xecutive Coaching, Performance and Conduct P F O M A N C Hi Low Leadership Development Coaching Abrasive Leader Coaching Typically, we think of executive coaching for high performers. Our hope is that the coaching will take the high performers to the next level. Poor performers do not receive the benefit of coaching given what an expensive intervention it is and the poor return you usually get on improvement for marginal performers. It is not usually good business to invest in poor performers given our current tools and ways of thinking. Laura Crawshaw changed the game with her seminal work, Taming the Abrasive Manager. Laura developed a methodology that is very effective in working the folks on the bottom of the scale and found that they could actually be rehabilitated. The problem with the story about poor performers and the diagram above is that they actually are not poor performers; they are good performers who demonstrate poor (abrasive) conduct. These people actually perform very well (great sales people, product developers or software engineers, etc.) but with a cost. Their conduct has a negative impact on others and themselves. Laura makes a distinction between performance and conduct thus creating a different story about both those elements and the role they play in executive coaching. On the diagram on page 2, we look at both Conduct and Performance and add some definitions: 1
Performance, Conduct & xecutive Coaching High Performance Consistently exceeds goals xecutive Coaching Territory Leadership xcellence P F O M A N C Abrasive Leader Territory: How do I stop my conduct from obscuring my talents & causing collateral damage? (Cost of working with me is too high) Should be on their way out of the organization Leadership Development Coaching: How do I take my existing talent and conduct to the next level? (Compelling Vision) Should be on their way out but may not attract attention like their poor conduct colleagues Low Performance Consistently fails to achieve goals Very Abrasive Undesirable Conduct Creates an environment that detracts from the performance & well being of self and others C O N D U C T Little or No Abrasiveness Desirable Conduct Creates an environment that enhances performance & well being of self and others 2
Conduct One key aspect of leadership that we subscribe to is the need for leaders to create a quality work environment. Hay Group research indicates that organizational climate can impact organizational performance 30%. This provides a compelling business reason for addressing the issue of poor or abrasive conduct. Poor conduct (abrasive conduct) is conduct that creates an environment that detracts from the performance and well being of self and others. We realize that abrasive leaders can and do produce good performance (goal achievement) but it is probably not what they could achieve if they were not being abrasive. It is performance with a cost to themselves and others. Our experience is that poor conduct is a simple, easily understood phrase that all business people understand. However, in creating an appropriate comparative for the diagram of the conduct continuum (page 4) we have chosen to use desirable and undesirable conduct for ease of comparison. We are not aware of an appropriate comparative for poor conduct. Performance We describe high performance as consistently exceeding goals. This definition is very black and white. We like this definition because it removes conduct from performance so that we can observe and discuss both without mixing the elements together. Low performance is consistently failing to achieve goals. With those definitions in mind, we developed a new chart that brings both of those distinctions into play as we look at xecutive Coaching. This creates a different story than the first chart and one we think is more reflective of the two discrete coaching options: leadership coaching for high potentials and coaching for abrasive leaders. The first key observation is that the focus of xecutive Coaching is still top performers (anyone above the median point with respect to Performance (goal achievement)). Once the general territory of top performers is defined, the assessment of conduct would determine the coaching approach. Coaching with those on the undesirable end of the Conduct Continuum would potentially have the following distinguishing features. Possibly greater urgency to the coaching The coachee s motivation would probably come more from negative impact on others than a compelling vision The goal is more about stopping something as Laura might say, stop the attention on your behaviors so people can get on board with your objectives as opposed to creating/enhancing something Organizational sponsorship is essential the coachee s boss (or H Department) should be a strong advocate of the change and be willing to specify consequences for not changing The feedback would likely be weighted toward describing problematic behaviors rather than extolling the positives There may be a greater than usual need to develop trust and credibility with the coachee 3
