Metaphors for coaching

"Over the last ten years, the company assigned six high-profile executive coaches to develop me. But, none of them could change me!", declared the business leader triumphantly. This was my third encounter with this gentleman (See 'Organization Development Managers as Court Jesters' and 'Of reasons, rationalizations and collective delusions' for my earlier encounters with him).

This conversation came to mind again when I was thinking about metaphors for coaching.

Metaphors create new understanding. Also, a new understanding merits a new metaphor! Hence, as my understanding of coaching evolved, I have tried to develop new metaphors to capture that new understanding. There are many types of coaching. Here, I have focused only on my evolving understanding of 'non-directive coaching' and the metaphors corresponding to that .

My initial metaphor for coaching was that of a plane mirror, because I looked at the coach as someone who listens deeply and plays it back to enhance the self-awareness of the person being coached. Rhetorically, the thought was something like this: "May be, if the coach can 'hold a mirror to' the coachee, the coachee himself will 'speak to the man in the mirror, and ask him to change his ways"! 

Then, I started feeling that the role of the coach is a more 'active' one - someone who helps to convert the abstract thoughts and feelings in the mind of the person being coached to a more concrete form that would make it easier for him/her to understand and analyze his/her thoughts and feelings. This brought to mind the metaphor of a musical instrument (e.g. a piano) that can convert abstract 'music notation' into music that can be heard and enjoyed. This is very useful, because, while the music notation contains the music, most of us can understand music only when it is instrumentally interpreted!

After that, I started feeling that the above 'musical instrument' metaphor was 'too active' as different musical instruments convert the abstract music ('thoughts and feelings') differently. That is when the metaphor of the concave mirror, that not only reflects without distortion but also focuses reflected light, sounded more appropriate to me (as the coach focuses the discussion so that the person being coached is able to work towards solutions more effectively)! 

A concave mirror can magnify when it is close enough, like what a shaving mirror does (similar to a coach who is fully present in the moment being able to help the person being coached to 'see' things that are not apparent to him/her). However, if the concave mirror is moved too far away (or when the coach doesn't stay in the 'here and now' of the person being coached) the image can get inverted (or the coaching can go topsy-turvy)! 

There were other metaphors also that came to mind:

• an 'electric charge' which creates a field around it, like as a coach 'creates a field of learning' or 'holds the space' so that exploration, solutioning and change becomes easier for the person being coached
• a 'positioning system' that helps you to figure out where you are without telling you where to go
• the 'Socratic method' that enables you find your own answers though a series of questions, like a coach who asks questions without giving answers etc.)
• a 'stock option' which is an option but not a compulsion to exercise the option to buy the stock, just like coaching is an invitation and not a compulsion to explore
• a 'cartography' where the coach enables the person being coached to create/revise his/her mental maps so that he/she can navigate better towards the desired state
• an 'alchemy' that transforms 'base' metals (thinking) into 'gold' (or refined thoughts)
• a 'catalyst' that makes it easier for a chemical reaction to take place without actually participating in the chemical reaction, like a coach enables the person being coached to find and implement his/her own solutions without offering any solutions/getting involved in the implementation.
• the 'Cheshire cat' who engages in amusing and insightful conversations without actually giving an answer :)

It also gave rise to compound metaphors for coaching like 'Socrates holding a concave mirror'!

I am sure that as my understanding of coaching (and I as a coach) evolves, I will find better metaphors.  This is even more appropriate because metaphors are also a great tool for coaching, as the unconscious mind prefers to speak in the language of metaphors. Yes, we must explore what a particular metaphor means to the person being coached as the same metaphor can mean different things to different people. Again, 'generative metaphors' are immensely valuable for the person being coached, because they enable him/her not only to crystallize the desired new reality, but also to generate the energy to work towards it!

To me, coaching at its core is a deep human connect and joint exploration that changes not only the coachee but also the coach. While the processes and tools are useful in coaching, the 'super power' that the coach brings is his/her presence, being completely there in the 'here and now' of the moment with the coachee without judgment. To me, the most important consideration during the coaching interaction is simply 'what would be most helpful to the coachee at that particular moment, keeping in mind the objectives agreed with the coachee'. This also requires a very high level of self-awareness and awareness of the context on the part of the coach. In a way, coaching is more of a 'state of being' than 'doing'. 

