 |
Earning the Right to Coach
By Gregg Thompson
I recently had a surprising conversation with the Director of
Leadership Development for a large resource company. We were
discussing the rapid rise in the amount of coaching being done by
managers at all organizational levels when he remarked that he was
hearing a significant number of staff complaints regarding unwelcome
coaching.
more
|
|
|
| |
|
The Psychology of Coaching
By Ron Crossland
MSN Search, Google, and Yahoo produced roughly 5.4 million, 9.4
million, and 12.6 million hits, respectively, to the query "Executive
Coaching." I checked several of the most frequently visited sites.
Most of these started off by reporting something like this - "We do
executive coaching.
more
|
|
|
| |
|
Socrates - A Lesson on Coaching
By Gunter Rochow
The notions of leadership development and coaching pervade the
technical literature, and rightly so, because there is no single
issue that is more critical to maintaining and enhancing a company's
domestic and international competitiveness than its leadership
capacity.
more
|
|
|
| |
|
To Coach or Not To Coach? A Million Dollar Question
By David Parks
In my experience too many companies spend vast amounts on the
"program du jour" but almost nothing on follow up, reinforcement, or
coaching.
In the psychology of buying, it is much easier to rationalize a
$30,000 to $100,000 investment in a leadership development retreat to
Napa, Whistler, Phuket, or the French countryside than a series of
50-minute coaching sessions.
more
|
|
|
| |
|
A View Inside Coaching Organizations
Jeannine Sandstrom, Linda Miller and Bob Johnson
This article is based on a recorded conversation occurring
between these three senior executive coaches in Phoenix, Arizona on
August 27, 2004. All three participated on a panel of senior
executive coaching professionals convened at the 2003 Annual Meeting
of the International Coach Federation (ICF) in Denver, Colorado.
more
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Earning the Right to Coach
By Gregg Thompson
I recently had a surprising conversation with the Director of
Leadership Development for a large resource company. We were
discussing the rapid rise in the amount of coaching being done by
managers at all organizational levels when he remarked that he was
hearing a significant number of staff complaints regarding unwelcome
coaching. Apparently, coaching had become so popular that managers
were literally wandering the halls looking for unsuspecting victims
upon whom they could ply their recently-acquired coaching
proficiencies.
"What's gone wrong here?" he implored. "Do you think your
managers have truly earned the right to coach?" I responded as my
mind was racing to try to figure out how anyone could actually answer
this question.
As my conversation partner enumerated the long list of coaching
skills included in his company's training curriculum, and I tried to
make some lofty and profound statement about universal coaching
qualities, my mind raced back over my own career in search of those
few managers who had had a significant and positive impact on me.
What had distinguished these men and women from all of the other
managers for whom I had toiled? What had made them different?
The first thought that struck me was that I have never had any
effective coaching done to me. The great
coaching I received was done with me. This
powerful difference suggests that coaching is a
choice--A choice I made, not the manager.
So what made me choose these particular individuals? How did they
earn the right to coach me? It certainly wasn't their coaching
skills. In fact, I still have no idea if they possessed any of the
skills we typically associate with coaching such as active listening,
providing constructive feedback, and collaborative problem-solving.
First and foremost, I could trust these managers. They were
solid. I could count on them. Today, the over-used term
authenticity describes this managerial trait. These
truly were authentic managers, managers who were clear about their
personal values and acted on them every day.
Second, they had high levels of self-esteem (not
to be confused with egoism). These managers were so aware of their
own strengths that they could focus on my challenges without having
to work on their own insecurities at my expense. In
The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem
Nathaniel Branden wrote, "Healthy self-esteem correlates with
rationality...intuitiveness, creativity, flexibility...benevolence
and cooperation."
Lastly, they had noble intentions. There are
many reasons why managers want to coach. They may want to have
personal influence, be seen as competent, make a contribution, be
liked and respected, leave a legacy or simply be in service to
others. Whatever their motives, the managers who successfully coached
me made it very obvious that their primary intention was to help me
(sometimes in spite of my own efforts to the contrary) and would
subordinate their own needs to do so. Looking back, I now see what a
wonderful gift this was.
Want a coach? Look around your organization for someone you can
trust (Authenticity), someone who is confident in their own right
(Self-esteem), and someone who is truly interested in your success
(Noble Intentions). This person has earned the right to be your
coach!
