Even Tiger Woods has a coach, right...

Yes, it won't just be Accenture who has to rework its favorite tag line. Business coaches everywhere will be scratching their heads to think of some easy way to convey the role they have in coaching successful people. Tiger's enduring success presented an icon, an ideal: Someone who had actually "self actualized". He'd really done it. Athlete of the decade, model wife, kids, billion dollar contracts. With Tiger around, we all knew that with enough practice and a winning smile, anything was possible.

Now we are all faced with a hard landing back to Planet Reality. Life is full of painful choices and trade offs even for successful people and in some cases, particularly for successful people.

We are reminded of the fact that (according to Psychologist, Dr. Steven Ungerleider) within 5 years, 40% of Olympic medalists undergo psychotherapy or counseling in some form. Success itself creates its own dilemmas. As one motivational driver is satisfied, others remain unmet. They surface from our unconscious to remind us of their continued existence at inconvenient moments.

So what's going on? And, why can't we have it all?

In my view, it all relates to the key elements of our Mind: our Values, Motivation and Goals. There are other things going on in there of course, but these are the elements that I observe as a coach being most significant in shaping how we live. Keeping these three elements in some sort of balance is what I think life is all about. We function best when our goals are routed in our values and are driven by our motivational needs. For instance, if a successful person has very high Achievement motive, they might value the continued striving. It is not just about winning, its the struggle itself that they enjoy. It is this value that keeps them going on to keep winning. The goal to be #1 can therefore be grounded in real psychological needs. We achieve success in some aspect of our life, be it sports, work or in our social networks, as a result of this alignment.

Yet, just when we think we have it sorted, other motivational needs start to surface, under-nurtured and unmet. The need for freedom, independence, control, can assert themselves. My guess, it that this did so in Tiger's life, with disastrous consequences. The freedom to "be like other guys", and do what they do. With a life and family, and billion dollar promotional contract, Tiger's downfall brings to sharp relief just how "irrational" and self-destructive we can become when our motivational and value system collide.

This is a sad story. I don't know the chronology, but it might well be Tiger lost his bearings after the loss of his Father, who seemed unusually prominent in his adult life. Perhaps the child in Tiger hung around for just that bit too long. The impact on his wife and two young children can only be imagined.

The only lesson we can draw from this is coaches is to be reminded that its never just about the golf, anymore than it is ever just about work. Successful leaders bring their whole self into what they do, and their success impacts every other aspect of their life.

The sad part in all this is that Tiger was not able to change a habit before it was too late. Habits can be changed. He he is a young man with a lot to offer the world. He is a leader, icon, husband and parent, and what he does now will influence directly and indirectly many people.

Today, the message is that Tiger needs a real coach now more than ever. This is a distinctively different role and relationship from father or golf instructor. He needs someone with sufficient insight to spot the patterns, detachment to ask the tough questions and relational skill to build his self awareness. He needs someone who could bridge his public/private worlds and ensure the two were in alignment with each other.

And, let's face it, we all want to be inspired by the gods because they make us feel that we too, can rise above our complex, imperfect humanity.

Awareness, Motivation and Action

The Gestalt Cycle of Experience and the Law of Pragnanz are vital to our understanding of how we become aware and move to action, sometimes in different ways and at different times from each other(1). If we want people “on the same page” as us, we need to attend to this. A confrontation in a care park highlighted this for me. And, a 1999 medical research study(2) points the way as to how leaders can create and maintain heightened awareness, motivation and action-orientation in their teams.

A short while ago, I was driving into a shopping mall in Warsaw. As I drove around the upper stories looking for one of the very few places left, I saw the car in front of me stop in the roadway. To my disbelief, he got out, locked his car and began to walk into the mall itself. With oncoming traffic coming the other way, he blocked the road in front of me. I wound down my window, and in language a little unbecoming for a coach, I said, "Hey X$C%!, move your car!!!". What he said astonished me. I was expecting either compliant action, or an alpha male riposte, but instead he simply said "spokojne, Pan. Nie problemu." (Be calm, Sir, there's no problem). He then proceeded with his nonchalant walk into the mall. The oncoming traffic had cleared and I was able to maneuver around his parked car. Still mumbling "What an X$C%!", I parked nearby. Soon however, I was thinking about something else (food probably).

To put it mildly, he and I had experienced different "Gestalts", the figures or images that form in our mind. I saw his car as an obstacle, he saw an opportunity to fix to his parking problem. But I also saw someone breaking the rules. We are meant to park our car inside the white lines. It's obvious. Society deems it so. But...in actual fact I had lost perhaps one minute at most. I was able to maneuver around "the obstacle". Other drivers would probably have been able to as well. Weren't we both right? When he said there was no problem, he probably had a point. Perhaps we can tolerate a bit of flexibility in society. After all, Britain, where I come from, is one of the most heavily policed societies in the world and this has its costs, too.

But more important to the point of this article, my attempt to achieve a resolution to this affair was wholly a failure. Why was this. Let's deconstruct this event:

> I had sensed the presence of an obstacle,

> I become aware that I was stuck and I saw a "rule breaker" ahead of me

> I became charged, and mobilized sufficient energy to deal with the crisis at hand

> and, I moved to action by winding my winding down and delivering my verbal assault.

> I had arrived at the action stage with a need-for-closure attitude

He on the other hand, had not even sensed the same things that I had. He saw that there was plenty of space to move round his car, once the traffic had cleared. And, he saw someone yelling at him. His lunch date was probably more figural to him at this stage(3).

I had moved from awareness, through motivation, to the action phase without ensuring my counter-part had any idea of what I was experiencing. Had I got out of my car, used some EQ to engage him in a conversation and said respectfully but firmly that I felt it was important that we all abide by the rules (and asserted my values), he might perhaps have been more accommodating. We might even have engaged in some joint problem solving, scanning our eyes for alternative spaces.