Now, let's come back to the conversation at the beginning of this post. What the business leader was really saying was that "if six high-profile executive coaches couldn't bring about any change, then it proves that there was nothing that required changing in the first place!". This brings us to a very important point : no change will take place unless the person being coached wants to change. This is especially true for non-directive coaching. 

To me, the coaching works best when it is the coachee who feels the need for coaching and pays for it, because, both the conviction and commitment of the coachee are highly probable in such a scenario. It is true that in most of the cases,  the coaching is paid for by the employer of the person being coached. In that kind of a situation, we get the best results when the employee is offered coaching as an option (and not a compulsion)! Also, this works better if the coaching is offered as an investment that the organization is willing to make to enable the employee to accelerate his/her development or to realize his/her full potential (as opposed to the coaching being remedial measure). Again, confidentiality has to be assured and the employee (the person being coached) should be empowered to drive the 'direction' of coaching. After all, coaching is an invitation, and not a compulsion, to change!

Any comments/ideas?

Appropriate metaphors for organization progress

“We are on an upward spiral; while it does look like we are going around in circles most of the time, we are actually making progress”, said the business leader. “Well, the upward displacement is so small as compared to the total distance traveled and this does create a lot of inefficiency and human suffering”, replied the Organization Development Manager (see OD Managers as Court Jesters for an earlier interaction between the business leader and the OD Manager).

Metaphors are highly useful tools for thinking. Metaphors facilitate the understanding of one  domain (typically, an abstract one) by relating it to another more familiar domain (typically a more concrete one). They are so much a part of our lives and thinking that often we are not fully conscious of the metaphors we use. By examining the metaphors we use, we can a learn a lot about ourselves, about our values and assumptions!

So, let’s look at the appropriate metaphors for organization progress. The simplest is a linear one. Organization is supposed to move from point A to point B within a stipulated period of time. In a fast changing environment, a linear metaphor for progress might not be appropriate. That is when non-linear metaphors become more appropriate for organization progress. However, they can also be so easily misused to create an 'illusion' or even a 'convenient collective delusion' of progress.

This can be dangerous, as the apparent ‘progress’ allows the leaders to sweep the inefficiencies and the human costs created by the repeated changes in direction under the carpet. Sometimes, the degree of flux in the business environment is overestimated and it is used as an excuse for poor strategic planning and inefficiencies in the organization's response to changes in the environment. 

While a fast U-turn looks like a 'decisive' response, it is not necessarily the most efficient one. It is also the most significant source of (hidden) 'waste' in organizations and of human suffering (e.g. arising from a feeling of Sisyphus-like meaninglessness when one's work output gets discarded again and again and from the repeated cycles of hiring and firing that also create 'survivor syndrome'). 

Since the valuation or share price of the company is often more about speculation regarding future of the company than about current performance of the company, the investors or board also might not have too much of an incentive to intervene. Hence, this can go on for a long time!

One interesting variation of this is that of  ‘vision that is always in the future’. It works something like this. In 2020, a company sets up a 2025 Vision. Around 2023 or 2024 the same company replaces the 2025 vision with a 2030 Vision.  Once this 2030 vision is in place, the 2025 vision is discarded and no one is any longer bothered about seeing if the company achieves the 2025 vision (or about holding anyone accountable for the failure to do). Hence, 'future becomes a great place to hide' the lack of progress in working towards the Vision!

Any comments/ideas?

The curious case of the object and subject of Employee Engagement

"You should join us only if you fall in love with our company”, said the HR Head to a group of summer interns from premier business schools.

“I don’t think my exit should be considered as attrition; the company that I am leaving is very different from the company that I had decided to join”, said the OD Manager during his farewell.

I heard these statements quite some time ago. But they pop up in my mind whenever I think about employee engagement. The first statement (made by the HR Head), makes me think more about the appropriateness (or the lack of it) of the various metaphors used to describe employee engagement. The second statement (made by the OD Manager)  makes me wonder who or what exactly is it that the object of employee engagement and if employee engagement is a one-way street. Let’s explore these in a bit more detail in this post!

