Training ROI and Team Coaching
The crisis has come and settled into our everyday reality. Of course, some say this is not a passing crisis but a permanent adjustment for the Romanian economic environment. Crisis or adjustment, however, this period is provoking CEOs to ask themselves pertinent questions about where they have been spending their money in the past fifteen years, and particularly about the measurable results of two decades of training expenses. Indeed, in soft skills such as management, leadership, communication, sales, team work, negotiation, time management, personnel evaluation, etc many companies have spent millions of Euros to train their managers and personnel by the hundreds. The current question is: What are the measurable results today?
In the past, these training programs were sold to CEOs both by Human Resources and by training companies as a necessary long-term investment to develop people. These programs were generally designed as motivating if not entertaining, and organized in locations perceived as indirect perks to increase personnel satisfaction and company loyalty, if not compensate dissatisfaction. This goal may have been partially achieved.
But after all these years of intensive personnel training at relatively high expense, the time has come for an evaluation of the measurable effects in the development of employee and manager practical skills. Where indeed are the well-trained leaders and managers? Where are the good communicators and salespeople? Where are the good team workers and negotiators? Which organization can boast really implementing a performing personnel evaluation program? Which managers or leaders really delegate and have definitely resolved their time management issues? Where are the teams in which members really cooperate and achieve ambitious goals together? When taking a close look at results in many companies, the measurable return on investment of training programs could generally be considered a dismal failure.
- Consequently today in many companies, both CEOs and Human Resources are questioning themselves and past investment choices. The search is out for the really good training programs, for the really performing training companies, for methods to really measure training results.
Now is this really different? In the past ten years, companies have been searching for the good training programs, for the performing training companies, for methods to measure training results. Although we all agree to the problem, it seems that all are preparing to apply the same solutions that have not worked in the past. Today, we need to take a real step back and fundamentally reconsider the framework in which training has been delivered in the past fifteen years.
Changing perspectives
Recently speaking with a Romanian CEO about team coaching, he questioned me about the measurable results of team coaching. I asked him the following question: In his executive team, what effectiveness criteria could be measured before a team coaching process, that could again measured after, in order to measure return on investment? The CEO was suddenly silent, as if at a loss for words.
- Indeed, to measure results of any action, one has to have precise measures before the action and a clear idea of what needs to be changed. One has to define specific needs and then set precise goals for change.
The CEO then proceeded to discuss what his needs were more precisely: His executive team meetings were disorganized, too long, too informative and argumentative. They produced few decisions and these rarely led to any measurable actions in the field. These meetings were not only considered ineffective, but they reflected the general way the whole organization was managed.
Consequently in this organization, the effectiveness of a possible executive team coaching process can be precisely measured. If during or after the coaching process, this team's executive meetings become more efficient, shorter, less informative and argumentative, if they result in more collective decisions that are followed-up by implementation within the company, one could conclude that the return on investment was satisfactory.
To measure ROI, one could be even more precise. If the meetings became half as lengthy, and if they produced twice as many good decisions, their effectiveness would then be multiplied by four. One could calculate the expense of the time spent by all the executives, the number of implemented decisions within their deadlines, the quality of the executive team information process, etc. Basic Euro added value could be calculated and then compared to the total investment of the coaching process.
Comparisons with traditional training
Now in the above example there are a few subtle differences that make team-coaching return on investment more measurable than more classical training programs. The first main difference is that the above example concerns a defined local system: a specific executive team.
Most training programs are delivered to non-local groups of participants that never work together. The focus of most training is on the training content, not on modifying on-the-job measurables before and after the training. The measures of results of habitual training programs are also made very difficult when individual participants return to their distributed teams.
- There are much higher measurable results to sales training, for example, if the program is delivered to intact local sales teams with a team-coaching approach, one sector or region at a time, and with their hierarchy than if it is delivered to individuals originating from very different distributed teams.
Of course, coaching real systems such as sales teams, including hierarchy in these programs, requires a very different set of skills on the part of the “trainer” than when dispensing training to a distributed group of individuals that do not habitually work together.
- Working with real teams in a team coaching, team training or team development process will automatically address the issue of team member interfacing effectively to achieve their team goals.