I wish I had my Wife next to me at this point. A third party perspective often helps.

But, isn't this just what happens all the time in leadership situations. In the moment, leaders see actions, results and behaviors which do not fall into the "white lines" they expect. Right/wrong imagery comes to their mind. Different levels of energy and motivation come to the fore. They're energized and excited by things, but it's hard to get peoples attention or energy focused on the same place. Often, leaders have to put up with grudging compliance rather than active energy behind shared goals.

The Gestalt Cycle of Experience (Figure 1) is therefore not just a personal process, but is a shared experience(4). It is our interaction with the outer world, and often with people that forms our experience. The more a leader can help people move through this cycle together, the more likely it will be that everyone will be "on the same page" and "pulling in the same direction".

Closely associated with the Cycle of Experience, is the Law of Pragnanz, the drive to complete the cycle and return to a point of equilibrium. In other words, we need closure. And, once we achieve closure we are often reluctant to re-open the cycle of experience, which is one reason we are resistant to feedback.

We can therefore look at the Gestalt Cycle as a linear pattern which is shared by different members of a team, with attention and engagement fluctuating over time and resulting in closure. Figure 2 shows the ideal situation, where the Cycle of Experience of each team member flows in a similar way. This tends to occur when a leader has allowed each team member to see, hear and experiment with an object or idea; and, through questioning and interaction, come to form a shared view about it. Big picture, coaching, affiliative or democratic styles can all do this well. They encourage people to be more open to feedback, to accept other peoples "Gestalts", and to listen to contrary views. Closure is achieved in business terms in various ways, such as problem resolution, decision, clear accountabilities, supporting processes, technical competence, and so on, all enabling the leader to psychologically "move on" and address other burning issues.

Figure 3, shows us a situation that often occurs, where the leader is exercising higher awareness and energy (usually negative) than others around them. Rather like myself in the Shopping Mall parking lot, leaders stuck in this place tend to use either the directive, "tell" , or pace setting "show" styles which results in compliance or replication, but which does not generate the same level of awareness or energy. One reason for this effect is that a "telling" style can more often lead to D3, denial, deflection and diminishing responses to feedback (See Feedback Coaching). When we are resistant to feedback, we have achieved a premature closure and withdrawal on an issue. Our mind is literally "set". New information contained in feedback is treated as inaccurate, irrelevant or malevolent. We stop listening and hold on to out-of-date images of ourselves and the situation around us.

How else can we explain failures of banks and other financial institutions, led by apparently successful and intelligent people who clung for too long to images of themselves "turning things around".

And, also in Figure 3, we see the real danger in "stuckness": A failure to reach completion or closure on an issue. The matter continues to bug you; cause arguments; distractions; procrastination takes hold; ineffective repetitive strategies are formed; failed execution results. People feel drained and fatigued. Without a shared awareness and common understanding, team members will interpret ambiguities in different ways.

A life and death situation illustrates the Gestalt Cycle of Experience in action. In 1999 a medical research study in Boston, USA, looked into the wide variation in the effectiveness with which sixteen public hospitals had introduced radically new ultrasound technologies for cardiac surgery. The key measure was time, as the duration the patience was under operation had a large effect on survival rates and post-operation recovery. Yet, the average time taken to complete the new procedures varied significantly. A wide number of variables were looked into. One of the most obvious was the knowledge and experience of the surgeon. Naturally, we'd expect that the more qualified and experienced the surgeon, the more effective and expert was the implementation of the new procedure. Well, not so. The study showed a negative correlation between "world class" surgeons and the time efficiency in adopting new procedures. "Average" surgeons performed the new procedures better.

How could this be. Well, direct quotes from the authors illuminate the reason:

"The ability of the surgeon to allow himself to become a partner, not a dictator, is critical."

The procedure was introduced more effectively when there was " a free and open environment with input from everybody"; and,

"An atmosphere of information sharing" was key to the more rapid adoption of the procedure.

World class surgeons, grown up in the older methods, had used a dictating style in the operating theatre. They saw that the success of the new procedure depended on their judgment. What was most figural to them was their own expertise. They were therefore reluctant to take on board the ideas of others. The support staff were not made to feel that they had anything to contribute, and therefore they simply saw this procedure like any other. They were professional, but detached.

"Average" surgeons, perhaps because they were not invited to give speeches at international conferences, were less prone to see themselves alone as the instrument of success. They saw the new procedure as a an "organizational issue" and not merely a technical challenge. They therefore actively sought after the opinions of assistants. And, these surgeons saw the value in building up a dedicated team so that knowledge could be built up and shared. Team members felt part of something. They invested energy. It was this team specialization that accounted for the biggest variation in operational effectiveness of the new procedure.

World class surgeons merely retained the existing nursing rotational system. They were not open to new experience. Their Gestalt Cycle was closed. They had equilibrium, confident in their image of themselves as truly world class. Although perhaps a read down of their effectiveness rankings might have prompted a sudden re-opening.

The case study points to the uncomfortable fact that it can be our very success that can stop us sensing and becoming aware of the value of those around us. If business leaders sit in a room and see others as rivals, threats, juniors, women, ethnically or nationally different, less smart, rather than as people they will miss vital sensory information that can lead to disconnection, dissonance and "stuckness" later on.

Taking more time early on to prompt dialogue, exchange and reflection is the surest way of achieving a common Gestalt Cycle and a common sense of closure and equilibrium. Carefully listening for meaning; deep questioning, resolving differences and being transparent in ones own thought and feelings might take more time initially, but will produce higher levels of awareness, greater motivation and more effective action.

1.Organizational Consulting, A Gestalt Approach. Edwin C. Nevis

2.Use of Ultrasound Technology in Cardiac Surgery in 16 public hospitals in the Boston, Mass area, 1999. A Edmondson; R Bohmer; G Pisano: HBR

3.Skills in Counselling & Psychotherapy. Phil Joyce & Charlotte Sills.