Employee engagement is a concept that is very popular these days as there is a significant amount of research that indicates the positive impact that employee engagement can have on business performance. Yes, like many fashionable things, employee engagement often gets trivialized into (‘fun and games’) activities that misses its core (See ‘Employee engagement and the story of the sky maiden’ for more details). While there are many definitions of employee engagement, a ‘strong emotional connect’ that leads to ‘discretionary effort’ is the central theme in most of these definitions. Also,  it is this ‘strong emotional connect’ that is one of the key underlying factors in the two statements that we started this post with!

Let’s start with the statement of the HR Head. He definitely had a point. Any transition to a new organization (especially when it is from campus to corporate) will have its own share of frustrations and if one develops a strong emotional connect to the organization (during the summer training, in this case) it becomes easier to overlook these frustrations.It also helps in not getting distracted at the workplace. The metaphor he used (that of falling in love, in the romantic sense of the term ‘love’) has remarkable similarities with the ‘strong emotional connect’ that we found in the definition of employee engagement sense. Yes, romantic love is a great enabler for 'pair formation' (and for recruiting one into the organization). Yes, this type of love can also lead to the employee putting in discretionary effort. 

The main problem is that people fall out of this kind of love, that too fairly quickly. To put it in another way, while it is a great enabler for pair formation, romantic love is not so effective when it comes to 'pair maintenance'. Also, as we have seen earlier in ‘Appropriate metaphors for organization commitment’, metaphors that are used to talk about the ‘employer-employee’ relationship often create complications because a metaphor is not an exact comparison and hence inaccurate/misleading meanings and assumptions creep in into our understanding of the relationship. Of course, metaphors have tremendous rhetorical value and hence leaders are tempted to use them for ‘motivating’ the employees (Please see ‘The Power of carrot and stick’ for a discussion on if there is any difference between motivation and manipulation)

Falling in love can lead to attachment or even possessiveness which can be counterproductive (see ‘Passion for work and anasakti’). Also, if the employee falls in love with the organization (and the organization doesn’t fall in love with the employee), it can lead to an exploitative relationship. Love that is not reciprocated often turns into hurt and hate very quickly!

Yes, there are other definitions of love, like the one Scott Peck uses in 'The Road Less Traveled' ('extending oneself for the spiritual growth of another') that can lead to discretionary effort without the complications mentioned above. But, those types of love are not something that someone can 'fall into' as it requires aspects like a higher purpose and conscious decision-making. 

This brings us to the interesting discussion on if it makes sense to (re)define engagement as conscious decision that the employees make instead of being an emotional reaction/outcome of emotional connect. While this sounds promising, this type of engagement (which is a deliberate decision) might not so easily lead to discretionary effort if the returns of that discretionary effort (which can very well be in terms of satisfying the higher order needs like esteem or self-actualization in the Maslow's hierarchy in addition to satisfying lower order needs like physiological and safety needs that are usually met by salary and job security). 

Yes, I have heard employees making statements like "I keep myself engaged regardless of what the organization does or doesn't do", though I am not sure if they used the term 'engagement' in the sense of discretionary effort (or just in the sense of keeping oneself focused on one's job). If it is the promised 'magic of employee engagement' (creating something out of nothing, like getting extra work done without paying anything extra for it) that get employers excited about employee engagement, then this definition can create complications! 

Now let’s come to the statement made by the OD Manager. Here the key issue is ‘what exactly is the ‘company’ that the OD manager was referring to when he talked about 'the company he joined' and 'the company that he was leaving'?’’ Is it the legal entity, is it the company brand , is it the products and product brands, is it the immediate manager, is it the team, is it the senior leaders, is it the CEO, is it the some higher purpose (other than making money) served by the company or is it the way get things get done in the company (company culture)? Most of the studies indicate the 'immediate manager' as the most important player in the game of employee engagement. But it could also be because the manager represents the organization for the employee and the organization's 'sins' are often incorrectly attributed to the managers (like when we say 'people leave managers and not organizations'; see 'Blame it on the managers' for more details). So, when it comes to the object of employee engagement, there are many possibilities and also many combinations of these possibilities!

If we examine the above list of possibilities (objects of employee engagement), we will find that most them can change and that some of them do change frequently in many organizations these days. This also indicates that the loss of social capital/breaking of working relationships during reorganizations can have an adverse impact on employee engagement. Again, it is possible that the employee’s preferences/factors that engage the employee changes during his/her tenure in the organization. So there are many moving parts here, on both sides of the equation, and that makes keeping the employee engaged quite challenging. Hence, employee engagement becomes a continuous activity and it requires a deep understanding and careful management of the evolution of the psychological contract!