Gregg Thompson is the President of Bluepoint Leadership
Development and can be reached at (513) 289-0141 or
greggthompson@bluepointleadership.com
|
|
|
back to top ^ | |
|
The Psychology of Coaching
By Ron Crossland
MSN Search, Google, and Yahoo produced roughly 5.4 million, 9.4
million, and 12.6 million hits, respectively, to the query "Executive
Coaching." I checked several of the most frequently visited sites.
Most of these started off by reporting something like this - "We do
executive coaching. We do not do therapy, counseling, advising, or
consulting."
Intrigued by what executive coaches don't do, I began to delve
into what they say they do. Many executive coaches want their clients
to know that they are not therapists or counselors. In fact they work
hard at distinguishing their work from other therapeutic work. The
dividing line is drawn usually between "unhealthy" and "healthy"
individuals. Coaches engage the healthy; therapists the unhealthy.
The reasoning goes that therapists start with a "this person is sick,
disabled, disaffected, or somehow not well, and my job is to help
them get better" model. Coaches start with a "this person is well,
healthy, and functioning, and my job is to help them get even
better." I'm a bit confused at this point. Seems both therapists and
coaches want to help people get better, they just start at different
places and seem to use many of the same techniques, ideas, and
psychological models.
There are many coaches who possess a psychology background and
some who are licensed therapists or social workers. I wonder if they
can distinguish the line between the healthy and unhealthy? I wonder
if the coaches without the psychological background could spot
someone with a manic-depressive syndrome or a narcissistic
personality disorder? Or perhaps some coaches simply do not believe
that these kinds of disorders exist or are relevant. To overlook,
deny, or disbelieve that even successful executives may not have some
psychologically based difficulties, as well as strengths, strikes me
as, well, a little too positive. I wonder if considering the obvious
successful abilities of
Dennis Kozlowski
"healthy" and if coaching him to reach for a bigger game would have
been prudent while continuing to overlook what might be construed by
some as "unhealthy problems." You could say that of the heralded and
headstrong
Jack Welch as
well.
I'm being provocative for two reasons. First, many executive
coaches aren't qualified to determine if a client has a genuine
mental health concern. Therefore, they shouldn't diagnose, but I know
some who do anyway. Secondly, many coaches do not want to do
"remedial coaching," coaching that works with underperformers and
strives to help them get up to standards. But they do want to work
with "healthy" individuals believing they are not practicing therapy.
Helping effective individuals get better is a noble and evidently
financially helpful thing to do for organizations, but can anyone
honestly say that this isn't "therapy, or at least therapeutic?" I'll
take these in turn and provoke some more.
Can Coaches Determine Mental Health Concerns?
Jenny Rogers, in her book
Coaching Skills,
suggests that Freud and Jung offered "racy" case histories that
defined exotic maladies like neuroticism and narcissism and suggests
these may be old fashioned ideas. She suggests that coaching should
take as an axiom that all clients, regardless of who they are, fear
vulnerability and loss of control. She stresses that this is
important because coaching is about change, and change puts stress on
vulnerability and control. So in one breath she declaims "old
fashioned" terms like neuroticism and in the next she extols two of
the most fundamental aspects of nearly every famed psychological
theory - vulnerability and control.
Zeus and Skiffington in their book,
The Complete Guide to Coaching at Work,
state that "coaching is about change and transformation - about the
human ability to grow, to alter maladaptive behaviours and to
generate new, adaptive and successful actions." Transformation?
Maladaptive behavior? Sounds like psychology to me. Smacks pretty
hard on the therapeutic side of things.
Coaches who are not licensed psychologists or psychiatrists
should make it clear they are not practicing therapy for both ethical
and legal reasons. And coaches without this background should refrain
from using terminology they are unfamiliar with, untrained to
diagnose, and unlicensed to deal with. I know many of us in the adult
education world use psychological terminology in the casual sense,
but we should be careful when it comes to coaching.
And coaches who are licensed practitioners (like Skiffington) may
claim they are not practicing therapy, but I believe they "protest
too much." The real question isn't whether what we do is therapeutic,
but whether or not we are licensed to practice therapy.
Coaching the "Healthy"
Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries
is a psychiatrist, executive coach, and brilliant author on many
leadership issues. He has personally "coached" a great number of
executives in the course of his esteemed career. In his book,
The Leadership Mystique, he writes a definition of the
"healthy" individual.