4.Organizations Get Stuck Too. Bill Critchley & David Casey (Leadership & Organizational Development Journal)

Eric Schmidt on Why Everyone Needs a Coach

Thank you, Eric. This is a succinct business case for coaching. He nicely describes the normal reaction a successful and senior leader would go through when being presented with the option to work with a coach. He goes on to describe how a coach can help you understand how you are seen by others.

Feedback Coaching

This article will discuss how a leader can use simple coaching tools to lessen the risk of meeting defensiveness when delivering behavioral feedback to other leaders. Creating a culture of feedback is synonymous with building a high performance organization. Yet, delivering feedback remains problematic. We lack the tools to do this well. Standard feedback instruments rely too much on a telling style. My view is the answer lies in integrating coaching and feedback. I am suggesting a model based upon Questioning-Sensing-Observation-Suggestion.

Defensiveness

None of us really like receiving feedback, even though we often say it's a gift. In fact, as humans we have quite sophisticated defenses to guard us against harmful feedback. We all carry around with us a self image of who we are. Mostly, this is favorable. And this is probably a good thing. This allows us to feel good about ourselves for most of the time. So getting information from others that forces us to confront reality, rather than reinforcing the mental image we have of ourselves can be disconcerting.

Even positive feedback can fall short of our emotional needs: "You're one of the best people on the team" can land as "...so there are others better than me?". Achievement driven people are particularly prone to be hard on themselves when receiving feedback. They tend to dwell too much on "negative" feedback which points out the gap between the reality and their expectations of themselves.

D3: Deny, Deflect, Diminish

To defend ourselves from reality, we have an integrated defense mechanism that I call D3: Denial, Deflect; Diminish. For instance, when receiving 360° feedback we can simply deny the data is valid: "The competency model does not apply to me!". We can deflect the feedback: "Yeh, you know I was expecting this. This data comes from these guys Jeff hired. They just won't change." We can diminish it's importance: "Look, I know this HR-thing, report, whatever, makes me look bad, but I have to manage in the real world to get results. That's what counts!".

In fact, the examples above are quite obvious examples of defensiveness. Our D3 games can be even more sophisticated. I sometimes meet the High Agreer, who very quickly agrees with the data and then rushes on to identify a comforting solution, all to avoid confronting and reflecting on data that deep seated facets of their personality. There is the Confessor: "Oh my god! I'm so awful. How can I do this to people (head in hands)". By falling on their sword and becoming a victim, they similarly hope to avoid any reasoned discussion about what the data means and try to head off the possibility of agreeing a rationale personal change strategy.

Rather than receiving the feedback as information that might help us perform better, we interpret it through a mental prism: Our mindset.

Feedback to Leaders

So, into this mix the leader steps with the duty to deliver information that the other person doesn't want to hear. Even in highly measurable and well defined junior to middle management jobs this is tough. But, it gets even tougher at leadership levels. Here, the ambiguity, inter-connectedness of everything gives people plenty of scope to play games: For instance, "I'm taking the fall for the fact the company has no strategy" is a common deflective response used by leaders.

Current Models: Situation- Behavior - Impact

My view is that we are poorly equipped at leadership levels to address this. The Center for Creative Leadership developed their Situation - Behavior - Impact1 model to provide leaders with an analytical tool for delivering feedback to subordinates. A Leader coach first describes the situation that took place - what they saw. Next they describe the behavior the feedback receiver appeared to be using. Finally, they describe the impact this behavior had. So, "In the meeting yesterday, I saw you interrupt in the middle of Mary's presentation several times. I noticed this caused her to become annoyed. I could see it in her face".

The CCL model is something of a workhorse in the leadership development industry and has it's place. It is designed around the assumption of objectivity. However, my view is that it is too based upon a Tell position from the leader coach to their subordinate. I believe an alternative model is needed at senior levels in an organization. At this level, the hierarchy no longer supports a Tell positioning around feedback. In fact, if one leader is telling another using the S-B-I model, it is likely to trigger defensiveness no matter how correct the observations happened to be.

How WE trigger defensiveness in others

So often we describe people as being defensive unaware of how our own behavior and actions might have contributed to this. Listen around you in the office and try to notice how often we phrase feedback in either the accusative form: "You kept interrupting Mary's presentation yesterday"; or the coercive form: "You really need to listen more...". And, we often lapse into negative and implication laden questioning:"Why don't you listen more?". All of these interventions are likely to stimulate a person's defense mechanism as we inadvertently call into question their competence or independence.

We get even further stuck when we tried to prove that our feedback is "right". Feedback sessions can often become Attack/Defense sessions in which two highly achievement driven individuals try to win the outcome. We try to get the other person to "accept" the feedback i.e. admit they were wrong. Conflict can often ensue.

Feedback in once-per-year Attack / Defense Mode

One of my most common observations in which as an external coach is how many organizations lack a culture of feedback, where feedback can be freely given and easily received. Because feedback is so often conducted in the Attack/Defense mode, delivering feedback is often avoided by leaders until the mandatory once-a-year feedback form-filling session dictated by HR, and dreaded by most of those involved.

Towards A New Model: Questioning - Sensing - Observation - Suggestion.

At the leadership level, I urge clients to use more of a coaching approach to the deliver of feedback. It's not perfect, but experience and feedback to me from clients is that it does lessen defensiveness. I have formulated a simple process for doing this: Questioning - Sensing -Observation - Suggestion. The key point here is that rather than a Tell position, the alternative I'm suggesting is based more on questioning.

Questioning

A step so often missed but crucial to the feedback process is asking if you may deliver feedback to the other person. In a hierarchical setting the manager just presume he or she can. Yet, on a leader-to-leader basis or at senior levels the delivery feedback without permission will risk triggering D3 right away.

