower level measures to find which will drive reliable, repeatable improvement of those at the higher, organizational level. Again, why is this so important? Because it connects the efforts of staff to visible improvement - people need to know that their work is making a difference.
Shifting Non-Performers to Performers
A quick Goggle search reveals 3,000,000 mentions of non-performing employees. Peruse the top ten and the prevailing theme is ways of firing, punishing or putting up with them. Rarely is it mentioned how non-performers became that way or how the cultural beliefs created the situation. The Ivy Business Journal in March/2003 presented research which indicated that the cause of under performance was not the lack of talent, but the prevalent un check assumptions and perception held by management about the capabilities of those deemed to be under-performers. Finally ... some intellectual insight in print.
The insight isn't in blaming the manager. It comes when you study the dynamic that spirals up or down, mostly down.
Subtle doubts enter the boss's mind. Does this employee lack the 'right stuff'? The trigger can be as simple as two different images of what was required but no one verified whether both were on the same page. The spiral heads downhill from there. After that, all incoming data is used to support or substantiate the premise.
Second, the boss starts to control selecting tasks that fit lower expectations, subliminally sending out the message of not being good enough. Motivation and morale take a beating. Being inspired to contribute isn't even on the map. The employee is passed over for the interesting projects and the 'set up to fail' is on its merry way.
As if that were not enough, the message and perception spreads to their social network like an underground fire in a bog, burning quietly yet destructively under the radar. Unless there is a high level of self-awareness on the part of at least one of the individuals, no one will notice the ripple-effect. This is how 'dead wood' is created.
So what does it take to convert and transform the situation?
- Someone has to notice, to see what mental chatter is saying about the employee and the situation. The trigger to suspend judgment and be curious.
- The best thing that could happen is that the same self-aware person sets time aside to ask and then listen. Really listen. Not interrupt or comment or commiserate but just listen for ten to fifteen minutes solid. The quality of the question is critical as is how it is asked and the abundant presence of curiousness.
- From that set of insight gained from listening with the senses, not just the mind, perceptions can be explored, as long as the mind remains open to learning and understanding.
- With insights gained, the leverage point and opportunity to shift perception and rebuild trust emerges through seeing what lies at the heart of the matter.
Deeper understanding is the podium for transforming the situation from non-performing to releasing pent-up potential. That doesn't inform all situations.
Some non-performers are created through entitlement to benefits. Their personal security has been delegated to the organization's structure and culture. And they like it that way. When you challenge that sense of safety and security, you will create a group of unhappy campers. Creating a shift from a place of entitlement is much harder as it requires going deep into the individual's desire for safety and security to reconnect them to a place of empowerment outside of structure. Unfortunately, people in this position might be the first ones to pull the plug on themselves when a pink slip arrives at their door. Their sense of identity depends on the structure, not who they are.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Going green at home is something everyone who watches television has probably heard plenty about. However, going green at the office is a relatively uncommon topic, and yet many companies in the U.S. are taking step to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases that affect global warming.
The best part is, you can quickly and easily do your part to green your office with just a few simple tips. They don't take much time, but they will make a world of difference.
The areas you can focus on in the office are plentiful, but here are 3 that can get you started. They involve your office air conditioning and heater settings, office lighting and office equipment use.
1. Install a Programmable Thermostat
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Energy offer staggering reports and suggestions on temperature control and lighting. You can save as much as $150 every year in energy costs by installing a programmable thermostat.
This apparatus allows you to set the temperature for when the office is closed and when it opens, and for when there is a higher flow of traffic or no traffic on the weekends. In turn, you will be setting your temperature according to office hour factors.
Constant raising and lowering of temperature makes your air conditioning and heating units run overtime which can also cost you. So, once you have programmed your thermostat, don't touch it!
2. Replace Light Bulbs
According to the EPA, using ENERGY STAR qualified light bulbs use 75% less energy than their run of the mill counterparts. They also last 10 times longer and produce 75% less heat which will reduce cooling costs.
By changing out the lights you are currently using, you should see an immediate change in your electric bill, even if it is just a few dollars. And chances are, your savings will be a lot more than that.
3. Check Office Equipment
Some questions you should ask yourself are:- How old is my equipment?
- How often do you use each machine?
- Do they power off automatically?
- Do they stay on overnight?
In 2007, qualifications for office equipment to be rated with the ENERGY STAR changed, which should lead you to consider trading up on older models. ENERGY STAR equipment on average are 25% more efficient, power down automatically when they are not being used, print double sided to reduce paper waste and run cooler yet again saving you on cooling costs.
Unplugging equipment will also save your office on energy. If something is not in use or over the weekend, unplug your machines. It will only take you an extra 30 seconds to go around the office to unplug machines that are not currently in use. It is a simple solution to keep your electric meter outside from rotating.
Try it out. Go outside and look at how fast your meter is going around. Now go back into your office and unplug you equipment. Then, run back outside and check your meter again. You will notice a considerable difference by simply pulling plugs when you are not using the machines they are hooked up to.
Implementing these steps will show off your "Green Wisdom" and it's basic stuff you do at home; turning things off when you are not using them and replacing the old with newer, more energy efficient products.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]