A520.7.3.RB_RuggerioSteven

Coaching and Mentoring Toward Success

In a rapid changing environment, it is easy for people to get lost. Miss a meeting and suddenly you’re left out of the loop feeling like you got off a bus at the wrong stop.  Trying to be successful and “making it big” alone is as dated as our early captains of industry.  Today, companies are capitalizing on leadership by way of coaching and mentoring.  Once considered a fad, coaching and mentoring have increased the spotlight on sharing knowledge, experience, and ways to achieve personal and professional goals.

In the 1500s, the word coach described a horse-drawn vehicle that would get people from where they were to where they wanted to be.  Many years later, big buses with rows of seats also were called coaches, and their purpose was the same: to get people to where they wanted to go.  In Christian Coaching, Dr. Gary Collins (2002) said, “Coaching is the art and practice of enabling individuals and groups to move from where they are to where they want to be. Coaching helps people expand their visions, build their confidence, unlock their potential, increase their skills, and take practical steps toward their goal” (p. 14).

The Air Force has a rich tradition of leading and developing young men and women.  Though they have not fully implemented a “coaching” culture by way of an Air Force regulation, they have created a mentoring policy for their enlisted force.  From imparting pride and patriotism to ensuring adherence to customs and courtesies, Air Force non-commissioned officers (NCOs) are known as “the backbone” of the Air Force.  These men and women are trained and qualified to lead, develop, and mentor new, junior, or career NCOs.  The Air Force defines a mentor as “a trusted counselor or guide.”  Mentoring is a relationship in which a person with greater experience and wisdom guides another person to develop both personally and professionally.

Similar to the Air Force, Ted Engstrom defines a mentor as someone who “provides modeling, close supervision on special projects, and individualized help” that includes encouragement, correction, confrontation, and accountability.  According to Engstrom, a mentor is an authority in his or her field as a result of disciplined study and experience.  This person is willing to commit time and emotional energy to a relationship that guides an understudy’s growth and development.”  Over the years, mentoring has broadened to look more and more like coaching. A major difference, however, is that the mentor works as an expert, while the coach assumes that the client is the one best able and most likely to find direction and move forward” (Collins, 2002).  One of my favorite definitions of mentoring comes from Leslie Camino-Markowitz, director of Next Generation Leadership Programs who defined mentoring as, “Help by one person to another in making significant transitions in knowledge, work, thinking, or career” (p. 34).  This definition transitions nicely to how the Air Force operates.

Everyone in the Air Force has a supervisor. Every individual works for someone from the lowest airmen to the Secretary of the Air Force. However, just because you have a supervisor does not mean you have a mentor or a coach.  One of my first experiences with a mentor was when I was a Technical Sergeant with seven years of service.  Our unit’s Chief Master Sergeant brought me into his office and sat me down to talk.  Usually, these settings were more common for disciplinary action rather than career encouragement.  As I sat across from the “Chief” he began to tell me how he recognized great potential in my abilities and my leadership.  He wasn’t selling the Air Force but rather, building me.  After an hour of imparting wisdom and insight, the Chief pulled out a set of shoulder boards (insignia for a uniform).  He handed them to me and said, “Someday, I believe, you will wear these. I want to be the first to give them to you.”  I never forgot that moment.  It inspired me and made me want to make his vision come true.

While I did progress much quicker through the ranks than my peers, there were a few years where I “lost my way” and found myself making poor decisions from selfish motives.  When I finally came around and galvanized my focus to self-improvement, the Chief’s words continued to echo in my heart.  I retired at twenty-years as a Senior Master Sergeant (one grade below a Chief).  I could have reenlisted and continued my pursuit for another eight years but I chose to hang-up my uniform to better support and serve my family’s needs. While I don’t regret retiring, there are some regrets that I didn’t heed the Chief’s words more closely later in my career.  However, his mentoring in that moment will stay with me forever.