Once permission is granted, often asking a simple neutral question can prompt reflectiveness in the other leader: "What do you think about Mary's presentation yesterday?". "Fine. But I think I interrupted too much". By doing it this way you can save hours of argument and open up a coaching opportunity.

Even if you don't get it so easy, questioning allows you to fully understand the mindset of the other person, and you get information on what they were trying to do: " Fine, I just hope she took my comments on board, that's all"; or "You know, I've told her about these things before and I was just so frustrated to hear it coming again". You may pick up openings from this, such as frustration and explore these feelings more.

And, important early warnings can be revealed about their D3 mechanisms. "Oh yeh, I always like winding Mary up, don't you?" (diminishing defense).

Sensing

As soon as we start asking questions, we begin picking up vital sensory information.

We listen for the content and context of the information from the feedback receiver. We listen for what is being said, and what is not being said. We listen for how it is being said, in terms of key words, imagery and phrases. We notice what we say has an impact on their verbal and non-verbal responses.

We observe their body language and the extent to which it is relaxed and open. We notice how as we change our posture, we prompt a change in theirs.

Through our touch and body posture we can create rapport with the other person. Double handed handshakes, hand on shoulders, hand gestures, and sitting/standing location vis-a-vis the other person (i.e. I understand 65° is supposed to work best, but I'm checking on that), can all help build the trust needed to deliver feedback.

Being aware of our own "umming" and "aarring" as the other person speaks. What is this doing? Is it making the person more relaxed or more defensive?

I'm not sure how we might use our sense of smell, but perhaps in some subtle way we do pick up subtle changes in scent.

The key point here is that we need to be fully aware and in-the-moment and not too caught up with our own thinking process. By being aware of what is going on within ourselves and between us we can provide learn vital intelligence about their mindset and behavior and ours.

For instance, do they interrupt you while you're talking? What impact does this have on you? What does this suggest about a pattern of behavior and the impact on their other relationships?

Observation

Stating your observations simply and neutrally can itself overcome defensiveness. "I noticed you intervened a lot during Mary's presentation yesterday. She might have seen that as an interruption. What do you think?" (cycle back to question).

There are several key points about Observation:

State the observation from yourself, rather than refer to the third person (We, the strategy, the report, etc). This is counter to a lot of the Biz-speak books that say we should use We all the time. "I" speaks from a sense of openness. The more directly personal you can make the connection the less D3 you are likely to incur.

Express your observations in the language of perception - which is all the statements can be: "I saw...; I felt that...; I noticed...; My view of what happened is that....". This suggests that we can never be sure. We can modify our position if new information comes from the other person and we are less likely to appear judgmental.

Observations can be feelings, also. "I'm concerned that your interruptions may have left Mary feeling annoyed."

By talking from the self, you are less likely to be contradicted. It is illogical to say "no you didn't feel or perceive that". The language of perception is unfamiliar in the hard thinking fact-based business world and for this reason it can signal that this is a different type of conversation.

Once you have shared your can loop back to Sensing: "I'm sensing you're finding hearing this feedback difficult. How are we doing here?".

Suggestion

When the feedback receiver is ready to listen, it is often helpful to make a suggestion about what they can do differently in future: "What I suggest for next time is that you wait until a natural pause in the flow of the presentation before speaking up". A suggestion should be relevant to your observations and actionable in behavioral terms: "I suggest you change your attitude" is not really a suggestion at all but an implied accusation.

One of the most effective suggestions is to disengage the feedback session with the simple "I suggest you just think this over and decide what you want to do". We do not need to win an argument. Our purpose in delivering feedback is to stimulate the other person to think about their behavior. This does not have to happen in the moment. Sometimes, leaving the person to mull it over is the most effective thing. It is their decision how to act. By leaving them accountable you are far less likely to trigger the defensiveness than for example: "So, you commit to doing things differently next time, right?". Remember, sullen compliance is merely a sophisticated deflection strategy on the part of the feedback receiver.

Be there for the person. A suggestion such as "I can watch out in the next presentation and give you feedback afterwards, if you'd find that helpful", can make the person feel supported.


Behavioral Feedback

The real focus of this approach is to concentrate on behavior. This is what we can observe and it is what the other person can change. However, behavior does not exist in isolation from either the mindset that shapes behavior nor the results that flow from it. So, if we have expertly conducted ourselves as above, and yet we still meet defensiveness and that this defensiveness seems to be a recurring pattern in the other person, we may want to state our observation, with a question attached: "I've noticed that you often seem to react defensively when receiving feedback from me. For instance, I hear you say things that seem to deflect the issue on to someone else (behavior). How are you feel when you receive feedback?". Or alternatively, "How valuable do you think this feedback is?", (mindset, searching for thoughts and feelings ).

Another way into deeper feedback conversation is by looking at the results from the behavior. "What do you think the impact of yesterday's presentation will be on your relationship with Mary?". By looking nat feedback from the perspective of outcomes you can help the feedback receiver become more reflective. And, the more you can encourage them to do the reflection, the better.


Coaching and Feedback

I am really suggesting that feedback is best delivered in a coach-lite mode. Asking deep coaching questions ("How does this fit into your life plan?") does not exactly help when the feedback receiver is absorbing uncomfortable and disconcerting information. At the same time, being too telling or instructing will choke off the other persons capacity to listen. My suggestion on this is for the feedback provider to stick to What & How questions, alternating with I/My statements while focusing on perception and observation.

Conclusion

I realize that this approach will contradict much of the literature on feedback which states that we need to be objective. The assumption of objectivity and being fact-based is the very reason we get into such a mess over feedback. If we approach feedback with the mindset that we are doing no more than sharing our perception and impressions and starting a dialogue about this, we are far more likely to encourage reflection in the feedback receiver.