 At a more fundamental level, the issue here is about the 'reciprocity' aspect of employee engagement. Why is it only about the employees feeling emotional connect to the organization (and putting in discretionary effort)  and not also about the organization reciprocating the feeling (and going out of the way to do something for the employees). Yes, as we have seen in the above paragraph, the 'object' of employee engagement can vary and hence the issue of who or what exactly is the 'organization' that is supposed to reciprocate  can further complicate things. May be, we can just say that all those who benefit from the the discretionary effort put in by the employee should reciprocate. While it is very clear that employee engagement benefits the organization, it is not very clear if it leads  to employee happiness or even employee satisfaction in the long run. 

So what does all this mean? To me, (employee) emotions are precious (or even sacred) and they should not be trifled with. Yes, emotions are also highly powerful in driving discretionary effort and they can lead to remarkable (business) results. So, organizations should engage the emotions of the employees only if they are willing to reciprocate (in terms of going out of the way to care for the employees in various ways depending on the context). If the idea is just to increase performance or to create accountability, there are other ways (that works on rational commitment and are well within the scope of the employment contract without getting into the domain of psychological contract) like goal alignment, performance management, gain sharing plans and performance linked incentives that can align the interests of the employer and the employee and hence address the 'principal -agent problem' (see 'Of owning and belonging' for more details). 

Hence, we should leverage the power of emotional connect (and the discretionary effort that comes from it) only if we are willing to look at employee engagement as a relationship (and hence a two-way street) and are able to consistently respond in a manner that respects and nurtures the relationship! Otherwise, we run the risk of the (perceived) intent of our employee engagement efforts resembling that which is often depicted in the cartoon strips on employee engagement (e.g. tricking the employees into 'gladly putting in extra effort without getting paid anything extra in return')!

Any comments/ideas?

Of owning and belonging

"This is as much my company as it is your company", said the Organization Development (OD) Manager when he was having a courageous conversation with the CEO. While he was being deliberately provocative (safe under the 'Court Jester' immunity that he used to enjoy), what he said was factually correct, While the CEO was two levels higher than the OD Manager in the organization hierarchy, the CEO didn't have any other claim to ownership in the company that the OD Manager didn't have.

I do wonder if the OD Manager would have been able to make the same statement, if he was having this discussion with the head of a partnership firm (where the partner is both the owner and the manager) or if he was having the discussion with the CEO of a family-owned firm (where the CEO owns a large percentage of the shares of the company). In a way, this situation is ironic. The role and the mandate of the OD Manager is the same in all the three scenarios. The only difference is that in the second and third scenarios there is someone else in the organization who has an additional claim to ownership that the OD Manager doesn't have. So the question becomes, just because there is someone else who can say 'My company' in more ways than what you can, does the level of ownership you feel come down?

Let's push this thought experiment a bit more. What if the OD Manager doesn't have any interaction with the CEO and hence there is no way the CEO can convey this message (of having any special ownership claim) directly or indirectly? What if the owner gives up the CEO role and becomes purely an investor but holding the same large percentage of the shares of the company? What if the OD manager is given some shares of the company? Would the risk of the OD Manager feeling less ownership reduce in any of the last three scenarios? Again, if other things remain the same, would there be an impact on the level of  ownership based on whether the company in question is a public limited (listed) company or not?

This brings us to the question of what exactly is this 'ownership'. In business organizations, the phrase 'building ownership and accountability among the employees' is heard very frequently these days. To me, accountability is external (you are held accountable by somebody for something and it is usually reinforced with carrot and stick) whereas ownership is internal (it is something you feel). In a way, the relationship between accountability and ownership is similar to that between change (externally imposed) and transition (internal psychological transition that happens in your mind).

It is  interesting consider if 'ownership is a conscious decision that you take' or if 'ownership is a feeling that somehow develops in your mind'! It is also interesting to think about what exactly is the object of ownership. Is it your job? your team? your function? your organization or  some combination of the above with varying weightages? Yes, the answer can vary for different employees. It can also vary for the same individual across organizations or even within the same organization as one progresses in one's tenure in the organization.