What I needed after the mentoring moment was a strong coach; someone willing to speak honestly about my decisions and strong enough to shake me from my selfishness. Alan Nelson, coach and editor of Rev! Magazine said, “A leadership coach is someone who walks with you for a season, steps into your life and provides feedback, a different perspective, and when appropriate, a nudge to move forward.”  The “nudge” Nelson refers to can be a frank discussion that paints a picture of reality to a person caught in a dazed sense of rationalization and ego.  Whetten & Cameron (2011) said, “In coaching, managers pass along advice and information, or they set standards to help others improve their work skills.  Skillful coaching is especially important when (1) rewarding positive performance and (2) correcting problem behaviors or attitudes” (p. 244).  The latter could have helped me make the changes necessary to achieve my Chief’s vision for my career. 

One of the key lessons I learned was the desire to achieve greatness must originate in the heart of the individual.  The coach and mentor merely motivate, inspire, and shed light on a pathway to achieve one’s passion and goals.  Once the light is light though, there is no great experience to help another achieve their dreams. Frederic Hudson, author of Handbook of Coaching said, “A coach is someone trained and devoted to guiding others into increased competence, commitment, and confidence.”  Watching a person develop into a strong leader fully alive is as satisfying as one’s own success. 

I’ve learned from my mistakes and my successes.  Randy Emelo (2011) said, “Everyone has something to teach and everyone has something to learn.” I’ve had both positive and negative supervisors.  And I’ve had mentors that encouraged me and imparted their wisdom.  Best of all, I still have coaches that walk with me and help me become everything I’ve ever hoped to be.  And while life can get overwhelming and the journey can be difficult, it is the three-fold combination of my faith, my wife’s love, and my coaches encouragement that combine to lift me to heights I never would have achieved in isolation.

Novak, Reilly, & Williams (2010) said, “The leader is not the problem solver or the primary idea-generator. The leader is the keeper of the vision and the one who helps build the capacity in others to successfully solve their own problems and generate multiple ideas and solutions” (p. 34).  From follower to leader and mentor to coach, the underlying motivation is the same: make better people and make people better.  Leadership is a people business.  You can’t lead money, power, or success.  Long after I am gone, the only thing that remains are the investments I made in other people.  That’s how true legacies are made. That’s a life well lived.  While I never put the Chief shoulder boards on my uniform, the trust and belief that one man had in my abilities still rings true today when life gets difficult.  Coaches and mentors understand the power of their words.

Steve

References:

Collins, G.R. (2002). Christian coaching. Colorado Springs, CO: NAVPRESS.

Emelo, R. (2011). Conversations With Mentoring Leaders, 65(6), 32.

Novak, D., Reilly, M., & Williams, D. (2010). Leadership Practices Accelerated into High Speed, 31(3), 32.

Whetton, D.A., & Cameron, K.S. (2011). Developing management skills. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

A520.6.5.RB_RuggerioSteven

Teams: The Secret to Success

“It takes every kinda people, to make what life’s about.  Every kinda people,

to make the world go ‘round.” – Robert Palmer, 1978.

From adolescence, we’re wired to seek-out people with similar interest and develop friendships.  School, sports, and our local neighborhood acts as a resource pool from which to choose our friends.  Negative responses to those who are different often warranted parental correction to those who didn’t share our affections.  That all change dramatically when I entered the Air Force and was thrust into an eclectic mix of people from all walks of life.  Avoiding people with different backgrounds was no longer an option.  Parents, teachers, and coaches tried regularly taught the importance of teamwork.  While they laid a foundation, it was the leaders and supervisors within the United States Air Force that developed and matured my leadership potential.  They demanded teamwork, acceptance, and unity.  Anything less would not be accepted.

The Air Force builds teams and makes leaders.  However, the requirement is a two-way street.  The airman must willingly follow and enthusiastically embrace the opportunities and training offered by the military.  It does not take long before airmen realize they cannot succeed on their own.  To be a leader and to achieve aspiring goals, one must understand and develop high performing teams.  Kouzes & Posner (2007) said, “Leadership is not a solo act, it’s a team effort.”  Moreover, “the winning strategies will be based on the “we not I” philosophy where collaboration is a social imperative—without it you can’t get extraordinary things done in organizations” (p. 224).  

Teams are built upon two overarching imperatives: tasks and relationships.  One without the other will lead to task accomplishment and destructive relationships or task failure but harmonious relationships.  For a win-win situation, both task and relationships must be considered.  Whetten & Cameron (2011) identify the dualism as task-facilitating roles and relationship-building roles.  Task-facilitating roles are those that help the team accomplish its outcome or objectives.  Relationship-building roles are those that emphasize the interpersonal aspects of the team (p. 514).

