 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||
|
|
Content of this Newsletter 0. Opinion 1. Leadership Coaching 2. Sales Management Coaching 3. Change Management Coaching 4. Career Coaching FURTHER NEWS * For upcoming seminars & events please visit: http://www.progressu.com.hk/ * For recent articles on Coaching please visit: http://www.progressu.com.hk/ * For recent articles on Leadership please visit: http://www.progressu.com.hk/
Subscribe now to "Progress!" and get informed about the latest trends in Leadership, Change Management, Career Transition and Sales Management. To receive "Progress!", simply send a blank email to subscribe@progressu.com.hk
|
Home > Resources > Progress! Newsletter > "Progress!" Issue No5 / June 04 "Progress!" (Progress-U Leadership & Coaching) - Issue No5 / June 2004 Dear "Progress!" Reader, I'm often asked what the difference is between coaching and counseling or therapy. To answer this question, I make the following key distinctions:
This is of course a simplistic way of looking at these different approaches, as certain aspects of each approach are shared by the other approaches. For example, a person who wants to achieve a positive career change may have problems in communicating adequately with colleagues and superiors. Should he see a counselor for this? It really depends. If the problem is not too difficult, then the coach may be able to help him/her understand how he/she is perceived by others, thus helping him/her improve the communication. However, it is important for a coach to realize when coaching is not the appropriate approach anymore, and change the approach (if the coach is qualified) or refer the client to a more adequate professional (e.g., counselor or therapist). Sometimes, the best possible approach is clear from the beginning;
in some cases, a client may be in denial that he/she has a real problem
and therefore seeks coaching even if counseling would be the more
appropriate technique. It is sometimes tricky for a coach to confront
the client with this "truth" but, in my opinion, a coach
with a high level of integrity must speak out such truths to his/her
client?even if it might upset the client, prompting a change of coach. Yours sincerely, Charlie Lang
1. Leadership Coaching Time and again, the division manager responsible for software development (a large division with in total 1,500 employees) was confronted with the fact that project deadlines given to his subordinates were not being met. He was known to be very competent, hands-on and well liked within the organization. Coaching revealed that his self-esteem and confidence as a manager was based on these three factors, i.e., he felt that he always had to be appreciated as being competent, pragmatic and popular with his staff. In the process of coaching he started to analyze his behavior and realized the following "side effects": He had increasingly surrounded himself with less competent employees who would always confirm his own knowledge and expertise. His hands-on attitude was being proven by a number of daily emergencies and operational decisions (it became part of the "normal" business that his subordinates would delegate back to him). Finally, he used his charms to soothe potential critics before they even had the chance to express their opinions. Thus, he became a major contributor to a system where civil courage and solidarity hardly existed and where the staff became over-obedient towards the requests of the division manager. He became aware that the project delays were a logical result of over-obedience, as saying "no" seemed to be unwanted and therefore, unrealistic deadlines set by the division manager became a commitment despite the obvious lack of sufficient capacity. Burnout or Change of Job? This example discloses one aspect of the dangers of isolation: When top managers are charismatic and very competent (i.e., real all-rounders), it is vital that they receive training to understand and manage the backside of their skills. In many discussions about the "correct" leadership style, there is often a lack of understanding that every effect has an unwanted side effect; that every light throws some shadow and that reality is too complex to be dealt with only logic. To understand this principle is especially important in positions of upper management. Training and coaching of top managers should therefore focus on this issue. If this does not happen, there will be a high risk of burnout or the managers need to change their position every three to four years as the side effects start to eat up the initial success. Coaching programs that focus on the mentioned side effects of such perceived success help to avoid such unfortunate developments and open up new opportunities instead. In this case it soon became evident that there was a need for an analysis of his way of steering his self-esteem. He realized what kept him from real trust in his employees was due to a lack of self-trust?rather than delegate, he consistently interfered in the daily operations of his staff to keep a sense of control. In consequence of this realization, he asked various members of his staff for support and feedback. He specifically gave them permission to tell him to "butt out" when his actions interfered with their normal functions. Two of his most courageous critics were promoted to set a publicly visible example for the paradigm shift in his division. Also, outstanding decisions were now openly discussed to ensure all facts and concerns of the division were considered.
For more information related to Progress-U Leadership Coaching please visit http://www.progressu.com.hk/leadership.htm.
2. Sales Management
Coaching
After having created a trustful relationship with the (potential) customer, having helped him (and his decision-making system) make a buying decision and having explained how our product or service would create unique benefits for our customer, now we finally reach the situation where the customer is ready to make a final decision. However, now the customer will try to optimize his/her position in a price negotiation. Now there are two possibilities: a) Everything was done right, the people making the decision have
fully understood how to make a decision and that you would fit best
and that your services and your approach are unique. Then the price
negotiation will be a piece of cake, you may discuss some minimum
discount for the buyer to present some negotiation success to her/his
superiors while everybody in the decision-making system understood
that you provide the best possible total solution for them (and the
solution does not only contain the product combined with the price
as we learned earlier). The rest of this article will provide some clues how the situation described in case (b) can be handled. Fear of Price Poker First of all, there is the potential fear of the salesperson losing the order. If this is not addressed, it is an easy game for the buyer to push down prices.