©Andrew Atter

On Motivation

The Power, Achievement and Affiliation motive

Our motivation is one of the most critical influences on our mindset and behavior. Yet, we still struggle to understand "what makes us tick?". The Power, Achievement and Affiliation1 motives are intrinsic to us. We have all formulated our own particular balance of these needs inside us. And, one can see a person's motivation showing itself in everyday behavior if you keep your senses turned on.

We too often lapse into a mindset that suggests "I need to motivate Alice", which already frames our leadership intervention as something external to the other person. In effect, this means we are working with incentives and not motives. Tired and under-pressure managers can be forgiven for impulsively reaching for various incentives in order to get the job done. But in this article, I'd like to focus on how leaders can develop a deeper understanding of motivation - their own and the people who work for them. As well as getting better and more sustainable results, leaders who work with motivation can discover more satisfaction and purpose in their role. Leaders who harness this natural and free energy within people can achieve extraordinary results.

How we develop our motivation

Our motivation is a sophisticated balance of needs and fears that are integral to who we are as people. Motivation is formed as part of our value system we develop from childhood onwards. Our parents, our school and college system, important role models, our religion and our work environment will all shape our motivation. A motive is a combination of rational belief and emotional attachment. For instance, we believe that it is good to achieve because it brings us benefits. Yet, we also enjoy the sensation of achievement and the emotional payback it provides.

I recall a client who with high achievement motivation who had nervously expected news of a promotion and a significant salary increase. This was to be the subject of one-to-one with the Regional President. In the event, the previous meeting overran, and my client was delivered the news of the promotion and increase in a two minute corridor conversation. In substance, he had been given everything he had expected yet he left the meeting disappointed. He had been denied his medal ceremony that high achievers crave. But more than this he had not had the discussion about his success and how the promotional decision had been made. Had he really achieved alot or had he just served his time long enough to get the promotion. He did not want praise. He had joked cynically to me about how people said "Great Job!" all the time. What he wanted was a description of what he had done, relative to others, rather as a sprinter wants to know that his time was 9.73 seconds, as opposed to the next person on 9.75. He wanted advice on how he could get better. Instead, the stop watch was turned off, the coach took a break, the crowds were sent home and his medal had arrived in the post.

Finding the right balance in Motivation

My view is that it is not possible nor even ethical to try to change someone's motivation profile. However, it is possible to trigger a reflective process where the individual can discover a broader and more balanced motivation. It is important for people to have access to different motivations. For example, the person with a high need for achievement will at some point, just like the athlete, need to experience satisfaction in coaching others, which is suggestive more of an affiliative motive. The power-motivated person will need to stop negotiating boundaries and at some point strive for the success of the overall venture. So, a person cannot switch or replace motives. But, people can develop an awareness of other auxiliary or tertiary motives which are then accessible.

This is one of the reasons why leadership coaching and mentoring are so important.

David C. McClelland

To understand what I mean by this, it will useful to discuss one of the writers who has most influenced my thinking on motivation is David C. McClelland, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University. In his classic works (The Achievement Motive, 1953; Power, The Inner Experience, 1975) McClelland proved a model of work-based motivation that goes beyond Herzberg and provides a much deeper understanding of what differentiates human behavior once the "hygiene factors" have been met.

McClelland showed that our motivation is formed from a balance of three primary needs: Power, Achievement and Affiliation. It is worth looking at each in more detail.

Power Motive

Power-types need to make things happen and to be a determining influence on events. For a leader, power motive is exhibited as a desire to demonstrate authority and decisiveness. For an employee, it is shows as a need for clear accountability and autonomy. There are two different facts to the power motive: personal power, which can be seen in the need for high personal control, such as in the case of an entrepreneur; and social power, such as someone who enjoys having broader and significant influence and empowering others.

In his classic Harvard Business Review article, Power is the Great Motivator, McClelland was able to show how socially power motivated leaders can deliver consistently good results by bring clarity and high standards to a team. Statistically, social power motive correlates closely with successful leadership behavior and emotional intelligence. The reason for this is that social power is won by forming a tacit contract with others and therefore people with high social power know that they have to continue to sustain that contract. They therefore tend to be put more effort into setting goals, delegation and communication. Leaders with achievement motive on the other hand, assume they have "won" their leadership role via competition, rather as a medieval king might win their throne through combat.

However, when the need for power when exhibited negatively i.e. when it is not being satisfied by the environment in some way, is associated with politicking and silo-behavior. Power motivated people can be calculating when deciding which relationships to build and can be seen to "walk over people" as a result.

For power-drivers, incentives relating to status and hierarchy will work. However, what they need most is clear roles and boundaries that define their accountability. This can be difficult in an increasingly matrixed and inter-connected world.


Achievement Motive

Those with high achievement drive are results-orientated and respond to clear and rationally defined targets. These targets can be intrinsically driven, as in someone who sets high standards for themselves i.e. mountain climbers; mountain bikers; and those who respond to extrinsic targets as can be seen in athletic sports and in the classic sales incentive structure.

Those with high achievement are often very competitive. This can lead to the "smartest guy in the room" syndrome and gladiatorial conduct. They can find it difficult to work with anyone who is not in line-of-sight with delivering their results, which can lead to difficult relationships with support staff. They do not "suffer fools gladly" and can often go into conflict with under-achievers, including those who might be struggling and in need of help.

This group can also be the hardest on themselves. Often, too attached to targets to let go, they drive on at cost to themselves and their relationships - both at work and home.

Those with high achievement drive need lots and lots of feedback. Timely, specific and line-of-sight recognition is overwhelmingly important to them. By the time the annual performance appraisal comes around, you might find them already complaining about the "lack of feedback". But be careful, for they associate praise with manipulation. Elsewhere on this blog I will address the difference between Recognition and Praise.

