There is a cultural shift throughout the business and academic realms in what to term to use for a person in an authoritative position. Previously, they were called supervisors or managers because they literally supervised and managed people, processes, and activities. The shift is now to call these individuals by the much more appropriate term of leader. The term leader espouses that they will lead their employees and colleagues through situations--"through thick and thin." Their abilities are measured against the successes of the people they lead. A good leader, for example, would be someone who is able to provide guidance and optimism in the face of a challenge and work with their professional teammates (i.e., colleagues, direct-reports) to solve the problem.
Aside from leading the people that they work with, these new managers are also being called to coach. Throughout the text Coaching for Performance, John Whitmore focuses on some of the struggles that managers (or leaders) run into as they actively work toward success of this necessary job duty. Directly related to items discussed in the BigFive ProFile by Howard & Howard, the successful manager/coach must have traits and competencies congruent to empathy, integrity and detachment (Whitmore, 2002). The 'coach in training' must also be willing to change their ways of thinking and doing from how they were brought up.
One key example Whitmore points out is related to recall. The traditional management style was to tell someone how to do something, and sometimes they would tell and show them how to accomplish a task; the latter being only two percent more effective than the former. However, the new coach needs to adopt the approach of tell, show, and experience for their coachees to have maximum recall--a staggering 85 percent recall after three weeks. Along with these results, research also shows that subordinates do to learn effectively when left on their own (Whitmore, 2002). It may seem common sense, but the idea of coaching versus managing (the same with leading versus managing) really does focus on the development and ultimate success of the coachee.
As seen in nearly all leadership texts, awareness and self-awareness are key areas for success, especially in relation to coaching. Whitmore breaks down these two terms in that "[a]wareness is knowing what is happening around you" whereas "[s]elf-awareness is knowing what you are experiencing" (Whitmore, 2002, p. 35). Without these two key insights, both the coach and the coachee will not be able to or willing to develop new methods for doing. A major pitfall for managers turned coaches is for these 'experts' in a given field to teach their coachees their way (or the 'right way') in doing a task instead of allowing the coachee to learn his or her individual way of doing (Whitmore, 2002).
As managers become leaders and simultaneously coaches, they will see the benefits of their approaches not only in the success of their coachees but in their own leadership development. Personality traits, competencies and strengths that are crucial for coaches to possess are also found in successful leaders. Changing the culture of one's organization through successful coaching can improve the morale and inevitably the quality of work that is coming out of a given department. As leaders grow and learn from the many avenues in which they will go up and down during their tenures, the importance of coaching should always be in the forefront of their minds.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
360 Evaluations and Leader Development
The new phenomenon in the business world related to employee development is the 360-degree evaluation. This process of getting feedback from not only supervisors (as was traditionally done) but from colleagues and subordinates is becoming critical to the success of the company and individuals at all levels in the organization. Particularly for the purposes of this discussion, it is extremely relevant to leader (and leadership) development.
Before I delve into this topic, it is important however to know that though these two terms are sometimes synonymous, Velsor and McCauley point out in “Our View of Leadership Development,” that they in fact are quite different. Leader development is related to the growth of an individual’s capability to be more effective when placed in a leadership role (2). Whereas leadership development is the growth of an organization’s capability to establish the basic leadership tasks needed for successful, cohesive work—thus outside the realm of both the individual and the traditional managerial hierarchy (18). I wanted to clarify this distinction because the use of a 360 evaluation model is not just for developing individuals for the sake of personal growth, but also for the benefit of the whole—the cornerstone of organization leadership approaches.
There are six ‘best practices’ related to the 360 evaluation which organizations should be aware of in order to make this an effective exercise. One of the key elements for successful use of the 360 model pointed out by Rogers, Rogers & Metlay in their article, “Improving the Payoff from 360-Degree Feedback,” is for companies to focus the 360 evaluation questions specifically in relation to the competencies needed for each unique job—thus no two positions will have the same competency-based questionnaire (48-9). This is substantiated from data collected by the authors related to the ultimate benefit of a 360 evaluation by looking at companies who did versus those who did not use this and other ‘best practice’ techniques. Some of the other elements that the authors focus on are to: carefully select the participants; closely direct the feedback process; establish training programs for employees; and conduct an evaluation at the end of the process so to conclude the business advantage of the exercise (45). With focus on these areas, the use of the 360-degree evaluation has great potential to not only be advantageous for the individuals but is sure to increase productivity and long-term success of the organization.
As leaders move through the many passages, as discussed in my previous post, the use of a 360 evaluation can be critical to their success. Many people are not aware of their lax in certain competencies that are necessary for their leadership growth. This feedback from all areas of one’s professional interactions—supervisors, colleagues and subordinates—is sure to benefit them because this fresh look at their strengths and short-comings will help them to readily focus their own personal leader development.
Before I delve into this topic, it is important however to know that though these two terms are sometimes synonymous, Velsor and McCauley point out in “Our View of Leadership Development,” that they in fact are quite different. Leader development is related to the growth of an individual’s capability to be more effective when placed in a leadership role (2). Whereas leadership development is the growth of an organization’s capability to establish the basic leadership tasks needed for successful, cohesive work—thus outside the realm of both the individual and the traditional managerial hierarchy (18). I wanted to clarify this distinction because the use of a 360 evaluation model is not just for developing individuals for the sake of personal growth, but also for the benefit of the whole—the cornerstone of organization leadership approaches.
There are six ‘best practices’ related to the 360 evaluation which organizations should be aware of in order to make this an effective exercise. One of the key elements for successful use of the 360 model pointed out by Rogers, Rogers & Metlay in their article, “Improving the Payoff from 360-Degree Feedback,” is for companies to focus the 360 evaluation questions specifically in relation to the competencies needed for each unique job—thus no two positions will have the same competency-based questionnaire (48-9). This is substantiated from data collected by the authors related to the ultimate benefit of a 360 evaluation by looking at companies who did versus those who did not use this and other ‘best practice’ techniques. Some of the other elements that the authors focus on are to: carefully select the participants; closely direct the feedback process; establish training programs for employees; and conduct an evaluation at the end of the process so to conclude the business advantage of the exercise (45). With focus on these areas, the use of the 360-degree evaluation has great potential to not only be advantageous for the individuals but is sure to increase productivity and long-term success of the organization.
As leaders move through the many passages, as discussed in my previous post, the use of a 360 evaluation can be critical to their success. Many people are not aware of their lax in certain competencies that are necessary for their leadership growth. This feedback from all areas of one’s professional interactions—supervisors, colleagues and subordinates—is sure to benefit them because this fresh look at their strengths and short-comings will help them to readily focus their own personal leader development.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