While there can be a difference in opinion on whether ownership is a decision or a feeling, there is agreement on the behavioral manifestation/outcome of ownership. They include taking personal responsibility for the outcomes, going the extra mile, careful use of the resources and even passion for work or the group. These are obviously highly useful to the organization and hence the enormous amount of good press enjoyed by ownership.

In a way, the question of whether your sense of ownership would reduce just because someone else is around who has more claims to ownership is a funny one. It is like asking just because there is someone (nearby or far away) who is more attractive than you, would you feel that you are less attractive as compared what you feel about yourself when you are alone. In another way, this question is not trivial, because the degree of ownership you feel has important implications for your organization (in terms of your productivity on the job) and for yourself (your happiness and satisfaction).

In Economics, this issue of ownership and accountability is represented in terms of the ‘Principal-Agent problem’. The fundamental issue here is the lack of perfect alignment between the interests of the Principal (Owner/Employer) and the Agent (Employee). Hence, the proposed solutions under the ‘economics model’ are in terms of increasing the alignment by mechanisms like profit sharing, employee stock (option) plans, aligning the objectives of the employee to that of the employer through performance management system backed up by close supervision, performance linked incentives and the threat of termination of employment if the employee actions don’t align with what the employer wants. While these have their relevance, they run the risk of (further) shifting the employer-employee relationship to the transaction paradigm away from the relational paradigm and to extrinsic motivation away from intrinsic motivation. In a way, this makes the contents of the psychological contract very close to that of the employment contract and hence makes the degree of ownership essentially a matter of rational (and not emotional) choice! So, when we operate under this economic paradigm, the Organization Citizenship Behavior (employee behavior that is discretionary/not directly linked to the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization) and/or Extra-role Behavior (behavior beyond the role-expectations that can benefit the organization, including whistle-blowing and principled dissent) might take a back seat!  

 

Now, let's look at another type of situation where we use the term 'my'. For example, when I say 'Kerala is my state', what I mean is that I belong Kerala (and not that I own Kerala!). So, ownership can also be about belonging. Another example is that of a 'family'. When I say it is 'my family', I mean that I belong to the family. Of course, if this belonging is sort of 'permanent' it is much easier to accomplish. So, I can say that 'it is my company' also in the sense that I belong to this company, especially if I am confident that this company will continue to be my company for the foreseeable future. Of course, I should also feel that there is a deeper connect between me and the company (in the sense of shared purpose and values), that I have a say in the organization, that I can make a significant contribution to the organization and that I am valued.

This also highlights the power and peril of using the 'family' metaphor in the organization context. If  a company uses the family metaphor ('we are all one big family') consistently, it can act as a 'nudge' to the employees to take higher degree of ownership. However, the other associations/assumptions that come with family metaphor (like somewhat unconditional and permanent membership) also gets generated in the minds of the employees. Hence, if the company does a downsizing after that, it would be much more painful (more like a divorce and not just termination of a contract that is economic/transactional in nature) and it is likely to be perceived to be unfair (you don't expect that you will be expelled from your family). 

From the above discussion, it is curious to note that in many of the family owned firms, while there is definitely a risk in creating 'ownership in the sense of possession' (the employees don't own the company and the owner-manager does), it is often compensated by a higher sense of 'ownership in the sense of belonging' (personal connect with the owner and the other employees, long tenures, job security etc.). 

Where does this leave us? This post is meant to facilitate a discussion and it raises more questions than it answers (and may be, there are no standard answers to many of these questions!). We can definitely say that ownership need not be in the sense of 'possession'. It can also be in the sense of belonging. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive and they can reinforce each other. Yes, the employees having a high degree of ownership is becoming increasingly important with taking initiative, creativity and discretionary effort becoming evermore critical for business success.

The sense of ownership is experienced in the context of a relationship and a mental model(or paradigm). There are some important aspects of this relationship like empowerment, trust, continuity of the relationship, managing the psychological contract throughout the tenure of the employees etc. Hence, this relationship needs to be nurtured in an ongoing and consistent manner! While the sense of ownership can be beneficial for both the organization and the employee, it often comes with expectations and attachment (anasakti is not so easy). Hence, appropriate metaphors should be used, with extreme care, to manage the mental models that govern the employment relationship. 

Now, over to you for your comments/ideas!