Our brain often reacts to heavy stress and pressure with mental blocks. The consequence: level-headed evaluation of the negotiation situation, finding creative alternatives and quick-witted answers to strong objections are no longer possible. More than 90% of all salesmen are afraid of difficult price negotiations and therefore find themselves in a vicious circle of negative thoughts and loss of self-confidence, which damages their assertiveness. This results in increasing feelings of helplessness and powerlessness. In our training as part of the "Innovative Sales Management Program" we help the sales people reach awareness of these facts and help them shift towards a different attitude towards price negotiations, i.e., to love them rather than to be afraid of them. The initial assessments give us some hints on the level of fear and the potential reasons for this fear enabling us to shift them effectively. Objections Surveys have shown:
As a good doctor makes a diagnosis before starting the therapy, the professional salesman evaluates the objections before going on with his sales arguments. Therefore, we teach the participants in our seminars the diagnosis technique:
With the diagnosis, you will find out what is behind the excuse. Surveys about bubble results have shown: More than 50% of all price objections are in reality part of price-dumping strategies and therefore fictitious arguments. Consequence: More than half of 100 price objections do not expect concessions. That means that 50% of all discounts that were given to those customers were not necessary. Economic surveys have shown that the achieved price influences the
profit three to four times stronger than an increase of turnover or
a decrease of expenses.
NOTE: Progress-U offers the Innovative Sales Management Program as a tailor-made package consisting of an initial 2-day training combined with executive assessments and follow-up coaching of the sales management. If you are interested in a presentation of this program, please contact us at innovative-sales-program@progressu.com.hk.
3. Change Management
Coaching Recently I talked to a management consultant of The Boston Consulting Group (BCG), one of the most renowned management consulting firms worldwide. His focus is on helping corporations in their integration process after a merger or fusion with another company. He was asking me about my job and when I told him that I am an executive coach, he became quite curious to learn more about coaching. When I explained to him that my work focuses on positive change in the areas of leadership, sales management, change management and career development, he shared with me his frustrations with the leaders seeking the advice of BCG. He said that he couldn't understand why top managers would spend thousands and thousands of dollars for consultants who are supposed to be specialists. Then the consultants put in weeks of hard work analyzing the facts, interviewing people and blending the findings with their extensive experience and knowledge to finally propose a strategy for the integration process. And what do the leaders often do with that? They ignore it, implement it half-heartedly, or change it altogether, leading to an undesired outcome. When I worked as a director, I had similar experiences. Upon acquiring of or merging with another company, we wanted to achieve a smooth integration of both companies and would therefore engage consultants who are supposed to be specialists in that particular area. It was the CEO's decision to have these consultants even though most of the directors were often convinced we could do without them. Nevertheless, we tried to work constructively with the consultants and after some weeks or months?depending on the scope of the issue?they would come up with a pamphlet with some useful and less useful (from our point of view) findings and suggestions. Here is the first part of the problem: There was actually no full agreement from all key players on the findings and suggestions. Of course, the presented results were discussed and agreed between the consultants and the CEO and then "discussed" with the directors. But the discussion was not a real and open discussion. In fact, if someone dared to completely disagree, he/she would have to make a very compelling case, otherwise one would be shot down for that. I never had the impression that a very open and critical discussion was really welcome. Which leads us to the 2nd part of the problem: The CEO is actually in a dilemma because on one hand the CEO needs the team to implement the suggested changes in the operation, while on the other hand he believes that he can't afford to have a lengthy discussion and possibly change the proposal made by the consultants. If he would allow that, that could mean
So what does the CEO do? He uses his authority to push the results through and allows major adjustments only in extreme cases. What does the project team do as a result? As they don't fully agree with the findings and suggestions, they will implement them half-heartedly (a good case) or boycott them subtly (a worse case). As a result, the project targets are not being met, the consultants are frustrated and the top management moves on celebrating the project as a success because usually some positive changes have been achieved even though it is far less than originally expected and promised by the consultants. How could an experienced executive coach help make this process more effective? There are a number of factors that are often overlooked by CEOs and consultants alike and therefore seldom addressed:
A coach as facilitator and moderator in this process would address
these factors and assure that everybody would pull at the same rope
in the same direction. By integrating the special expertise of the
consultants with the unique experiences of the corporate team members,
a continuous alignment of all project participants can be achieved,
resulting in a much higher success rate of change projects.
NOTE: Progress-U Ltd. offers the Win Through Change! Program
to assist corporations in their change process. For details visit
http://www.progressu.com.hk/ChangeMP.htm
4. Career Coaching HR experts will know what I am talking about: Most candidates in job interviews are not aware of how they are actually perceived. Let's first talk about the species of the "fruitless". These are candidates who say almost nothing and give minimal answers when asked. They try to avoid making any mistakes and don't seem to be out to win but would rather avoid to lose. Trying to provoke more information from such candidates is often fruitless and if asked at the end of the interview whether they are interested in the offered position, they may reply with a blank "yes". Why do such candidates rarely succeed? Because they don't realize that it is insufficient to try not to lose in order to win. A candidate must actively convince the employer that he/she is the one and create sympathy. A friendlier species is the "chatter". Chatters are often beyond 40 years old, have a vast experience and "allow" the interviewer to participate in this experience. You ask them a simple question and you get an extensive reply with stories around the topic. The chatter's chances of getting a job are a bit better because there are employers who really like to chat and who are not so concerned whether a candidate is very focused and efficient (though they would never admit to this). Then we have the "greatest of all" species. This type is very harmless, they don't hide anything; you can read them like an open book. The problem is, if the position of the greatest of all, namely the CEO or president, is already occupied, he/she may not be employed, just to avoid having two of them.
Back to Top
|
|
|||||
 |
|||||||||