"One way to flesh out the concept of mental health is to look at
what psychotherapists do with their patients to help them operate at
full capacity. They encourage people to gain insights into their
goals and motivations, help them better understand their strengths
and weaknesses, and prevent them from engaging in self-destructive
activities. They encourage them to learn and to grow, to increase
their tolerance for ambiguous situations, to become more emotionally
responsive, and to develop the range, flexibility, and effectiveness
of their behavioral repertoire."
If you are an executive coach and you are attempting to do any of
the above with a "healthy" person, then I would agree you are not
conducting remedial coaching. But I would argue you are practicing a
form of therapy. As Kets de Vries himself suggests, the word
"healthier" is more appropriate than "healthy." We are speaking about
a continuum, but the "healthy" part of the scale doesn't require
licensing, even though that might be a good idea.
Perhaps you feel I quibble, and you may be right. (You may even
think I'm out of my mind, but unless you are licensed, I will likely
deflect your psychological insight.) But I wrote the above paragraphs
as preamble to my main point. I believe executive coaching is a form
of psychological and therapeutic work, even though no DSM-IV-TR
diagnostic is rendered. It is the psychology practiced with "healthy"
individuals for the purposes of learning, growing, expanding, and
getting better. I believe there should be some better psychological
practices, based upon empirical evidence, to support the executive
coaching approach. Unfortunately, there are few that I can find,
except those used by trained and licensed psychologists. The rest of
us borrow heavily from the fields we most believe in and find
effective. There are many approaches, but far too many untested
hypotheses. It's a field of style groaning for more science.
Richard Kilburg,
a noted writer and practitioner in the field of executive coaching,
composed some provocative thoughts over the special double issue of
Consulting Psychology Journal,
entitled, "Trudging Toward Dodoville: Case Studies and Conceptual
Approaches in Executive Coaching." He reviewed the varied number of
approaches to executive coaching and compared them to the empirical
results chronicled for psychotherapy. The empirical results from the
psychotherapy field support general rather than specific effects,
meaning that psychotherapy tends to work, but only in a general
sense. Kilburg wonders if executive coaching research will not result
in the same and if the time intensive and laborious pursuit of
empirical data doesn't constitute a "trudging to Dodoville."
Rodney Lowman's
reply to Kilburg's articles appears in Lowman's 2005 entry of the
same journal entitled, "Executive Coaching: The Road to Dodoville
Needs Paving with More than Good Assumptions." Empirical testing and
the application of science to practice is the friend, not the foe, of
executive coaching. In his article he suggests that executive
coaching is still in its adolescence and needs to test the following
ideas (which I suggest you test in your own mind to see if you
believe they are true or not):
1. A trusting relationship between coach and performer is
critical.
2. Coaching must take into account environmental factors.
3. The particular coaching model matters less than the conviction
of the coach that the model works.
4. Effective coaching removes barriers to understanding and
problem solving.
5. Effective coaching focuses on strengths rather than weaknesses.
6. Effective coaching appears to take into account individuals,
groups, and organizations.
7. Effective coaching seems to integrate individual psychology
with organizational needs.
If you believe any one of the above, I would ask: How is this
different than other forms of psychology? To what degree is your
interaction with your client strictly NON-psychological? And to what
degree can you effectively argue that your approach will not result
in general, but nonspecific, results in the same vein as those from
the psychodynamic field?
What is Your Coaching Psychology?
I agree with Kilburg and Lowman. The
issue isn't whether or not executive coaching is a form of therapy,
of the positive-helping-a-healthy-individual-get-better variety, or
whether or not the literature is headed for Dodoville.
The issue for me is what psychology an executive coach matches to their coaching skills.
For at the end of the day, all of us in our varied roles as parents,
teachers, friends, spouses, managers, co-workers, salespeople,
buyers, or consumers use a psychological model to help us predict the
behavior, intentions, motives, and values of others.
More precisely, as licensed or unlicensed practitioners, we hold
psychological beliefs, whether they are trained in a focused or broad
psychological field. For example, do you use any assessment
instrument ever in your coaching, like the MBTI, FIRO-B, NEO
Five-Factor Inventory, 16 PF, etc? Do you use information from any
behavioral feedback competency set? Do you use terms or models like
neurotic, anxious, pretentious, border-line, well integrated, ego,
mature, megalomania, narcissistic, dependent, enabler, obsessive,
co-dependent, depression, parent-adult-child, positive psychology,
etc?