Whetten & Cameron (2011) identify ten primary task-facilitating roles and seven relationship building roles.  First, the ten task-facilitating roles:

Direction giving – identifying ways to proceed and clarifying goals and objectives

Information seeking – asking questions and analyzing knowledge gaps, requesting opinions and beliefs.

Information giving – providing data, offering facts and judgments, and highlighting conclusions

Elaborating – building on the ideas expressed by others

Urging – imploring team members to stay on tasks.

Monitoring – checking on progress, developing measures of success and maintaining accountability

Process analyzing – analyzing processes to improve efficiency

Reality testing – exploring whether ideas presented are practical or workable

Enforcing – helping to reinforce team rules, reinforcing standards, and maintaining agreed-upon procedures

Summarizing – combining ideas and summing up points made in the team; helping members understand the conclusions that have been reached.

Without having at least one team member displaying task-facilitating behaviors, teams tend to take longer to achieve their objectives and have difficulty staying focused (p. 514).  Everyone has experienced a team member solely focused on the task while completely disregarding other’s opinions or feelings.  Sure, things get done, but it begs the question, “Was there a better way?”  The task-facilitator roles are especially important when progress toward goal accomplishment is slow; when the team is distracted; when time pressure exist; when the assignment is complex; and when no one else is helping the team move toward task accomplishment (p. 514).

When discussing the tension between task and process for participants in meetings, Whetten & Cameron (2011) said, “Task-oriented participants are ‘all business.”  They have little tolerance for joking or for discussions of feelings and friendships. The task is accomplished efficiently, but satisfaction may be low” (p. 653).  They continued, “Process-oriented participants emphasize spirit de corps and participation. They are sensitive to participants’ feelings and satisfaction.”  If managers hope to lead effectively, they must also focus on building relationship along with achieving organizational goals.  Formerly considered as a soft skill for the HR department, social interaction has been highlighted as instrumental to goal accomplishment. The tension between task and relationship can be like one is walking a tightrope high above Niagara Falls; but to settle for anything less is as safe as going over the falls in a barrel.  Therefore, leaders must manage and leave room for the following relationship-building roles:

Supporting – praising the ideas of others, showing friendliness, and pointing out others contributions.

Harmonizing – mediating differences between others and finding common ground.

Tension relieving – using humor to reduce tension

Confronting – challenging unproductive or disruptive behavior

Energizing – motivating others toward greater effort; exuding enthusiasm

Developing – assisting others to learn, grow, and achieve. Coaching members of the team

Consensus building – helping build solidarity and encouraging agreement

Empathizing – reflecting group’s feelings and expressing empathy and support for team members.

Without both task-facilitating and relationship-building roles, teams struggle to perform effectively. They key is to have a balance between task-oriented roles and relationship-building roles displayed in the team (Whetten & Cameron, p. 515).  Understanding and applying these task and relationship truths empowers leaders with insightful perspectives to build a cohesive team.  It begs the question, “What kind of team leader and team member am I?”

Consider how you generally relate as a team-member.

Upon reviewing the two types of team members, I certainly find myself more focused on relationships than the task.  Oftentimes the task is unmoving.  It is a fixed point; an objective.  The goal rests on the horizon while managers create teams to reach and succeed it.  Conversely, the complexities of a team are fluid.  Relationships, emotions, investments, and collaboration rise and fall based on the level of trust within the team.  In The Speed of Trust, Stephen M.R. Covey said, “When trust is high, speed is high and costs go down.  When trust is low, speed is down and costs go up.” 

I believe in investing before you begin expecting.  In other words, invest into your people, gain their trust, and create a partnership toward a common goal.  As this is done, team members combine resources and invest energies into accomplishing the task.  When managers focus specifically on the task and little on the team relationships, individuals feel used and underappreciated.

Do you actively engage your team to accomplish its mission?

As a leader, I believe I should never ask someone to do that I have never done or am unwilling to do.  I’m a firm believer in the value and effect of personal contact and camaraderie.  In the military, there were many senior leaders who dictated orders from an office and rarely ventured into the work areas of their troops.  Lack of connection and communication led team members to work purely because of their obligation and rules. 

