Ask the children

Hi Everyone,I have never Blogged until now!
Adding to what Peter said about his conversations with Millie,my step children are amazing.
They are a constant source of different perspectives,ideas and questions.
Last week they asked if a person who was completely blind and deaf could be hypnotised/tranced.
This was a great question and a good topic for my Diploma in Hypnotherapy Journal.

Coaching models - which one?

On today's eurocoach list, Carole says "When I started my quest to be a coach some 18 months ago, I was told that there was no right or wrong way to coach, there were different methods and to find a way that was comfortable for me and my client.

So I studied hard but was told to use the TGROW model, as this was the only way. I wasn't comfortable with this as it felt like working from an instruction sheet, following the rule book that was written for some other time. However, I worked hard, passed with flying colours, got lots of pats on the back 'well done you are now a qualified coach'.

Now I coach my own way, relaxed comfortable, using communications skills, something I am extremely good at, that suits the style of my client. I listen and hear what they say, I ask questions and listen to the answers and make suggestions." (That's just an excerpt to give you an idea of her point)

And my reply is:

Carole's contribution sounds good to me. I find that the more experienced and effective a coach is, the less what they do looks like coaching.

I suppose if you watched Picasso and Van Gogh paint, it wouldn't look like they did it the way your art teacher told you to. It certainly wouldn't look like 'paint by numbers'. They would probably ignore the 'rules' about composition and subject.

Any model - yes ANY model of anything - is a simplified, generalised version of that thing that allows us to interact with it in some way, more easily.

By definition, a model cannot be accurate. A lot of new coaches, watching what I do, ask 'do you coach using the GROW model?' to which I reply 'No! GROW is NOT a coaching model'.

All the people who have 'invested' in GROW will hate this, so I will explain. GROW does not tell you how to run a practice, or win clients, or form relationships, or manage expectations, or send invoices. There is more to coaching than setting goals - an awful lot more - because as a coach you are providing a professional service.

When a model becomes accurate enough to truly represent the thing that it is a model of, it isn't a model anymore - it is the real thing! When you build a model aeroplane that you could sit in, and all the controls work, and it has an engine, and it can fly, it's not a model aeroplane anymore - it IS an aeroplane!

Therefore no model can be used to coach, however a coach might select from a number of models in order to keep one eye on the process of the coaching session, which I think was Coen's point. The model doesn't dictate the journey, but it is a road sign which you can choose to follow or ignore depending on your experience and confidence.

A friend of mine wanted to move from project management into coaching. He was very focused on getting qualifications so that he could coach properly and he wanted to know about all the models.

After he came on our Ascent adventure coaching experience (www.ascent-experience.com), and he let go of his own fears and doubts, he realised that he needs no qualifications, no techniques, no models. Now he's in a much better place to go and learn some techniques! Previously he had been reliant on techniques, so having no techniques stopped him from beginning the journey. Now the techniques are an enabler for him to work in other ways.

I'll explain more what I said about intent, perspective and relationship. Intent = having the client's best interests at heart, maintaining focus on the client's own goals and also being aware of what you gain from coaching so it is a fair and equal exchange. Perspective = you see the client's situation in a different way - just from the outside, or at a different level or whatever. The key is that you are not bound by the client's rules and doubts about what won't work. Relationship = a medium through which communication can take place. This means both listening properly, and also being able to give feedback that resonates and is accepted rather than bouncing off the client's defensive shield.

I occasionally play badminton, and there are a lot of players who have been playing for years but their level of focus on the game is hitting the shuttlecock as hard as they can and running around a lot. When we go on court, they ask "do you want to play front and back or sides?" Which is a very odd question, as the shuttlecock doesn't conveniently land that way. Watch two good players, particularly ones who player together regularly, and you will see a dance, where each player flows into the space left by the other. They orbit around each other so no square inch of the court is left uncovered. The players who rely on a strict 'sides' rule often glare at each other when the shuttle falls neatly down the middle, thinking 'that was yours'. Where do you think an opposing team aims their shots?

As a coach, do you want to end a client relationship with both of you glaring and thinking "that was yours..."

Those players who stick to the formula are usually completely worn out at the end of the game and can't go back on court without a 10 minute rest. I find also that some coaches describe sessions as 'draining' as if they have had to supply all of the energy for the interaction, as if they think they have to do all the hard work. At one company, I do six sessions in a day, back to back. I end the day with more energy and vitality than I started. A coach, in my mind, is a catalyst to release energy from the client. If you're putting energy in to maintain the relationship then there is something wrong.

Any game, played at a high level of expertise and strategy is a dance. You don't see where one role ends and the other begins.