This addresses the fact that most team and organizational issues concerning active collaboration between team members are totally avoided in traditional training contexts. It is indeed impossible to address real operational issues between team members when the team is absent from the training context. The result of this systematic avoidance in traditional training sessions is that it is very rare to find teams of individuals that really know how to work together. Unfortunately, this is true of all the executive teams of CEOs I have met. Individuals who do not know how to really collaborate in order to achieve collective goals are now running most Romanian organizations;
- When a team works together with its leader to address its issues in a team coaching or development process, it can immediately decide on the changes it wants to implement and it can immediately designs methods to follow up on those changes.
The learning achieved in a team-oriented learning context is consequently immediately integrated for future application in each team’s everyday operations. Decisions by the team leader can immediately validate and support the team learning experience.
- The collective motivational energy developed during a team development or coaching process is kept by the team upon its return to the work environment, and consolidated as the team measures its concrete improvements and results on the field.
This is an important added value compared to the feeling of disappointment often felt after traditional training programs, when participants have to part and each return to their work environments which have not been through the learning experience at the same time.
These points illustrate that if companies want a change in the results of their investment in training, they need to operate a fundamental change of paradigm in the way they spend their training money. The fact is that to measurably develop managers, increase sales, improve communication, increase empowerment, retain employees, improve delegation and time management, etc, the best approach is to achieve these goals through team coaching and team development. Measures prove that it is not through the traditional training programs that have cost so much in the past.
Interestingly, individual coaching is gradually coming to Romania, but team coaching idoes not seem to be a real concern, except for some CEOs. Individual coaching is certainly useful to develop individuals, but is this an indicator that the individualist frame of reference of training is still too pervasive in the way coaching is considered in Romania?
The Paradox of Time Management
Se intampla in coaching, consultanta sau training de cariera, sa intalnim clienti care cer solutii pentru problemelor lor de management al timpului. „Cum pot sa imi manageriez mai bine timpul?” este o intrebare importanta pentru care cei mai multi manageri ar plati greutatea lor in aur sa aiba un raspuns simplu. Tema este atat de universala incat costa milioane cheltuite pe zile de training intensiv, pe agende din piele, programe complexe, cele mai avansate tehnologii si coaching executiv foarte exclusivist.
Paradoxul managementului timpului, oricum, este ca in cele mai multe cazuri, problema nu este deloc legata de timp. De fapt, toti avem nici mai mult nici mai putin de 24 de ore pe zi. Fie ca esti CEO-ul unei companii multinationale sau managerul local al unei echipe foarte active, poti simti ca o zi este mult prea scurta pentru a face orice ai vrea sa faci, sau ca ai o multime de timp liber pentru odihna si relaxare sau gandire strategica (Notati ca aceastea sunt des una si aceeasi).
Consideram doua criterii comune pentru majoritatea oamenilor care au probleme de management al timpului: ei, de obicei, nu deleaga prea mult si sunt perfectionisti foarte exigenti. Ca urmare, ei sunt cei care vor sa controleze strict prea multe detalii sunt in acelasi timp cei care se plang zilele sunt prea scurte pentru a face tot ce este nevoie sa faca. Intr-adevar managerii care nu au suficienta incredere in ceilalti astfel incat sa coboare stacheta asteptarilor excesiv de inalte sunt si cei care incep programul foarte devreme, il termina foarte tarziu si isi iau de lucru acasa in weekenduri.
Luati aminte ca procesul se confirma pe el insusi. Daca nu aveti incredere ca cineva poate sa isi faca treaba corect si consecvent fara prea mult control, veti ramane in echipa doar cu cei care accepta sau au nevoie in mod constant de supervizare. Daca va justificati existenta prin faptul ca gasiti greseli in realizarile celor din jur si apoi actionati pentru a repara aceste imperfectiuni, atunci ei vor gasi rapid modalitati sa va hraneasca aceste nevoi existentiale fundamentale si va vor da suficiente astfel incat sa fiti ocupat toata ziua.