As a coach, I commonly work with leaders with very high achievement motive. This is not just intrinsic to their personalities, it has been consistently reinforced by the work environment through incentives. Firms progressively select out people who are not "high achievers". Yet, people with high achievement motive frequently have difficulty adapting to leadership roles. They tend to do everything themselves. They can set unrealistically high targets (thus frustrating high achievers underneath them). They sometimes fail to properly evaluate risk (and here I disagree with McClelland, who generally praised their ability to assess risk under laboratory conditions) and they can be too competitive when collaboration is needed.

One of trickiest tasks as a coach is to help those with high achievement motive to understand how the ethical and effective use of power, influence and inter-personal contracting is necessary and is needed to compliment their achievement drive. Otherwise, they can literally kill themselves. To many "high achievers" though, the Power motive smacks of political and behind-the-scenes manipulation. This is the very thing they abhor.

Therefore, motivation is not just a question of competency development. Re-balancing ones motive profile raises deep issues about ones value system and belief set. Failure to address and resolve these deeper questions will result in only superficial and temporary behavior modification.

Achievers need clear rational targets and lots of in-the-moment performance feedback to enable them to succeed.

Affiliation Motive

Those with high affiliation place great importance on how they are seen by others. This comes in two closely related but distinct forms: A need for belonging and a concern for reputation.

Those with a high need for belonging have a need to be included, to be popular and for good personal chemistry. Personal trust is an overriding concern for them. They will be concerned about the values and ethics in the group. How people behave is relatively speaking more important to them than in the other two profiles. Being loyal and proud of the team are intrinsic to high affiliation. Power-types and achievers who do not respect these needs can create stress for affiliators. This is because the satisfaction of their motives is much more socially determined by human relationships. And, necessarily, this involves the emotional element to be closer to the surface.

Those with a high need for reputation are perhaps the hardest to easily classify. The need to be the best at something can easily be an expression of the achievement motive. Therefore, what is meant in this sense if a need to be widely appreciated and respected as an expert or specialist. This does not necessarily mean being the best and this is an important distinction. Giving affiliators prizes and individual incentives which make them stand out from the team can cause personal embarassment and contradict their value system. Affiliators are acutely aware that their performance is determined by the functioning of the team and might be concerned about the lack of recognition given to other team members. Fear of rivalries, jealousy and possible exclusion might also arise.

The evident risk here is that affiliators can be over-sensitive to feedback and at times can appear like a prima donna, needing constant praise and affirmation from co-workers.

Affiliate leaders need to watch out for being played by favorites; and, be careful not to take soft options/special cases which reduce standards and create ambiguity.


Conclusion

Leaders need to first understand their own motivation and its impact on their behavior. Good leaders will be getting close to their people at times like these to find out more about what really motivates them. And, the best leaders will be coaching more deeply to encourage a balanced pattern of motivation. This can help foster human development and flexibility during a time of great turbulence.

1. David C. McClelland, Power, the Inner Experience, 1975; Power is the Great Motivator, HBR 1976

©Andrew Atter

Building Better Boards

We seem to be approaching a synthesis on the issue of women taking on leadership roles. Rather than he issue being seen entirely through the lens of sexual polemics or political correctness, there is rising realization that having a balance of men and women on boards delivers better results to shareholders. Recent research from US universities, comprising an in-depth study of over 520 companies1, concludes "Companies with more women board members outperform those with least by 53%".

Roger Carr, chairman of UK listed Companies, Centrica and Cadbury, was quoted in the Guardian newspaper this week stating: "Women win board positions on merit but add value to the role with a different mindset, a different skill-set and a different style. Boards are intellectually and socially enriched by the presence of women and are consistently more effective through balanced judgment and opinion in decision-making."

The key conceptual shift here is inclusion, rather than just diversity. In the politically correct world of the 1990s we got bogged down with diversity, which descended into more of a statistical compliance activity. This also stigmatized women as a minority (which their not). Inclusion suggests an active seeking of other peoples point of view. It suggests that small circle decision-making is innately risky.

With this in mind, in many European countries there seems to be concerted effort to increase board representation for women, albeit from a low base. In London, a Women For Boards initiative has been launched with the sponsorship of BP. In Norway and Finland, a quota system has been introduced, but this remains controversial. New legislation is being introduced into Austria to encourage more representation of women (Edit: I'm still studying this).

But progress is "glacially" slow according to the European Professional Women's Network. A survey by Egon Zhender on their behalf estimates the total number of board seats held by women on the top 300 European companies as just 10%, up from 8% in 2004. But movement there is.

According to my own research, the situation in Poland is actually deteriorating. When I conducted research in 2009, the overall average female representation on boards was 8.5%. However, there has been an actual decline so that now only 13 women are represented in 240 board positions (5.7%) on the twenty largest companies listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange.

By comparison, the similar figure on the Prague Stock Exchange is around 8%.

So the position today is a mixed picture, where the current reality shows some slow movement from a low base. But, there is a clear shift of attitude. No one can rationally say that a representation of 10% is either fair or in the best interests of shareholders.

This new awareness is timely, but much work needs to be done.

Reading books such as "A Collossal Failure of Common Sense", recounting the failure of Lehman Brothers and the classic book and movie, Smartest Guys in the Room, detailing the Enron disaster, one can only conclude that the very masculinity of these companies was their strategic weakness. Overly ambitious, unable to properly assess risk, unable to listen to feedback and unwilling to recognize obvious indications of failure were all characteristically male behaviors present in these familiar sagas of corporate excess and collapse. Its not that all men are like Fuld and Skilling, its just that too many of us are.

However, biology has provided the perfect answer: Women.

And, shareholders burned in the last two years should now be aware of this.

It is not sufficient to have just token representation of women. They tend to be either excluded by the male caucus or, as in the case of Carly Fiorina at HP, can behave in a more aggressive and competitive fashion than men. The prospect of having to conform to male stereotypes is one reason why so many women bail out before they even get considered for Board roles.