Do you ever think in terms or use ideas based upon the works of
Adler, Jung, Erickson, Freud (Sigmund or Anna), Rogers, Maslow, Deci,
Seligman, May, Kets de Vries, Myers and Briggs, Kirton, Popper, or
James? Do you ever use techniques or ideas guided by psychodynamics,
family systems, NLP, personality types, holism, archetypes, gestalt
theory, behavioral or cognitive theory, appreciative inquiry,
existential theory, feminist theory, or other views? I say you do.
How well informed you are about these ideas, how well trained, how
credentialed, how good you are at using them, and the degree to which
you use them while you are an executive coach invites a whole series
of other questions.
This may seem obvious, now that I've pointed it out. The problem
is that the obvious causes problems. Catherine Hind, an executive
coach in Vancouver, British Columbia, stated in a
bankrate.com
article sent to me by a colleague, "IQ is something you are basically
born with, and EQ is something you can develop your whole life.
Coaching directly interacts with your emotional intelligence. That is
an area you can improve upon with leaders. You can't make them
smarter, but you can help them grow more emotionally intelligent."
I hate to use a fellow practitioner to make a point, so apologies
in advance, Catherine. I believe your comments were well intended and
frankly, commonplace, as I have discovered with many other coaches.
They are, however, not particularly precise.
First, IQ isn't just genetic. It has more malleability and
elasticity than we have previously believed. IQ can actually go up
and down in adulthood, even though the range of change may be smaller
than with EQ. Read Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid edited by
Robert Sternberg for an interesting collection of essays on the
subject.
Secondly, EQ is not necessarily widely elastic or malleable
either. Loads of adults have reached a relatively fixed emotional
level beyond which they may be unable to move despite therapy or
coaching. And part of the reasons may stem from genetic difficulties.
For example, Asperger's syndrome or disorder (depending upon your
viewpoint) was first described in 1944. It is part of a larger
category of mental difficulty called either Autistic Spectrum
Disorders (Europe) or Pervasive Developmental Disorders (United
States). Affected individuals suffer varying degrees of two-sided
social interaction and non-verbal communication impairments. Recent
evidence suggests many high-IQ individuals with mild cases of
Asperger's are high ranking, influential managers of technology and
financial firms. Their commercial success, in some cases, is
impressive. Their social (EQ) successes are dubious. Coaching is
likely to have little impact on a condition that has too many sources
of complication from neurological wiring problems that likely have
both genetic and early development origins.
In other words, smart folks can get dumber or smarter, and
healthy well-adjusted folks may have just hit their peak and that's
it. All the coaching in the world may not change either. Your
psychology of the world should be well informed by the world's best
science. If you are going to use terms like IQ and EQ, please remain
informed. The world of IQ is being turned upside down by new
empirical evidence. The world of EQ is just maturing. And IQ and EQ
are both informed by the intensely connected and necessary
interaction of both the logical and emotional brain systems. One does
not function well without the other in "healthy" people.
Dodoville, Abilene, and Other Dubious Destinations
My main thesis is this: Executive coaching is therapeutic and, I
maintain, a form of therapy. It is not licensed, nor does it have
strong models in the sense that common models are used in a wide
spread manner and are empirically tested. It has been credentialed by
some organizations which strive to put more professionalism and
common practice into place. It requires no degree for an individual
to practice being an executive coach. In fact, it requires no
education, either scholastic or on-the-job at all. Virtually anyone
can hang out a shingle and start coaching. Some without extensive
corporate backgrounds gain impressive results. Some with multiple
degrees in psychology make modest or little gains. And vice versa.
In all cases, some psychology, some therapy is at work.
For fun, let's conduct a little quiz on coaching and I'll publish
the results in the next issue of this newsletter. You will have to
reply via email - but we guarantee your answers to remain
confidential (sound psychology I trust). Send your response to
survey@bluepointleadership.com.
1. Executive coaches should never give advice? Agree or
Disagree.
2. Executive coaches should never counsel? Agree or Disagree.
3. Executive coaches should be licensed? Agree or Disagree.
4. Executive coaches should have some background in psychology,
organizational behavior, organizational development, industrial
psychology, psychiatry, or a related field of discipline? Agree or
Disagree.
5. Executive coaches are better if they are licensed
psychologists? Agree or Disagree.
6. Executive coaches can be effective if they have no
psychologically trained background? Agree or Disagree.
7. I am an executive coach? Yes or No.
8. I believe most people do have a psychological view of the
world? Agree or Disagree.