Paradoxul managementului timpului este ca inseamna cu adevarat sa iti cunosti locul si sa ii lasi pe ceilalti sa isi asume intreaga responsabilitate pentru locurile pe care ei le ocupa. Sa fii un manager sau un executive nu inseamna sa faci munca angajatilor tai sau sa le repari greselile. Managementul consta in definirea clara a scopurilor, asigurarea mijloacelor necesare iar apoi sa te dai din drum pana cand este momentul sa evaluezi rezultatele. Pentru a conduce o echipa eficienta, un manager are nevoie doar sa managerieze si fiecare dintre angajatii lui are misiunea sa produca rezultate. Aceasta observatie ne duce imediat la prima concluzie evidenta: Problemele de management al timpului sunt probleme de management ale oamenilor. Ei nu stiu cum sa isi conduca angajatii, furnizorii, clientii si nici partenerii lor.
Acest paradox atunci cand managerii au probleme de management al timpului se intampla pentru ca ei fac treaba altor oameni. Ca urmare, lipsa de timp la sfarsitul unei zile reprezinta un indicator care arata ca tu, ca si manager, nu ai fost in locul sau spatiul potrivit. Asta ar indica faptul ca in management, timpul si spatiul sunt de fapt, una si aceiasi problema asa cum Einstein a demonstrat-o in mod genial. Continuitatea timp-spatiu este intr-adevar atat de consistenta incat daca pierzi timp, atunci poate nu esti in locul potrivit, deci poate ai nevoie sa inveti cum sa delegi.
Translated by Mihaela Reese
The Paradox of Delegation
Delegarea are loc in organizatii atunci cand angajatii au initiative inteligente, isi asuma responsabilitati si isi dau puterea de a actiona asa cum o cere situatia. Ei analizeaza in mod spontan nevoile, iau decizii, implementeaza actiuni si isi informeaza organizatia din care fac parte despre progresul pe care l-au facut spre atingerea obiectivelor.
In definitia delegarii, data mai sus, notati ca rolul liderului organizatiei nu a fost mentionat nici macar o data.
Studiu de caz: Un CEO a ceru odata sa intalneasca un coach. Avea o problema foarte comuna. Cum era o persoana foarte dinamica si care controla lucrurile destul de mult, echipa lui executiva i-a sugerat in mod direct sa isi caute un suport personal pentru a invata cum sa delege.
In prima lor intalnire coach-ul a reformulat motivatia CEO-ului: „ Deci, daca inteleg corect, nu doar ca pana acum ai fost complet responsabil pentru tot ce se intampla in organizatie, peste toate astea, vei fi si responsabil sa incepi sa schimbi aceasta organizatie si sa dezvolti o cultura de management mai delegativ.”
CEO-ul a fost uluit si a tacut pentru cateva minute. Inca blocat in cadrul de referinta al organizatiei, cu greu a putut sa inteleaga comentariul pe care l-a facut coach-ul. Ceea ce acest CEO nu a putut sa perceapa este obisnuit printre cei mai multi lideri care conduc organizatii cu o cultura de sus in jos (top-down). Intr-adevar, cand o organizatie a trait ani de zile cu convingerea ca liderul este responsabil pentru tot ce se intampla, ceea ce urmeaza este credinta ferma ca a schimba aceasta ordine a lucrurilor trebuie sa fie tot in sarcina liderului, tot pe umerii lui.
Primul paradox in aceasta situatie comuna este ca, daca liderii se asigura ca delegarea se intampla, ei vor continua sa fie facuti responsabili pentru aceasta schimbare. Daca liderii sunt facuti responsabili pentru schimbare atunci ei sunt inca responsabili, prin urmare nimic nu este delegat. Ca si consecinta, liderilor nu li se poate da responsabilitatea, si nici ei nu si-o pot lua, de a delega angajatilor. Angajatii sunt cei care, in schimb, trebuie sa invete sa isi asume responsabilitati si sa provoace delegarea.
Acest paradox foarte obisnuit pune in lumina un altul. Ca si in cazul organizatiei de mai sus, cand angajatii se sunt de acord sa ceara liderului lor sa delege mai mult, ei de fapt, isi fac liderul responsabil pentru lipsa lor de initiativa. Cum am zis, cand angajatii cer delegare din partea liderului lor, ei dau acestuia responsabilitatea pentru comportamentele lor pasive. In consecinta si paradoxal, cea mai buna cale de a delega mai sus, liderilor, este sa le ceri sa delege in jos, catre anagajatii lor. Delegarea este ca libertatea, independenta sau permisiunea. Daca nu vrei sa fii liber, atunci cere aceasta libertate altcuiva. Cerand independenta de la cineva, de fapt, renunti la libertatea ta.