So, its not just about having more women on boards. Its about allowing the women that are represented to be who they are - women. This means actively encouraging feminine characteristics, such as empathy and intuition, to be more acknowledged as leadership behaviors.

A CEO who is both successful and is breaking the mould is Indra Nooyi, taking Pepsi into health foods and stressing the company's global and ethical responsibilities. Interestingly, She has been described by former CEO Reinemund as "a deeply caring person who can relate to people from the boardroom to the front line."

One reason why so many (male) Chairman cling on to the lag-argument - there just too few women available now - is that leadership competencies are defined too narrowly. If big business continues to emphasize competitiveness over collaboration; aggressive risk-taking over prudence, self assertion over influencing, then it will be mainly men that will fill the talent pool. If we start to value people who can empathize with customers, coach top talent and nurture the values of the organization, then more women will start to get noticed.

Again, research helps here. We know that competitive differentiation in periods of low growth is gained by customer loyalty. You need to make sure your clients are not enticed away by discounters. The key to loyalty is customer empathy. The ability to see the world from the customers point of view is not customer service biz-speak. It is crucial behavioral trait you need in leaders in order to get your product, positioning and price right. As US consulting firm Katzenbach pointed out in a recent study, front line staff learn empathy from leaders.

Which gender has naturally higher levels and easier access to empathy? Not men.

The book The Female Brain2, by Louann Brizendine MD, neatly summarizes the brain scanning research showing that women naturally have the capacity to mirror the feelings of others. As a generalization, Women experience feelings of others more immediately and directly via the brains limbic system. With feelings aroused within them, women observe small changes in non-verbal clues more closely. This is probably socio-biogical. In stone age times, women had to quickly discern friend or foe. Men often rationalize through their neo-cortex first before accessing their limbic zone. This probably is connected with the need to strategize in tribal conflict. Men needed to first calculate the odds of any attack or defence strategy, and the outcome of this rationalization would influence their emotions.

The significance of this biological perspective to business becomes clear if we consider Professor Emeritus of Psychology, UCLA., Albert Mehrabian findings which showed that in determining the meaning of any "like or dislike" message, we assign only 7% weighting to the verbal content. We give a full 55% of weighting to facial expression.

Therefore, women have a natural in-built advantage in non verbal and empathetic communication. Women are better at reading the true intentions of the other person.

But there is important difference that makes the case for greater board representation of women. Women to act on values more often than men.

Do you remember back to 2002 when Fortune carried the headline:

"THE WHISTLE-BLOWERS:
Cynthia Cooper, WorldCom; Coleen Rowley, the FBI; and Sherron Watkins, Enron

They took huge professional and personal risks to blow the whistle on what went wrong at WorldCom, Enron and the FBI—and in so doing helped remind us what American courage and American values are all about".

Time Magazine, Persons of the Year 2002.

In the cases of Worldcom and Enron, it was women who blew the whistle on false accounting practices. They often showed courage and tenacity in the face of male aggression and condescension. They held acted on their values - a female characteristic.

When Fortune Journalist Bethany McLean confronted the Enron COO Jeffrey Skilling, she did so by asking a naeive question "How do you make money?" Through his bluster and rage he gave the game away. It would probably have been a women who asked this (empathetic) question. Guys on the street, from analysts to auditors were still trying to show how smart they were by understanding the Enron accounts. Humility, empathy and the courage to act on values are powerful tools of leadership if we choose to recognize them as such.

Where was our Cynthia, Coleen and Sherron in 2007-8?

A final balancing remark here. I have referred to men as analytics and women as empathizers. This is of course a gross simplification. I believe most men and most women are similar most of the time, and can do pretty much the same things. However, over time there are inbuilt traits that we can notice and measure. And these become important at critical moments, when we default to our instinctive behavior. Research by Oxford Psychological Press3 in 2001, using the MBTI instrument, provides clear data that the personality traits of men and women differ and that certain traits appear more frequently in one gender than in another. Men show a greater frequency of introversion, pattern recognition, assertion, reasoning and being systematic. Women show a greater frequency for extroversion, imagination, empathy, living values and flexibility.

These are tendencies and not absolutes. Men can be empathetic; and women can be assertive. I coach many men who are uncomfortable filling the competitive macho stereotypes expected of them. I coach women who enjoy being powerful and are quite able to assert themselves. But for me, this simply reinforces the case for a balance of gender on Boards.

Women do have greater access to personality traits which have been underweighted in business to date. These traits will be much needed in future if we are to restore credibility to our values and re-connect with a younger more sceptical generation of employees and consumers. We need to move beyond the polemics and good/bad paradigm, and start to recognize that nature provided us with two genders for a purpose.

Through executive development, career management, mentoring and coaching, there are things that can be done to accelerate this change. The development focus needs to be widened however to include all those of either gender who find inclusion difficult. Under-representation might be a problem for women, but it is not exclusively a problem of women. Recognizing feminine values as part of a leadership paradigm is probably the most important change that has to take place, otherwise most women will simply not want a seat at the table.

©Andrew Atter

1.Catalyst, 2007: The Bottom Line: Corporate Performance and Women's Representation on Boards.
2.The Female Brain, Louann Brizendine, MD, 2006
3.Oxford Psychological Press, 2001

Other useful sources:
HBR, 2007: Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership, Alice H. Eagly and Linda L. Carli
HBR, 2002: Executive Women and the myth of having it all; Sylvia A Hewlett

Leadership and Transactional Analysis

One of the many things that interests me as an Executive Coach is to link the worlds of business, psychology and learning in ways that are practical and helpful to business leaders. One example of this is my growing interest in Transactional Analysis (TA), developed by Eric Berne1 in the late 1950's and now widely used in coaching, therapy and learning situations. Along with many, I believe TA can be used outside the confines of psychotherapy to illuminate everyday patterns of human behavior and the relationships between people. These patterns of interaction have important implications for work culture, group dynamics and leadership style.