9. My favorite "unhealthy, warped, over-the-top, perhaps
insane, wonderful, and remarkable" leader of all time is___ (fill in
the blank).
10. My favorite "healthy, mature, well-rounded, grounded,
wonderful, and remarkable" leader of all time is ____ (fill in the
blank).
Thanks for reading my rant. You may feel I need more therapy than
coaching. Many of my close friends would agree.
Email Ron Crossland
|
|
|
back to top ^ | |
|
Socrates - A Lesson on Coaching
By Gunter Rochow
The notions of leadership development and coaching pervade the
technical literature, and rightly so, because there is no single
issue that is more critical to maintaining and enhancing a company's
domestic and international competitiveness than its leadership
capacity. Socrates, who lived from 469-399 B.C., greatly influenced
Plato, and thus the course of modern thought. He led a simple life,
never claimed to know anything, never called himself a teacher, never
wrote a book, not even an article, never charged a fee for his
services, and at the age of seventy was sentenced to death in an
Athenian court as a "corrupter of youth" and as an "iconoclast." How
can such a man give us a lesson on coaching, particularly in a
business setting?
Socrates was tried and found guilty because he encouraged the
youth of his day to think, to ask questions, and to challenge
tradition, including some of the grotesque religious views of his
day. Thus the traditionalists of his time considered him to be a
threat, and by charging him, they were hoping that he would avoid
death by fleeing from the city, and thus get out of their hair. No
such luck, since Socrates was a man of principles who respected the
rule of law, even though it cost him his life. His legacy to the
world is the so-called Socratic Method, which is characterized by
persistent questioning and self-analysis. The famous dictum "know
thyself" has been attributed to him.
Socrates might say to the modern executive coach:
1. Don't think you know it all, for chances are that you know a
lot less than you might think;
2. Don't consider yourself to be an adviser or a teacher,
particularly when you coach executives, for they probably know a lot
more than you might expect, and they may not want to be advised or
taught.
3. Know what principles rule your life.
4. Live by your principles.
5. Ask questions that help managers to clarify concepts and
issues and, in particular, to test the validity of assumptions
concerning the way they do things.
6. Be as informal as you can, and be his or her "neighbour" with
whom you might converse "over the fence" concerning the betterment of
the cause.
I recommend Socrates and his methods to you. I further recommend
that you try not to irritate people, for it would be a pity if your
coaching produced a death sentence.
Email Gunter Rochow
|
|
|
back to top ^ | |
|
To Coach or Not To Coach? A Million Dollar Question
By David Parks
In my experience too many companies spend vast amounts on the
"program du jour" but almost nothing on follow up, reinforcement, or
coaching.
In the psychology of buying, it is much easier to rationalize a
$30,000 to $100,000 investment in a leadership development retreat to
Napa, Whistler, Phuket, or the French countryside than a series of
50-minute coaching sessions. After all, with the leadership retreat
you get to go somewhere nice and do something interesting.
The winds are changing though, and I am witnessing more budget
and focus diverting to what happens after a workshop than during a
workshop. Coaching used to be absent from the agenda. With today's
pressure to get sustained results from leadership development
initiatives at an all time high, coaching has advanced to the top of
the agenda. If you still need to be convinced, here are some strong
reasons to re-think the rationale for investing in coaching.
Coaching Is In Demand
The November 2004 Harvard Business Review article, "The
Wild West of Coaching," discusses the explosive growth of coaching
with the authors estimating the U.S. market for coaching at $1
billion per annum. This estimate is confirmed in the
Corporate Leadership Council briefing (Nov 2004), "Increasing
the Discipline of Executive Coaching."
Two years ago we posed the following question to 400 US and
Canadian business managers:
"If you are going to learn about leadership, how do you want to
learn?"
Eighty-five percent chose coaching as their number one preference, even over classroom instruction.
This datum kick started us into action. Bluepoint immediately
began working on a coaching practices seminar based on how
professionals coach executives. We now offer a workshop that helps
individual managers coach like professionals. Nearly all our client
work deals with corporations installing or updating their leadership
development processes, and coaching is the number one topic for most.
Coaching Works
Coaching may be popular, but does it work? A May 2004 report from
the Corporate Leadership Council entitled "The ROI of
Executive Coaching" examined the effect of coaching in three areas:
financial performance, employee performance, and employee turnover.