Paradoxul delegarii este de maxima importanta in culturile centralizate si in organizatiile bazate pe control care au mostenit un model de lidership puternic autocratic. Aceasta atot patrunzatoare paradigma impartasita de catre toti membrii acestor sisteme sociale este ca liderii sunt reponsabili practic pentru toate aspectele din viata profesionala si personala a tuturor.
Miezul confortabil al acestei atitudini pasive este ca nimeni nu poate schimba aceasta stare de lucruri. Simpli angajati si cetateni nu isi pot schimba liderii astfel incat acestia sa devina mai participativi. Liderii, pe de alta parte, nu pot schimba nimic atunci cand toata lumea asteapta ca ei sa fie singurii reponsabili pentru o schimbare majora de cultura. Suna asta familiar?.
Studiu de caz: Solutia strategica pentru a-l acompania pe mai sus mentionatul CEO a fost sa implementam un proces colectiv de schimbare a culturii catre o orientare spre sistem in echipa lui executiva. Obiectivul acestei schimbari a fost sa modifice caliatea interfetelor de lucru dintre membrii echipei, inclusiv CEO. Aceasta a permis o crestere rapida a abilitatii fiecarui individ de a-si asuma responsabilitati si de a informa organizatiadespre initiativele personale.
Acest tip de schimbare in echipa executiva a unei organizatii este primul pas catre implementarea unei transformari culturale a sistemului mare pe care aceasta echipa il conduce. Cand executivii unui sitem au, in mod colectiv, initiative inteligente, isi asuma responsabilitati si isi dau puterea de a actiona asa cum o cere situatia, ei modeleaza un nou comportament pentru intreaga organizatie. Atunci toti ceilalti incep sa analizeze nevoile in mod spontan, sa ia decizii, sa implementeze actiuni si sa informeze organizatia din care fac parte despre progresele realizate spre atingerea obiectivelor. Aceasta este adevarata delegare.
Translated by Mihaela Reese
The Paradox of Motivation
In ultimii cincizeci de ani, intrebarile legate de cum sa motivezi personalul su fost puse la toate nivelele de catre cele mai multe dintre companiile lumii. In mod surprinzator, solutiile oferite pentru a incerca sa rezolve aceasta problema fundamentala nu au adus, in timp, nicio schimbare masurabila. Astazi, aceleasi intrebari, sunt inca adresate coachi-lor si consultantilor de catre aceleasi organizatii si solutiile propuse par sa fie la fel de ineficiente ca si inainte.
Un mare numar de organizatii sunt, intr-adevar, in fata unei realitati pe care nu o pot nega. Managerii de top si cei din partea de mijloc nu stiu cum sa creasca nivelul de motivare al oamenilor si angajamentul care il insoteste. In consecinta, ei externalizeaza aceasta problema expertilor, consultantilor, trainerilor si coachi-lor in speranta ca acesti furnizori din afara pot sa vina cu o solutie magica.
Sunt multe cuvinte care se refera la motivatie. Cateva cum ar fi „motor” si „automobil” apartin mediului mecanic. Daca percepem personalul ca fiind o simpla forta de munca, sau ca un motor, atunci intrebarea este, intr-adevar, ce combustibil sa ii dam pentru ca el sa ajunga fara probleme la destinatie.
Ca si o consecinta a acestei perspective, trainingul este aproape sistematic livrat in locatii scumpe si exotice, alese special pentrua dezvolta motivatia angajatilor. Pachetele de compensatii si beneficii ca si alte avantaje indirecte se spune, de asemenea, ca motiveaza si retin cei mai buni angajati si manageri. Coachi-i sunt chemati sa ajute cu dezamagirea profesionala si de-stresarea indivizilor si, bineinteles, sa ii re-motiveze. In fiecare an sunt cheltuite sume imense de bani pentru a imbunatati cum arata mediul de lucru in incercarea de a imbunatati moralul si motivarea. Dar nu sunt rezultate mai bune. Poate ca ceva este complet gresit.