The supervisors who engaged their team were better able to motivate and inspire their team.  As a team leader, I consistently engage with my team to ensure they understand the mission, have all the necessary resources, and receive feedback and direction along the way.

Do you work to improve the team cohesion and collaboration?

In True North, Bill George (2007) highlights the leadership of Dick Kovacevich from Wells Fargo who said, “On the athletic field I learned that a group of people can perform so much better as a team than as the sum of their individual talents” (p. 9).  In light of the two different types of leadership and the many roles people take within team, Kovacevich also said, “Diversity of skills is an important element of any effective team.  I am amazed at leaders who surround themselves with people just like themselves” (p. 9).

Being strong in the relationships-building characteristic of team dynamics, I regularly utilize the following roles to improve team cohesion and collaboration: harmonizing, tension relieving, and energizing.  By demonstrating appropriate care and concern, team members are more apt to work together, deal effectively with conflict, and stay focused on the goal at hand (rather than be distracted by unnecessary “drama” in the workplace).

Lastly, there is more for managers to contend with than ensuring an appropriate balance of task and relationship focus.  In fact, members may actually take on unproductive roles that directly inhibit the team or its members from achieving what they could have achieved.  The following roles—referred to as “blocking” roles can destroy both morale and cohesion (p. 515).  Effective team members recognize when blocking roles are displayed, confront and isolate dysfunctional members, and provide feedback to those who are inhibiting effective team performance.  They are:

Dominating – excessive talking or cutting others off

Overanalyzing – examining every detail

Stalling – not allowing the group to reach a decision

Remaining passive – staying on the fringe and avoiding engaging in the team. Expecting others to do the team’s work

Overgeneralizing – blowing something out of proportion and drawing unfounded conclusion

Faultfinding – unwilling to see the merits of others’ ideas

Premature decision making – making decisions before goals are stated and information is shared or problems are defined

Presenting opinions as facts – Failing to examine the legitimacy of proposals

Rejecting – rejecting ideas based on the person who stated them rather than on their merits

Pulling rank – using status, expertise, or title to get ideas accepted

Resisting – blocking attempts to change, to improve, or make progress

Deflecting – not staying focused on the topic

Finally, George (2007) said, “Leaders are highly complex human beings, people who have distinctive qualities that cannot be sufficiently described by lists of traits or characteristics” (p. xxvii).  With nearly 30 different roles identified (task, relationship, and blocking), it is easy to see that teams are collective groups of complex individuals.  It requires a strong leader to manage and direct the various personalities within a team’s make-up.  Highlighting these elements can equip leaders with the knowledge necessary to ensure team and relationship success.

Steve

References:

George, B. (2007). True north. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Whetten, D.A., Cameron, K.S. (2011). Developing management skills. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

A520.5.3.RB_RuggerioSteven

Developing and Empowering Employees

In Developing the Leaders Around You, John Maxwell (1995) said, “Great leaders produce other great leaders” (p. 3).  He explained his point further with, “An organizations growth potential is directly related to its personnel potential.  In short, a company cannot grow without until its leaders grow within” (p. 4).  Forrester (2002) believes one of the best ways to grow employees into leaders is through the oft-misunderstood management practice commonly known as empowerment.  

Forrester identified six strategies that aid leaders in enlisting the power of employees more effectively:

1.                    Enlarge power, by building knowledge, skills, and competence alongside increased discretion

2.                    Be clear how much you want to extend employees’ power, the extent you are prepared to extend their power, how you plan to fund it, and the appetite within the company for empowerment initiatives

3.                    Differentiate among employees

4.                    Support power sharers

5.                    Build closely aligned management systems

6.                    Focus on results

These six strategies focus on empowering and equipping an organization’s workforce more effectively.  Correctly managed, these initiatives will both develop employees and increase productivity.  Empowerment is more than a position; it’s an opportunity.

Whetten & Cameron (2011) explained that empowerment “enables people to develop a sense of confidence; it helps people overcome feelings of powerlessness or helplessness; and it acts as a means to energize people to take action and mobilize intrinsic motivation to accomplish a task” (p. 445).  In today’s fluid and sometimes-chaotic business atmosphere of rapid technological change and cutthroat competitiveness, managers risk burnout and an organizations rapid decline if leaders fail to empower and equip employees.