Now academics are fascinated by this, so they spend hours watching this dance. They look for anything that they can see the dancers doing, and they write it down. Then they simplify what they have written and if they want to make money out of it, they give it a snappy acronym so that they can trademark it. Then ordinary folk buy the book or go on the training course, and when they try out the model they don't get the same result. You can get a paint by numbers Picasso, and produce a facsimile of Child with Dove (which you can do yourself at http://www.enchantedlearning.com/artists/picasso/coloring/childdove.shtml)

But can you reproduce the brush strokes? The subtlety of colour? The passion that was felt in creating it? The experience that was the inspiration for it?

When a complex human interaction is reduced to an acronym, it becomes a commercial product like GROW or SPIN, which is fine if your objective is to make money. What is your objective?

Pete

Coaching techniques

I just signed up to the eurocoach list and a question arrived this evening about coaches posting questions to the list along the lines of "I'm at this stage with a client and I don't know what to do next, what do you suggest?" The questioner suggests that coaches should always know what to do next, because they are managing a process, therefore a coach should never be 'stuck'. I thought you might be interested in my reply to the post:


Maybe the request for advice demonstrates that coaches are human after all?

I hear and see a lot of coaches rant on about what is the right training school or the right model. Usually, it's people selling coach training that have an axe to grind. I think there's an implication that coaching is about the techniques, approach, model etc - the technical stuff.

I think that the more important factors are intent, perspective and relationship.

e.g. a best friend has intent and relationship, but maybe not perspective. A manager might have perspective and relationship but perhaps not an intent that is truly in the client's best interest. A consultant or 'man in the pub' might have good intent and perspective, but with no relationship their feedback is rejected by the client.

If the coaching technique was all there was to it, then perhaps we would never see "what should I do?" questions, because the answer would always be "what's the next letter in your coaching model's acronym?"

If coaching requires us to be human, then that has to surface somewhere!!

Training Versus Development

Julian Shreeve says:

I observe that language plays as important a part in the way ‘helping interventions’ are described and labelled as it is within the content and methods themselves. There is a world of difference between the methods employed when running a ‘development’ experience’ compared to a ‘training’ one. I have heard many operational managers refer to development experiences as ‘training’ for fifteen years now and it is an inaccurate and misleading label.

I could get technical about this if anyone wants me too, but for the sake of brevity, it might be worth thinking about the traditional Driving Lessons experience as an example of ‘training’: typically it works like this : you get some information verbalised by the instructor; you get shown the equipment - then they demonstrate the technique practically; then they explain it again having shown you, perhaps adding one or two more pieces of information – you get to have a go – they offer real-time feedback and intervention depending on your competence – you stop and they give you further feedback and perhaps more information – you have another go – you then apply your increasing competence in different scenarios – you get feedback – and finally, you get to have a knowledge and skills examination/test. If you pass then you are competent, if you fail, you are not.

Training is very much about this type of process, and real training ends with a formal competence test of some kind. I have run ‘training’ – training people to interview – pass or fail. I have assessed people for NVQ competence levels – they either reach the level or they don’t – so they get the NVQ Award or not. I have taken part in “sales training” too, but guess what? There was no formal competence test at the end...so it was not really training at all – not the ones I was involved with anyway. Perhaps some do.

Everything else I have done must be labelled differently, and the best generic term for this is ‘development’, e.g. team development, management development, personal development etc – and each of these areas has a plethora of content subdivisions. Coaching is development. I would be amazed quite frankly if training in the true sense would ever be something that Exellerate gets involved in.

When speaking with potential customers – I always ensure they are clear about the differences in the meanings, and I often have found that they never meant ‘training’ in the true sense – they actually meant ‘development’ but didn’t have the word for it. I suggest that the word ‘training’ is only ever used when the intervention really is ‘training’ and not anything else, otherwise any marketing and client contact will include a level of inaccuracy which will really not help anyone, and worse, could put customers off.

Peter says:

As always, I agree with Julian. Julian has a lot of experience in development in the corporate environment which we are fortunate to have in the team.

Comparing what we do to the driving test, I would actually see some more connections in that we potential give the sales people some new knowledge e.g. in strategic selling or proposal writing, then we would watch them have a go and give them feedback. Many companies employ sales coaches who go on sales calls and give feedback on explicit examples of the sales person's technique, for example Astra Zeneca and Egg both do this.

Whilst there isn't a sales exam at the end of the year, there is the ultimate test - can they do it? If not, then the ultimate fail - a P45.

My concern with a lot of 'development' in companies is that it is still based on knowledge. When I used to subscribe to a HRD forum, ukhrd.com, There were almost daily requests from corporate trainers asking if anyone had notes for a time management course, or a presentation skills course, or a negotiation skills course, or a sales course, as they were running one internally next week. Their approach was to give the delegates theoretical knowledge and then expect the delegates to translate that into behavioural growth or change.