- Atentionare: Cand o problema ramane prezenta de-a lungul zecilor de ani, noi nu o
rezolvam. Pur si simplu ne adaptam si traim cu ea. Este totodata evident ca atunci cand nu putem afla un raspuns la anume problema, poate ca nu am definit-o corect.
Intr-adevar, in ceea ce priveste motivarea angajatilor, poate ca s-au cautat solutii in perimetrul gresit. Ce ce sugeram aici este ca poate e nevoie sa facem o schimbare si sa reconsideram esenta contextului in care aceasta intrebare este ridicata. Intr-adevar, daca intrebam cum sa motivam angajatii, ne asumam ca fundamental, natura lor este sa fie demotivati sau ca ei ar putea ramane fara motivatie asa cum o masina ramane fara benzina. Aceasta premisa poate sa fie in intregime gresita. Cum ar fi daca ecuatia ar fi complet inversa? Cum ar fi daca angajatii ar fi prin natura lor motivati si atasati, si doar nu ar fi capabili sa isi exprime interesul intr-un mediu de lucru secatuit.
- In loc sa isi motiveze angajatii, organizatiile doar au nevoie sa sa opreasca din a-i constrange pana cand acestia simt ca nu au dreptul sa faca vreo miscare
- In loc sa incerce sa isi retina angajatii, adevarata intrebare poate fi „cum putem opri alienarea angajatilor care ajung astfel sa vrea sa plece din companie?”
- In loc sa caute modalitati de a dezvolta atasamentul (empower) angajatilor, adevarata problema poate fi doar „cum putem sa sprijinim initiativele bune pe care le au?”
Putem sa ne oprim din a afirma ca este starea naturala a angajatilor de a fi demotivati, lipsiti de angajament si ca ei vor sa plece in alte companii pentru aproape nimic in plus? Aceasta pozitionare se auto-confirma pe masura ce oamenii se adapteaza comportamentelor si descrierilor de posturi pe care managerii lor le sugereaza.
Putem sa ne uitam in mod sincer la modul in care companiile sunt conduse si sa punem sub semnul intrebarii cum se poate transforma cultura de management astfel incat angajatii sa fie „empowered” in mod natural si sa isi foloseasca motivatia lor inerenta si totodata ei sa inceapa sa creasca, sa se dezvolte si sa infloreasca. Aceasta pozitionare este mai ieftina si mult mai eficienta. Si ea se auto-confirma. Culturi organizationale pozitive stiu cum sa atraga in mod natural cele mai bune talente si sa le retina pe termen lung. Ei doar ii lasa sa sa se dezvolte natural intr-un mediu de invatare „empowering”. Asta se intampla deseori cu mai putine nevoi de avantaje, calatorii pentru training si pachete de compensatii scumpe.
Etimologic, cuvantul „motivare” este legat de „miscare”, de „motiv” care inseamna o nevoie sau o dorinta care determina o persoana sa actioneze, si e legat si de „emotie” care inseamna a agita. Asta indica faptul ca motivarea, miscarea si emotia sunt foarte strans legate. In consecinta, emotiile sunt rude cu nevoile si dorintele, si sunt fundamentale motivarii si miscarii, cel putin atat cat oamenii pot fi preocupati de asta. In organizatii, principalul factor al motivarii individuale este calitatea operationala a interfetei operationale dintre angajati si mediul lor foarte apropiat, cu alte cuvinte, cu echipa lor sau cu seful lor direct. Ca sa ai angajati motivati este pur si simplu necesar sa dezvolti echipe performante si manageri eficienti.
Translated by Mihela Reese (Paduraru)
About the crisis in Romania
On this trip to Romania, I have been struck by the number of times I have heard leaders and managers pronounce the word “crisis” to describe the present economic situation. Indeed, it seems almost socially fashionable for the whole Romanian population to have lengthy, discouraged and fatalistic discussions on the subject.
Note that along with the use of the word "crisis" comes a commonly accepted frame of reference: everyone pretends to believe that it is temporary. When it will be over, everything will come back to normal. In other words, life and work conditions will soon return to what they were before the economic crash.
Consequently, a large number of people are bracing themselves to wait out the crisis, hoping it will be short. Talk about the crisis mainly serves to reassure everyone that nothing is fundamentally changing in Romania. This is just a superficial occurence and we must be patient. Some self appointed futurologists are reinforcing this belief by announcing probable dates for return to normalcy, such as 2010, maybe early 2011. This is very reassuring.