The days of withholding information and power from employees as a means of control are over.  Rather, as Whetten & Cameron (2011) clearly point out, “Evidence shows that empowered employees are more productive, more satisfied, and more innovative, and that they create higher-quality products and services than unempowered employees” (p. 443).  To achieve these ends, they identified five dimensions, or benefits, of empowerment that relate to Forrester’s six strategies above: self-efficacy (competence), self-determination (choice), personal consequence (impact), meaningfulness (value), and trust (security).  These dimensions specifically and measurably strengthen and develop an organization’s most precious resource: its people.

John Maxwell (1995) said, “You can’t turn people loose without structure, but you also want to give them enough freedom to be creative.  The way to do that is to give them the big three: responsibility, authority, and accountability” (p. 98).  Both Forrester’s strategies above and Whetten & Cameron’s five dimensions for empowerment echo the big three and confirm the importance of manager-employee communication. 

Whether it’s Maxwell’s big three, Whetten & Cameron’s five dimensions and nine prescriptions, or Forrester’s six strategies, each underline three common threads inherent in empowerment programs: responsibility, resources, and results.  First, everyone wants to believe that his or her efforts are personally making a difference in society in one way or another.  Whetten & Cameron (2011) call this, “personal consequence” or impact.  They said, “Empowered people have a sense that when they act, they can produce a result.  It is the conviction that through one’s own action, a person can influence what happens” (p. 449).  Forrester highlights the importance of building an employees’ power by increasing their abilities and skills.  Developing employee’s skill and demonstrating their impact with responsibility provides them with the personal motivation that produces positive results.

Once employees are empowered with responsibility, they must be given the resources to function effectively and efficiently.  Resources consist of the tools and techniques necessary to follow-through on assignments.  Some examples include, funding, information, special equipment, the latest technology, and most importantly, the authority commensurate with their responsibility.  Too often employees are set-up to fail because managers did not provide them with the authority to make decisions and enlist others to achieve the task.  Finally, another critical resource is to understand the boundaries and limits of their empowerment.  Working under or stepping over boundaries has the potential to doom a project before it has a chance to begin as well.  Whetten & Cameron (2011) said, “No empowerment can occur without employees knowing what these boundaries are” (p. 466).

The final element of empowerment as identified by Forrester, Whetten, Cameron, and Maxwell as results.  When it comes to empowerment, both the organization and the front line supervisors are stepping out in faith and trusting the employees will produce as good or better results.  One of the key motivations behind producing good results is accountability.  I have heard is said, “You get what you inspect, not what you expect.”  Either way, accountability does not have to entail looking over an employee’s shoulder throughout the process; however, regular and consistent follow-ups and feedback sessions are critical to the empowerment process. 

The results element of empowerment is often defined in terms of the organization’s bottom line.  While that is true, I believe there is another aspect of results that cannot be overlooked: the employee’s personal growth as a leader.  Managers should not judge the effectiveness of an empowerment program solely on profits; but rather, the people.  John Maxwell (1995) surveyed hundreds of leaders and identified empowerment as the characteristic that adds the greatest value to leaders.  He said:

“Motivation, believing in, mentoring, and all the other traits tap into what is inside the person.  Empowerment adds a new dimension to the person that did not and often cannot exist or come into existence on its own…There is a great responsibility with the gift of empowerment.  With the wrong motives a leader can empower for his/her own good rather than the good of the people and the organization.  Great leaders always put the organization and individual people before himself” (p. 178).

Whetten & Cameron (2011) said it best when they summarized their view of empowerment and delegation.  “Strong leaders are not lone rangers so much as they are savvy individuals who know how to mobilize those they lead and manage” (p. 472).  Empowerment is the bridge that makes great leadership happen.

Steve

References:

Forrester, R. (2002). Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea. Measuring Business Excellence, 6(2), 68. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/208740450?accountid=27203

Maxwell, J. (1995). Developing the leaders around you. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Whetten, D.A., & Cameron, K.S. (2011). Developing management skills. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.