The coach must play both the bad cop and good cop roles successfully. The coach must be unwavering in holding the coachee s feet to the fire about their conduct and its impact on others. At the same time, the coach must be compassionate and display concern and empathy for the coachee throughout their time together. Despite needing to present consistent, difficult feedback to the coachee the coach must win the confidence of the coachee and become a trusted advisor. Let s look more closely at the application of either Coaching for Abrasive Leaders or Traditional Leadership coaching and how you decide on approach and applicability. Conduct Continuum This is the top half of the chart above on page two, the median to high performing leaders from across the conduct continuum. We didn t divide this half of the performance continuum as we did with the bottom half (poor performers). The reason is that we thought it would reinforce the perception that there are two distinct kinds of coaching for two kinds of executive coaching clients one kind of coaching for abrasive clients and one kind of coaching for non abrasive clients. Conduct Continuum Q U A N T I T Y High Low Undesirable Conduct Behaviors that create an environment that detracts from the performance of self and others Desirable Conduct behaviors that create an environment that enhances performance of self and others Undesirable Conduct Desirable Conduct This perspective erroneously suggests that conduct is an important issue for only abrasive clients but not for non abrasive clients. As we reflect on our executive coaching practices we notice that conduct is actually an important issue in most coaching which we have traditionally called leadership development coaching. This makes sense if we look at conduct along a continuum with the lowest rated conduct leaders demonstrating a lot of undesirable conduct which reduces and is replaced by desirable conduct as you move along the continuum. With this view, even leaders who are on the right side of the continuum have an important percentage of undesirable conduct. So how does this matter? For traditional leadership development coaching conduct does matter. It is always important for leaders aspiring to get to the next level and to be more effective to make shifts in their focus, performance and conduct. This is the nexus of traditional leadership development coaching. 4
Work with abrasive leaders is similar yet very different. Abrasive leaders produce results and are highly valued for their contributions and performance. Their performance comes with a cost. How abrasive leaders conduct themselves has significant negative impact on themselves and others and becomes so prominent in people s experience and perceptions that people start to focus on the conduct of the abrasive leader and forget about the performance. In conducting an interpersonal cost benefit analysis they begin to wonder if the value produced through the performance outweighs the costs accrued through the poor conduct. The poor conduct causes people to avoid working with the abrasive manager, not tackling difficult issues with the abrasive manager or leaving the organization because they can no longer work with this individual. An xample Our work with Mike provides a clear example. Mike is a very talented salesmen and closer. He was recruited from one large technology company to another by his former boss because he had demonstrated over time the ability to consistently close business and because of his expertise and connections in an industry vertical that the new company was moving into. There was one problem. Mike, despite his great intelligence and talents, had not adapted well to the new culture. In his old company the culture was one where the boss decided. The new company was more consensus focused leading him to behave in ways that were not acceptable in the new company. When I was called in the company had run out of ideas. Despite his talents, Mike was running over people with his aggressive I m in charge style and people did not want to work with him. I was brought in as a last resort prior to termination. I will never forget the meeting that I had with Mike at a large hotel airport. He had just told me that he had nearly fired me about five times because I had kept pushing him to see how his behavior was not working in his new environment. I told him I knew that but that I was not there as a rent a friend but to help him learn to conduct himself in a way that was appropriate in his new environment. That does not usually feel good. We talked for a while. He then looked up at me and asked, Is that all? I inquired further. He said, After all these conversations, feedback and assessments. That s it. What you just told me. That s it? I said simply, Yes. He said You re f kidding me. I said, No. He said, All I have to do is speak to the people at work like I do to my wife and daughter? Yes. His faced changed in a way that I find hard to describe. It was like an epiphany. Our work was not over and there was still a lot of deliberate practice ahead of us but he now knew what he had to do to turn his career around. From that moment on things were different. He had the awareness, tools and support required to conduct himself in a fundamentally different way. So what does all this mean? Here are some initial thoughts. 1. We recommend that all coaches and leaders look more carefully and make the distinction between conduct and performance so that we can understand and articulate the distinction for both the organization and the client. 2. This model seems like a new and important way to talk about executive coaching with everyone in the territory. 5
3. We believe that increased awareness of the balance between the cost of working with and compelling vision requires an adjustment in coaching methods to assess if their application is matching client need. 4. This process of examining the whole of executive coaching for top performers has deepened our thinking about our approach to executive coaching, what we are trying to achieve and, most importantly, what we are trying to help our clients achieve. Conduct, holds our attention now more than before. And we should not be surprised that is true. When, in our practices, we are faced daily with the inability of leaders to deliver difficult feedback effectively, it should be no surprise that there are lots of conduct issues in the world of leadership. How would they know? 6