Are you getting that Coach Energy?

Why is it that some leaders love personal coaching and absolutely swear by it and others reject it as unnecessary and a waste of time?

There might be many reasons of course but one significant factor became apparent to me recently when I was having a discussion with some colleagues about the Wilson Learning Social Styles Model - you know, the one that breaks our preferred communication styles down into Driver, Expressive, Amiable and Analyst.

One of the traits that most coaches seem to share is what I refer to as 'coach energy', a vibrant, open and engaging communication style that is apparent as soon as they walk into the room. This translates pretty well into the social styles model and indicates that many coaches share a natural preference for the Expressive style. But this could be a problem if you have a strong preference for one of the other styles. You might see expressive coaches as unfocused (Driver), intimidating (Amiable) or shallow (Analyst). In turn, this might see you spurn the services of a leadership coach, even though you might need one more than you realise.

Of course, the best coaches develop an intuitive ability to adapt their style for different types of people. And we should not forget that the social styles model is just one lens through which we can view character traits and communication styles. Nonetheless, it highlights one of the reasons why some leaders totally buy-in to their coach and others don't.

While 'coach energy' can be infectious and motivating, it can also have the reverse effect on some, especially those with a strong preference to communicate in a different style.


Simon Cooper heads up ELC Training Solutions and is the author of the best selling leadership development book, Brilliant Leader.

Individualism v Teamwork

INTRODUCTION
As you travel around corporate America these days, you hear a lot about "teams";that groups, departments or whole divisions are trying to behave more as a teamas opposed to a group of individuals. Its the latest catch phrase du jour. I guess someone finally figured out the power of teamwork. But just how much of this represents sincere efforts? My corporate contacts tell me its mostly facade. They contend they get some nifty new corporate shirts and some great pep talks, but aside from this, little else. As much as corporations tout the need for teamwork, most still encourage rugged individualism.

There is more to creating a team than simply saying you are one. New shirts and axiomsare nice, but in order for this to work, people have to think and act as a team. In otherwords, success hinges on it becoming a natural part of the corporate culture.

CORPORATE CULTURE
Teachers, coaches, and drill instructors have long understood the value of teamwork. The intent is to turn a heterogeneous working environment into a homogeneous environment whereby everyone is working in a concerted effort towards common goals. But do corporate managers truly understand teamwork? Not necessarily. Many still create competitive environments in the hope that the strongest will rise to the surface. Teamwork is more about cooperation than it is about competition.

This brings up an important point: Teamwork is taught. It means developing a disciplinedwork environment where the participants must conform to a specific set of rules. Inevitably,it means breaking some work habits and creating new ones. This can be painful, yetnecessary if you want to achieve the desired results. Basically, you are teachingpeople how to live and work together as opposed to apart.

In the United States there is more of a natural inclination to teach individualismas opposed to teamwork; perhaps this is because we are a nation based onfreedoms. For example, our public school systems have minimal dress and hair codes; each student is allowed to look and dress as they personally see fit, many with some very questionable taste. This is permitted as it is believed the individual must be allowed to freely express him/herself. This may be fine, but it certainly does not promote a spirit of teamwork. Compare it to other countries, such as Japan, where students are required to where school uniforms and are given group assignments, such as the preparation andcleanup of their daily lunch. In Japan, students are taught the value of cooperationat an early age which has the added benefit of improving their socialization skills.
As mentioned, teamwork requires the establishment of a working environment conducive to teamwork. It doesn't happen simply by making some platitudinous statements. A managermust do more, much more; some suggestions:

First and foremost: Lead. All teams need a leader who can articulate goals and give direction. The team must trust and believe in its leader. Without such confidence, the team will not likely follow the leader, particularly in times of difficulty. The leader should also be wary of leading by democratic rule. Soliciting input is one thing, as ishaving assistants, but there can only be one ultimate leader to guide the team.

Institute uniform operating practices that everyone will be expected to conform to,such as operating hours of work, dress code, office appearance, speech and conduct, etc. Such uniformity stresses the equality of the workers. As another suggestion,downplay job titles and put more emphasis on work assignments instead. Job titles tend to emphasize a person's stature in a company and can be disruptive in terms ofequality.

Establish standard practices for executing work assignments, thereby everyone isfollowing the same methods, and using the same tools and techniques in their workeffort. This improves communications, provides for the interchangeability of workers,and promotes the development of quality work products.

