Executive Coaching, Performance and Conduct
Typically, we think of executive coaching as something for high performers. Our hope is that the coaching will take the high performers to the next level. Low performers typically do not receive the benefit of coaching given what an expensive intervention it is and the poor return you usually get on improvement for marginal performers.
Dr. Laura Crawshaw changed the game with her seminal work, Taming the Abrasive Manager (2007). Laura developed a methodology that is very effective in working the folks who were categorized as being ineffective and found that they could actually be turned around.
The problem with the story about poor performers and the diagram above is that often they actually are not poor performers; they are good performers who demonstrate poor (abrasive) conduct. These people actually deliver results very well (great sales people, product developers or software engineers, etc.), but it is with a cost. Their conduct has a negative impact on others and themselves. Dr. Crawshaw makes a distinction between performance and conduct, thus creating a different story about both those elements and the role they play in executive coaching.
In the diagram on page 2, we look at both Conduct and Performance and add some definitions:
Very Abrasive Little or No Abrasiveness
Conduct
One key aspect of leadership to which we subscribe is the need for leaders to create a quality work environment. Hay Group research indicates that organizational climate can impact organizational performance by 30%. This provides a compelling business reason for addressing the issue of poor or abrasive conduct. Poor conduct (abrasive behavior) is a leadership pattern that creates an environment that detracts from the performance and well-being of self and others. We realize that abrasive leaders can and do produce good performance (goal achievement), but it is probably not what they could achieve if they were not being abrasive. It is performance with a cost to themselves and others.
Our experience is that poor conduct is a simple, easily understood phrase that business people understand. However, in creating an appropriate comparative for the diagram of the conduct continuum (page 4) we have chosen to use desirable and undesirable conduct for ease of comparison. We are not aware of an appropriate comparative for poor conduct.
Performance
We describe high performance as “consistently exceeding goals”. This definition is very black and white. We like this definition because it removes “conduct” from performance so that we can observe and discuss both without mixing the elements together.
Low performance is “consistently failing to achieve goals”.
With those definitions in mind, we developed a new chart that brings both of those distinctions into play as we look at executive coaching. This creates a different story than the first chart and one we think is more reflective of the two discrete coaching options: leadership coaching for high potentials and coaching for abrasive leaders.
The first key observation is that the focus of executive coaching is still top performers (anyone above the median point with respect to Performance (goal achievement)). Once the general territory of top performers is defined, the assessment of conduct would determine the coaching approach. Coaching with those on the undesirable end of the Conduct Continuum would potentially have the following distinguishing features:
· Possibly greater urgency to the coaching
· The coachee’s motivation would probably come more from “negative impact on others” than a “compelling vision”
· The goal is more about stopping something – as Dr. Crawshaw might say, “Stop the attention on your behaviors so people can get on board with your objectives” – as opposed to creating/enhancing something
· Organizational sponsorship is essential – the coachee’s boss (or HR Department) should be a strong advocate of the change and be willing to specify consequences for not changing
· The feedback would likely be weighted toward describing problematic behaviors rather than extolling the positives
· There may be a greater than usual need to develop trust and credibility with the coachee
Let’s look more closely at the application of either Coaching for Abrasive Leaders or Traditional Leadership Coaching and considerations for how you decide on approach and applicability.
Conduct Continuum
This is the top half of the chart above on page two, the median to high performing leaders from across the conduct continuum. We didn’t divide this half of the performance continuum as we did with the bottom half (poor performers). The reason is that we thought it would reinforce the perception that there are two distinct kinds of coaching for two kinds of executive coaching clients – one kind of coaching for abrasive clients and one kind of coaching for non-abrasive clients.
This perspective erroneously suggests that conduct is an important issue for abrasive coaching clients, but not for non-abrasive coaching clients. As we reflect on our executive coaching practices we notice that conduct is actually an important issue in most coaching situations–something we have traditionally called leadership development coaching. This makes sense if we look at conduct along a continuum with the lowest rated conduct leaders demonstrating a lot of undesirable conduct, which, as you move along the spectrum declines and is replaced by desirable conduct. With this view, even leaders who are on the right side of the continuum have an important percentage of undesirable conduct.
So, why is this important? For traditional leadership development, coaching conduct does matter. It is always important for leaders aspiring to be more effective to make shifts in their focus with respect to both performance and conduct. This is the nexus of traditional leadership development coaching. Work with abrasive leaders is similar, yet very different. Abrasive leaders produce results and are highly valued for their contributions and performance. Their performance comes with a cost. The way in which abrasive leaders conduct themselves has significant negative impact on themselves and others. Unfortunately, that deleterious behavior becomes so prominent in people’s experience and perceptions that people start to focus on the conduct of the abrasive leader and forget about the performance. In conducting an “interpersonal cost-benefit analysis” they begin to wonder if the value produced through the performance outweighs the costs accrued through the abrasive behavior. The poor conduct causes people to avoid working with the abrasive manager. Coworkers engage in workarounds, or spend all kinds of time in conversations about the behavior. Some employees end up leaving the organization because they can no longer work with this individual.
So, what does all this mean? Here are some initial thoughts.
1. We recommend that all coaches and leaders look more carefully and make the distinction between conduct and performance so that we can understand and articulate the distinction for both the organization and the client.
2. This model seems like a new and important way to talk about executive coaching with everyone in the territory.
3. We believe that increased awareness of the balance between “the cost of working with” and a compelling vision requires an adjustment in coaching methods to assess if their application is matching client need.
4. This process of examining the whole of executive coaching for top performers has deepened our thinking about our approach to executive coaching, what we are trying to achieve and, most importantly, what we are trying to help our clients accomplish.
Conduct holds our attention more ever than before. And we should not be surprised that this is the case. When, in our practices, we are faced daily with the inability of many leaders to deliver corrective feedback effectively, it should be no surprise that there are lots of conduct issues in the world of management.
How would these leaders know?
Lynn Harrison and Ross Martin
Black Tusk Leadership Inc.
1
Black Tusk Leadership Inc. 2010