For organizations to survive through this period, the main fatalistic financial strategy is very logically first to cut all expenses that are not perceived as productive. The second very similar protective approach is to downsize production to limit personnel costs. When times are good, priviledge quantitative development, spend in marketing and hire personnel indiscriminately. When times are hard, cut all unnecessary expenses and fire. To be sure and for lack of real leadership, that must be the pinnacle of current strategy.
Imagine, however, that the business environment in Romania will not shortly return to what it was for the past decade. Consider that the presently perceived temporary crisis is really a permanent adjustment to the larger European and global economic environment. Envision that all the market segments that have very spontaneously grown by over 20% yearly to rapidly boost Romania towards consumer maturity will never again develop in the same exceptional proportions.
This alternative frame of reference may drive individuals and organizations to radically revisit their present strategy consisting in simply cutting costs and just waiting it out. Just passively hoping for the best while "waiting for Godot" may indeed be close to suicidal for leaders and their organizations.
If one chooses to believe that things will never be the same again and that the future will be completely different, then it is urgent to make a few courageous decisions and take action without delay.
Consequences for leaders and managers
Preparing for a deeper transition in the present economic situation calls for a completely different type of leadership and management style. When the market grows by double or triple digits yearly, very basic management decisions are the rule:
- Big is beautiful, so expand as fast as possible, priviledging quantity over quality.
- Invest heavily to diversify, just to occupy the territory.
- Develop visibility by intensive marketing investments
- Pacify your personnel with lavish spending.
Indeed, employees will be reasonably happy if they can personally benefit from the booming economy with a regular and substantial increase in their personal lifestyle. As a result of the implementation of these obvious strategies, in Romania in the recent past, unemployment disappeared and the HR and advertizing sectors have been booming.
Exceptional growth in the past decade has permitted a large number of quick promotions. Anyone with reasonable expertise is now enjoying the status and social advantages of a managerial or executive position. A huge surge in per capita income and the creation of a consequential middle and comfortable upper class has been the result. This miracle has been achieved within ten years thanks to the booming Romanian economy.
Note however, that a large number of people holding relatively important leadership and managerial positions have achieved apparent professional success by simply surfing on the market and not making too many mistakes. If nine percent growth has placed Romania in the first ranks of western developing countries, it has also lulled a large number of leaders and managers to believe their behavior was responsible for their organization's success. In reality, this success is very often simply provoked by the market's natural expansion. In fact, numerous companies have grown much less than what their potential market had to offer.
Personal consequences
Reinforced by these relatively extraordinary results, many are the leaders who have developed a very satisfied, individualist, sometime autocratic and oftentimes arrogant management style. They may even be perceived as having developed something of an attitude to simulate competency and hide their feelings of imposture. If you want a first hand experience, get in a car with anyone and observe the way they drive, respect traffic laws and interact with other drivers. You will get a personal understanding of how these people manage. More dramatically, these relational patterns are too often taken home and affecting personal lives, influencing future generations.
Facing the impressive market and financial crunch today, these leader's reaction is talso to wait and see. They are quietly preparing to soon explain that their future results are not of their doing but just the fault of the economic slump. Paradoxically, that is also admitting they had not much to do to provoke their past successes. How indeed can one know how to succeed when one doesn't know how to fight when in adversity? And how can an organization's profits be attributed to its management when its losses are attributed to the environment? Some aware leaders are realizing that they are not as good as they made themselve believe and the awakening is very tough on them. There, there is hope, and need for support.
Due to this leadership behavior, numerous Romanian executive teams and top management have lost contact with what their employees really think. Worse, some don’t even care. In many Romanian and multinational companies, one can perceive the presence of a deep schism separating upper management from their employees. In times of plenty, the personnel was ready to accept mediocracy and gave very little motivation in return. In times of hardships, the truce may be broken. This state of affairs may in fact indicate that the perceived economic crisis is in reality a much deeper and social one. Management has lost its credibility to the point of resembling some of the worst local politicians.