The study cites examples from large corporations that have achieved
significant returns from their investment in coaching. Some examples
of ROI in each of these areas include:
- PriceWaterhouseCoopers formed an internal faculty of coaching
which is responsible for supporting the coaching program for partners
and senior staff. They estimate a return of six dollars for every one
dollar invested in coaching.
- Capital One claims that direct reports of coached executives
outperform the direct reports of non-coached executives.
- Kodak used coaching to address productivity and retention at a
business unit with 1000 employees. They believe that the coaching
contributed to double-digit productivity increases as well as
decreases in waste levels and overtime.
Follow-Up Factor
All the best practice leadership development studies suggest that
embedding follow-up into development activities is a must. In a
recent Strategy + Business article, Marshall Goldsmith and
Howard Morgan emphasize the importance and effectiveness of follow-up
in management development.
Their study involved 11,480 managers from eight major companies.
Ongoing interaction and follow-up was the variable that emerged as
central to the achievement of positive long-term change. "The
experience of the eight companies that we studied indicates that real
leadership development involves a process that occurs over time,"
Goldsmith and Morgan concluded. When participants in a leadership
development program know that there is going to be some measurement
of effectiveness, a higher level of commitment is created.
From my perspective, the question is not "to coach or not to
coach." It's a question of how to effectively make coaching part of
the leadership development plan. The research suggests aspiring
leaders want to be coached, coaching gets business results, and the
discipline of follow-up embeds accountability. Finally, consider that
the number one job of a leader is not to create more followers, but
to grow more leaders - which sounds like coaching to me.
David Parks is the VP of Sales for Bluepoint Leadership
Development.
Email David Parks
|
|
|
back to top ^ | |
|
A View Inside Coaching Organizations
Jeannine Sandstrom, Linda Miller and Bob Johnson
This article is based on a recorded conversation occurring
between these three senior executive coaches in Phoenix, Arizona on
August 27, 2004. All three participated on a panel of senior
executive coaching professionals convened at the 2003 Annual Meeting
of the International Coach Federation (ICF) in Denver, Colorado. The
success of the 2003 Panel was followed by a second presentation at
the 2004 ICF Conference in Quebec City.
Welcome to a conversation with three world-class executive
coaches who are discussing how to identify Senior Executive Coaches
and how to utilize coaching teams. This dialogue reflects questions
often asked by executives with whom they, or their organizations,
work.
Coaches in this conversation are Jeannine Sandstrom who is CEO of
Coachworks International, Linda Miller who serves as Corporate
Alliance Executive with the Ken Blanchard Companies, and Bob Johnson
who is the founder of Leadersearch.
Even though coaching has been around for several decades, the
rise of its visibility has caused some confusion in the marketplace,
particularly how to locate and utilize Senior Executive Coaches.
Three questions most often asked about Executive Coaching are:
- What distinguishes Senior Executive Coaches?
- How and why do they work together in organizations?
- What are the outcomes of Executive Coaching?
What Distinguishes Senior Executive Coaches?
(Follow
this link for the entire article)
|
|
|
back to top ^ | |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inspire, Motivate and Lead! |
|
|
When: November 8-9, 2005
Location: Marriott Chicago Suites O'Hare
6155 North River Road
Rosemont, Illinois 60018 USA
Phone: 1-847-696-4400
Who: Senior leaders,
HR/OD Professionals and Managers
Cost: $1,595/ participant, or $1,295 for two or more from the same organization.
Contact
Rich Chiero
Bluepoint Leadership Development
847-249-4277
Fax: 513-683-8958
Email Rich Chiero
Join us for this intensive two-day Leadership Challenge Workshop
that will elevate your leadership to the next level. Key workshop
features include: an online 360 assessment, experiential and
top-notch workshop materials and facilitator. This workshop combines
over 20 years of research and is based on the best selling book, The
Leadership Challenge(R) by Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner.
Click here
for more info or to download a registration form.
|
|
|
|
Fall Public Workshop in Canada |
|
|
The Leader's Voice Workshop
November 21-22, 2005
Vancouver, BC
Speaking in The Leader's Voice will help companies achieve
greater results, including:
.Better alignment around key strategic initiatives
.Improved productivity spurred by higher levels of trust among
employees
.Greater leadership credibility
.Higher morale
.Increased efficiency through crystal clear clarity
.Better communication among all employees
For information on this event, please email Bryn Meredith or phone 905-469-6526.
|
|
|
|
|