Make sure everyone knows their responsibilities and assignments and understandstheir importance. Nobody wants to be regarded as the weakest link and, as such,the manager must be able to communicate their importance and carefully balancethe workload. Yes, there will be those workers who will undoubtedly excel over others, but teamwork is a group effort. If a weaker worker needs additional training, either give it to him or replace him.

Routinely check progress. Whenever applicable, keep statistics on both team andindividual performance. However, it is not important to publish such stats. It isimportant for the leader to know the team's strengths and weaknesses, but it isnobody else's business.

Be on the lookout for conflicts in working relationships. Some people will simply notget along and it is up to the manager to referee such conflicts. Either have the peoplework out their differences, keep them apart, or rid yourself of them. You want harmony,not contention, on your team.

Allow time for the team to meet and discuss issues as a group. This keeps everyonein tune with common goals, problems, and the team's general progress. It also allows the team to socialize and form a camaraderie (a bonding of unity).

Recognize individual achievement but reward on a team basis as opposed to an individual basis.

CONCLUSION
Are we really trying to promote teamwork or is this nothing more than the latest corporate fad that is being implemented more for public relations than anything else? Let's hope for the former and not the latter. Teamwork is a powerful concept, particularly when there is anything of substance to be done.

Shrewd managers intuitively understand the need for teamwork. Let me give you an example from the world of entertainment. Jack Benny, the famous comedian of yesteryear had a great appreciation for teamwork. His radio and television shows wereconsistently at the top of the rating charts for a number of years. When asked what his secret to success was, Benny simply said teamwork. To Jack, it wasn't important that he personally got the best lines and laughs week after week. In fact, he was often the butt of many of the jokes. Instead, he made sure his cast, guests, and writers all received the accolades they deserved. It was more important to Benny that people said they had tuned into "The Show" as opposed to tuning in to see "Jack Benny." He was right.

I realize there are instances in business when it becomes necessary to exerciseindividualism, but these are becoming a rarity. Instead companies can find greaterglory as a team as opposed to a group of individuals.

"Individual glory is insignificant when compared to achieving victory as a team."- Dot Richardson, M.D.U.S. Olympic Softball Team Two time Gold Medal Champions


Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has 30 years of experience in the field. Heis available for training and consulting on an international basis. He can be contacted at: timb001@phmainstreet.com

Management Speak - Business Optimisation

There is nothing like a bit of management speak to warm the bones during the last throws of winter and the latest little gem to come my way this week was, Business Optimisation.

Business optimisation is the current buzz word among senior leaders seeking to adopt the right strategy during this economic downturn. Essentially, it is about putting in place the measures now that will make the business as strong as possible when the economic climate improves. Intuitively, this makes a lot of sense but what sort of areas are the consultants and strategists looking at?

Organisational Structures
There are many companies at the moment who are announcing widescale redundancies while simultaneously recruiting new staff. In case you are wondering how that circle can be squared the answer is of course - business optimisation. Companies are identifying the roles and associated skills they need to get them through the recession but also those that will provide a springboard as they come out the other side.

Business Workflow and Processes
If the remaining workforce is required to produce more with fewer resources, the workflows and processes need to become more efficient. Many companies are taking the opportunity afforded by a recession to re-engineer their processes and associated workflows.

Cost Management
Harsher economic times leads to a need for better financial husbandry. Finance directors must be having a ball. Their power base invariably increases during a recession as they dictate what the company spends money on and what it doesn't. Discretionary spending is being slashed in favour of essential spending and err, business optimisation.

Marketing
One HR Director I was speaking with recently was bemused that the only department he hadn't had to reduce headcount in was the marketing department. Clearly, he had not heard of business optimisation! While companies might be reducing their marketing communications spend, a recession also provides an ideal opportunity to focus on developing the core offer of the company, refine the target market and analyse which part of the market is delivering the real, sustainable profits.

Organisational Capability
Companies might be reducing headcount but at the same time they need to make sure they maintain their skills base and capability going forward. They must ensure knowledge is being effectively transferred within the business and their staff are continuing to be developed. This means managers and experts within the business need to become effective coaches as well as the company investing in well targeted training.

You might have picked up a note or two of sarcasm in this article. It's not that I think business optimisation is a bad thing or that the term is inappropriate. My real problem with this being the current focus among many senior leaders and strategists is this - why weren't they focused on these things all along?

Efficient and effective deployment of resources, efficient and effective business processes and workflows, prudent cost management, a strong strategic marketing focus, good knowledge transfer and ensuring the workforce has up-to-date skills are all components of solid business management. Why do we need a recession to put us straight?


Simon Cooper heads up ELC Training Solutions and is the author of the best selling leadership development book, Brilliant Leader.