Consequently, executives first and then their managers must start to really listen to their people. That means they have to stop pretending they have all the solutions and alone know what needs to be done to face a very uncertain environment and a radically different future. Developing basic respectful communication and behavioral skills and the capacity to establish collaborative relationships with the personnel is an urgent necessity.
If we believe that we are not going through a temporary crisis but that we must permanently adjust to a new global reality, then urgent operational decisions must be made and precise action must be implemented. The focus cannot only be financial and this calls for new priorities and competencies in the decision-making process of executive teams.
New priorities
Management in general must learn new competencies. Rather than favor individual career-oriented and ego-flattering relational strategies, it needs to develop more performing teamwork and collective performance focused on achieving measurable results. Developing competencies should become more important than just having connections. Beyond reinforcing individualistic strategies, learning how to manage and develop highly collaborative teams is the key to success on the future markets. Executive teams composed of ten or more key players need to learn to make concerted decisions. The age of purely financial decisions made within a confidential so-called "strategic" and exclusive committee is to be forgotten.
Sales and support of sales in all back offices need to be geared to deliver top quality service to clients. The sales philosophy must also evolve from a hard-selling short-term attitude to developing real win - win long-long term relationships with customers. This calls for a major change of focus in numerous executive teams and much more respect for sales divisions and sales people. These also should be better trained to value and develop a solid client base for their organization. The key words here are mutual respect.
Operations and production needs to develop effectiveness to deliver the quality products of the future. These divisions need to get excellent support from the whole organization as they focus on developing products that will speak for themselves rather than depend so heavily on marketing and price slicing to get an edge, too often based on illusionary promises.
All HR strategies previously geared to spending money to please and pacify personnel and middle management must also be redirected to keep employees for better reasons. For instance by professionally developing them on the long term. Truly operational and practical training must help everyone focus on increasing quality levels in their field, developing effectiveness and delivering regular and measurable results.
Proud and professional employees are the biggest asset a company can ever have and should be top management's main strategic concern. This will in turn ensure long-term financial results. Maybe in the near future, more professional HRs will be participating in making decisions by earning their rightful place in executive teams.
Training and coaching
Presently, the training profession is also going through a very difficult period. Lavish leadership roll-out programs focused on delivering ego-centered and leader-chic principles are being cancelled. If you can now get two trainings for the price of one, you can be sure the measurable results will not also double. It seems training programs are suddenly perceived as unnecessary expenses that have created very little measurable added value.
Probably, training needs to be redesigned to very practically help develop everyday collective and professional interfacing behavior aimed at increasing operational results. It is a significant observation that so little has been done to develop teams and teamwork. Team building has become the equivalent of incentive-related vacations. They have been perceived as so useless for organizations that they have often been taking place on week-ends. Enough work on having good relationships, lets work on getting results together.
Interestingly, in this transition period, there is one profession that appears to be booming. Coaches who are well trained in accompanying individual and collective clients towards making the necessary urgent decisions to achieve measurable results are suddenly in excessive demand. Some of them are even fully booked. Coaches who know how to help organizations, teams and individual clients define the challenges they really want to achieve and then accompany them while they find the means to get there are in real demand. This trend is not about to end.
That trend may be an indication that some people have understood that the current situation signals a coming fundamental shift in the Romanian economic environment if not in the country's society as a whole.
To consult our two-day advanced workshops for leaders and managers
To consult our eight-day skills training program for empowering leaders and managers
to consult our nine-day training program for coaches ''The Fundamentals of Masterful Coaching''
Why Should Managers Learn Coaching Skills?
To consult the program of a workshop on individual, team and organization diagnosis
The comments that follow are a personal interpretation of perceived needs for managers in general, and managers in Romania in particular. The first question is "Do Romanian managers need to acquire more knowledge or do they need to acquire skills?" "Do they need a another diploma attesting their understanding of a given field or do they need to change the way they manage people in their everyday organizational context?"
- If the answer is that managers need more general knowledge and theory to understand coaching and how it may apply to leadership, designing visions and goals, elaborating values, motivating people, etc. then practical training on coach skills is not very useful. It would even be quite redundant with existing leadership courses.
- If the answer is that managers need to develop more practical communication and relational know-how, they need to revisit and modify their day-to-day way of communicating, or their capacity to dialogue with their employees, with their clients and with their business partners, then acquiring coaching skills and behaviors can definitely be appropriate.