At the core of the theory is the belief that from early childhood we develop the ego-states of parent, adult and child. All three ego-states are present within us during our lives and will feature to a greater or lesser extent depending on how we interact and socialize with others. The ego-states display themselves in our attitudes, emotions and in our language. When we are assertive and in control we may use the language of the parent "I need you to do this". When we are rational, aware and free to choose we will tend to use adult language: "So, what are our options here?". And, when we are feeling incompetent, vulnerable or perhaps playful or rebellious, we may use childlike language: "I need some help with this"; or perhaps "Who are you to tell me what to do!?" reminiscent of a rebellious teenager.

It is worth noting that when I refer to language this might be either introverted in our "inner voice" or extroverted depending on the the relative strengths of the relationships and the context. For instance, if I really do need practical help with something I might request it. On the other hand, if I am nervous and about to give a big presentation, I might not let on that I feel completely helpless. But knowing when to ask for help and when to grow your wings is one of the many varied applications of TA.

And, this brings me on to the crucial point here: None of the states are good nor bad and all have a role to play in building effective relationships with others. Sometimes, we need to take the lead and set standards (parent); sometimes, we need to be rational and self aware (adult); and sometimes we need to show vulnerability and on occassions break some rules (child).

Yet, each ego-state might present problems of their own. If overused, the parenting ego-state might result in becoming over-bearing and domineering. If over-used, the adult ego-state might result in emotional detachment, a lack of imagination and too little fun. And, if we stay too long in our child state we may continue to be dependent and immature, unable to take decisions for ourselves; or otherwise holding on to naieve hopes.

We use these ego-states in a dynamic way, as we interact and are influenced by others. If someone uses a parenting style, it is likely to trigger either a childlike response from a subordinate or a confrontational reposte from a peer. If I adopt an adult style, it is more likely to trigger a "parallel adult response".

It is the implications of TA in group dynamics and in human development that make the subject such an important one for organizational leaders.

The crucial point is to firstly recognize our own ego-states: What ego-state predominates, and what triggers a change of state in us as leaders. Are we different with certain people? Do particular situations lead to a shift in mindset and behavior?

What are the implications of these patterns on your success as a leader?

Next, look at what is going on in your team. What language do you hear? With you, are you hearing the language of an admiring but dependent child, ever eager to win your attention, or are you having a conversation with an adult, aware of what is going on around them and ready to take decisions?

Next, thing about your work culture. Is your organization dependent on a powerful leader, either a paternal or maternal figure? And, what is the impact of this on the way work gets done? Do peers treat each other as adults or seek to assert themselves by adopting a parenting tone: "We absolutely have to do this otherwise there will be consequences!"

The wider social psychology will play an important part, too in influencing TA interactions. More authoritarian cultures will tend to reinforce Parent-Child ego-states in hierarchical relationships. I attend Catholic Church here in Poland and it is interesting that as a family we prefer to go to the International Parish in the town center where the Priest presents, in my view, a more balanced and adult sermon, posing questions and seeking to build our spiritual awareness. He suggests rather than dictates. In our local Parish by contrast, the Priest often uses an admonishing tone, and seeks to foster guilt and dependency.

Overcoming childhood guilt is a key part of our development into an adult.

We could draw similar parallels in politics or indeed any social organization we belong to.

This is not a "how to" guide and there are no easy steps, but I do believe an awareness of TA ego-states can make us become better leaders by increasing our awareness of the hidden "scripts" that shape our mindset and behavior. If there is a presumption underling TA theory and practice, it is the general preference for increasing the amount of adult-to-adult interactions we have, thereby accelerating growth and development of ALL individuals involved in the interaction. To me, adult-to-adult conversations are indicated by four main competencies:

1. The readiness to listen to others in order to build awareness
   
2. The use of questioning to generate options and choices,
   
3. The exchange of frank and open feedback to build mutual understanding
   
4. Taking accountability for decisions and outcomes.
   

In my experience as an Executive Coach, it is these four behaviors that are most often looked for in leadership decision-making and can best be developed by working with a leader who models these behaviors.The key question is are the people who work for you ready for this adult-to-adult experience? Or, will they be left floundering, seeking a clearer direction from a parental figure.

I hope this article has established the direct relevance of TA to leadership development and succession and been helpful in stimulating your thinking, be it from a parental, adult or child-like perspective.

I'd I would very much like to hear your views.

I'd like to acknowledge the great help from the Ashridge Business School faculty and my learning colleagues on the AMEC program in helping generate the ideas and insights involved in the preparation of this article.

1. Eric Berne, Games People Play

Andrew Atter
Warsaw, 2009
©Andrew Atter

My New Blog

I have set up this blog to communicate and share ideas with current and former clients spread around the world and with other like minded business contacts. I very much hope this allows us to stay in contact more fully than adhoc catch up emails often allow (although please keep these coming too!). I'd really like to promote a dialogue amongst all those who follow this blog. I'm keen to share my ideas and experiences and I know many of you have a similar desire. I hope to pose questions and respond to your enquiries. By keeping the audience of the blog quite focused I hope to write comments and share experiences that are both useful and relevant, rather than addressing "motherhood and apple pie" issues.

On thing that has prompted me to set the Blog up has been my experience of going through the Masters in Executive Coaching. A key part of this program is to keep a reflective journal of our coaching experiences and to try to reflect on how we are growing as coaches. I've found this whole exercise really valuable and want to throw out some of the thoughts and ideas arising from this work.

I've also decided to stop following my normal tendency of tinkering with things before their perfect - so many of these postings will just seem like an over-enthusiastic and badly spelt splurges. I'm just going to"fling it onto the public" as Winston Churchill once said. Bear with me on this and please provide laser feedback - I need it!

So I hope you all enjoy the Blog and I look forward to co-creating something with you.