By behavioural change I don't mean something big and dramatic, but for example a sales person asking "Is now a good time to talk?" rather than not is a specific change in behaviour.
So my problem is not with training or development or whatever else we call it but the mentality that knowledge equals effectiveness, which starts in school and doesn't often change once 'adult learning' takes place. I see people on the short business courses at Warwickshire College who believe that they stopped learning when they left school. Most of the courses the college runs are based on a tutor giving information to the students. Where there is something different going on - something impactful and empowering - it is down to the individual tutor rather than the system. In fact, they stopped being taught when they left school, but some people have continued to use that approach to transferring skills.

I would also add that we may often make distinctions in order to create competetive advantage during a sales process. For example, if a prospect was looking at a proposal from us, and one from Helmsley Fraser, I would be going down the 'training is dead' route in order to create a perceived value difference between us and our competitors. Companies like HF have so much time and cash invested in training that they cannot switch to coaching, even though they know it is a competetive threat. The promise of a development approach that takes the sales person off the road for an hour instead of two days is just too good to miss.

So there are at least two versions of the truth here; what is true, and what is useful to believe if we are to successfully grow this business, outsell our competitors and retire to the sea rich and famous.

Mission Statement

Do we need one? Well, I didn't really think about it until Jason Flynn sent me an email with a really great line in it that describes what we do:

Simple ideas executed by extraordinary people.

I love it

Training doesn't work

Simon Broom sent me this email, and I think it sums up my thinking on training perfectly.
"Some time ago, I attended an induction day at (big training company). I had heard (probably from them) that they were first rate and I had nothing to lose. In fact, the day turned out to be a sausage machine with lashings of "corporate smug"!

I was scheduled to be the first to deliver my 30 minutes of training. Another lady who was very nervous and down to go last asked if we could swop so she could "get it over with". I agreed. As the day wore on I become increasingly uncomfortable and irritated. I felt like I was auditioning on the X factor, It didn't feel grown up and I felt I had been sold a pup.

I should have walked!

Instead, I decided to change my 30 minute slot, shake things up a bit and take the risk of putting my values on the table.

In case of any misunderstanding, I noted my points down on the flipchart.

" I have three core beliefs:

one TRAINING DOESN'T WORK,

two YOU CAN'T MOTIVATE OTHER PEOPLE,

three THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN TELL PEOPLE THEY DON'T ALREADY KNOW AND THE REST THEY COULD FIGURE OUT FOR THEMSELVES."

The smiles disappeared, the room went deathly quiet, the applause (when it came) was polite.

"We will let you all know either way by email."

I care about making a difference, I really do and I work well in a team - just not the (big training company). team."

So what's wrong with training?

What I mean by 'traditional classroom training' is an environment where the trainer has all the knowledge and aims to transmit that to the learner based on the premise that knowledge is all the learner needs. For example, the trainers who used to be sales managers and now tell their course delegates how they should be selling. They also do role play, which is the old style of 'pretend you're the MD of ABC products and you want to buy a new telephone system". In my experience, role plays don't work because they're not real. When we do group exercises, they are for real.

Group development is an important part of the service mix - creating change at the group level is, I think, a key service. The shift from PPI Business Coaching to excellerate gives us a lot more flexibility in the interventions we can create, the only thing that we will never do is sit a bunch of people in a room and talk at them for a day as if they don't have any prior knowledge or experience themselves.

Sadly I think there are people still running training courses using this method. My wife is currently in Munich for 4 days being subjected to it for a pharmaceutical trial training meeting where there is a lot of technical info to be disseminated. How much the delegates will retain is a different matter, given they are looking at powerpoint from 7:30 am until 6 pm each day, then being bussed out for dinner until late. Now she finally realises that all those times I was out of the country I was slaving away rather than having a great time (please don't tell her the truth).
I think that the way we can deliver 'training' will be the right solution where there are a number of people we need to work with at the same time e.g. in solution sales skills where we can develop broad skills and then follow up that with individual support that removes individual barriers to performance.

The key distinction in our approach (and by no means a unique one) is that I believe that the learners already know 99% of what they need to know, and our job is to unlock that knowledge, align it with organisational objectives and remove individual barriers to high performance. In respect of this I draw your attention to Simon Broom's pitch to a traditional training provider.

Now, having said that, I think the only people who have to defend training from coaching are the traditional training providers who have something to protect. Of course, they want to tell people that training still has a vital role in a business. Of course they would say that. Remember how vinyl fans were saying that vinyl was a far superior format to CDs 20 years ago? The mellow, rich sound, the character, the joy of sitting and reading the sleeve notes.

So one hand, training still has a place and we will deliver business performance services to groups, which might look a bit like training to the casual observer.

I just don't think we need to argue the training versus coaching point ourselves - we need to let our competitors worry about that as they run to catch up with us.

Welcome to the excellerate blog

excellerate is a business coaching consultancy that makes a measureable impact on the performance of your business. In this blog, our team of coaches will share ideas and musings about the world of professional development.