Coach training workshops are paper-and-slides-free behavioral learning environments providing each participant an active context to acquire very practical and pragmatic skills. In these workshops, participants learn by doing and practicing rather than by absorbing knowledge about practice.
indeed, workshops fundamentally differ from most seminars. The privileged approach in workshops is not focused on theory nor on concepts but on physically or behaviorally acquiring skills by repeatedly experimenting competencies until they become a second nature: they become natural built-in communication reflexes. To use a sports metaphor, seminars teach students theory about muscle and concepts on how to develop them. Workshops offers active workout environments to build muscle and develop a personal style. Workshops are practical sweatshops or work-out rooms.
Outcomes
Consequently, after following a workshop, the measurable result for managers is that they have acquired new muscles. They change their day-to-day behaviors within their immediate professional environments if not in all their relationships. After a workshop, they very practically implement what they have repeatedly practiced. Within coaching workshops,
- Managers develop the motivation to use coaching skills and engage in real dialogues because they personally and repeatedly experimented achieving very positive results with these skills.
- Managers become competent in the use of coaching skills because they practice them time and again with a masterful trainer and coach in a well-designed learning environment.
In coaching workshops, however, managers also learn much more than behavioral skills. The change they go through is much more than skin deep. There is a paradoxical observation about learning new behaviors and acquiring very practical skills: when managers really change how they communicate, they also gradually change who they are.
People often think that learning different behaviors is just a superficial process. It just takes time. If you want to improve your service in tennis, for example, just practice serving one thousand times. You will almost automatically achieve your goal and improve your service. It is the same with playing a musical instrument. Practice every night and you will develop your skills. Indeed, in all fields, practice makes perfect. In coaching workshops, managers also learn new behaviors in the same way. Learning how to listen and then ask powerful questions, or learning the fine art of dialogue just takes practice.
Note however that at first, learning by sheer repetition is unfortunately not perceived as very validating, motivating nor committing for participants. It is even often very humbling for the ego. Behavioral training is looked down upon as if it were too mechanical and not noble enough for elevated minds. Consequently, numerous managers come to skills training with the idea that they are just acquiring tools in a superficial way. They are ready to make a small effort, they want quick results. They are often not fundamentally ready to change their deepest habits.
One becomes what one does
in workshop situations however, there often is a quick turning point. New awareness of expanded personal possibilities naturally comes with a little bit of practice. Then, motivation develops. After a little bit of experimenting, one wants to improve and the rest follows. To become a highly professional pianist, one needs to practice hours, days, months and then years. Acquiring a discipline in any domain requires minute practice, regular practice and then more practice. Only through practice does one really achieve mastery.
In coach training workshops, as managers espouse behavioral changes, they also gradually change their perspectives on management and that in turn may modify their more fundamental nature. They may even change physically. Note for example that tennis players gradually develop one arm until it is much stronger than the other.
So any regularly practiced management activity is different and each develops very different qualities. Just like in sports, different activities modify personal equilibrium, distribution of strength, capacity for speed, personal resilience, heart rhythms, team skills, precision in details, individual concentration, systemic strategy, will power, etc.
The same happens in coach training environments such as workshops. The behavioral skills that are acquired by managers help them acquire more than personal competencies. These skills gradually change how they are as managers and sometimes how they are perceived in their leadership position. More deeply, these changes may affect how they perceive themselves and their own roles as leaders.
Consequently, by practicing new skills in workshops, managers first learn to use them. Then, behaving differently changes the way they relate with others. Changing how managers relate modifies how they are perceived. This in turn changes their perceptions of their work environment and of who their employees are. If this process is tailored towards accompanying personal growth in the work environment by the development of how we manage people, then we become much better managers.
In coaching learning environments and workshops, managers do not only learn how to do coaching or management. They also learn how to become profound coaches and effective managers with real people skills.
To conclude, coach training environments for managers are designed to have them acquire powerful people-coaching skills to then become better managers. These are communication competencies that can be used within a large number of other professions that deal with people such as in sales, recruiting, counseling, training, etc. Acquiring coaching skills for professionals in any of these fields not only helps them succeed better in their profession, it also helps them develop to become better people. That depth of development is truly priceless for most Romanian companies today.