Safety vs Freedom

 

‘It is often safer to be in chains than to be free.’Franz Kafka

I come across this quote on radio today.   It explains so well how often the covert challenge coachees face.   Sometimes, it is not the unreasonable boss, the difficult client, the toxic organisation, the bullying peer, the subordinates who never get it or the lack of skills / resources / time, etc which make change difficult.   At least not the only or prominent reasons.   It is sometimes the coachee’s own inertia to stay unchanged for the sense of safety.   Yet, I think such inertia could be hidden deep inside…. even without the person being aware of it.    Quick implications to the coach would probably be how to:

  • sense that such inertia may be there (or not!)
  • collect data to verify
  • gently bring this up to the coachee without triggering resistance (which is easy to come…. ‘Who are you to judge me?!’ )
  • invite exploration on what is behind such hidden inertia
  • jointly create ways to catch it in action

‘What may also be going on?’

‘What is really going on?’   It is the question often used in the Adaptive Leadership practice as well as in the psychodynamics approach.   In the former, it is about being on the ‘Balcony’ rather than the ‘Dance Floor’, or the ability to be at both at the same time.  And being on the ‘Balcony’ could mean reading the political landscape as an example.

In the psychodynamics approach, the question is about understanding the covert dynamics on various levels e.g. intra-personal and group level.   For example, John always fails to refuse others’ request on him, resulting in him working too late and losing his own priorities.   He is frustrated about it and tries to improve without much success.  The overt view is that he is bad at saying no to others and should pick up some skills in doing so.   However, on a covert level:

  • Intra-personal – John may actually derives sense of safety unconsciously by being the victim of overloaded with others’ work….  just like the role he has played with his parents and siblings for many many years,
  • Group – The team may be playing to John’s valency to take on others’ work at the expense of doing his own work well.   This scapegoats John so that the team does not need to face its collective failure to meet business target.

So, it is useful to ask ourselves the question ‘What is really going on?’ instead of tackling simply the overt reason / view which does not really solve the problem.    Yet, some thoughts came to my mind recently on this question.   To ponder this question more, it actually implies subtly (especially when we often stress on the word ‘REALLY’ in the question)  that:

  • Ignore the overt reason / view
  • Figure out THE covert one.. which is like THE truth / answer

In fact, I have experienced myself and seen others like playing ‘detective game’ in finding the ‘real murderer’ in the name of this question.  Saying, ‘No, no, no… it is not.   Tell me what is REALLY going on’    On reflection, it is dangerous to do so.   I think more often than not there are always more than one reasons why someone behaves in a certain ways.   It is not ‘A leads to B’.    It is more like ‘A1 + A2 +….. + An leads to B’.   So, John could be really not skilled in saying no.   At the same time, he enjoys the familiarity and attention in the role of being dumped with others’ work.   And the group is scapegoating him at the same time.

What does it mean?   It means:

  • Do not deny the overt reason / view immediately
  • Always come up with multiple hypotheses on any covert dynamics

So, a better question to ask instead is:

‘What may also be going on?’

This embraces the overt one, and the notion of multiple dynamics.

Thinking further, I guess that it is not even about ‘A1 + A2 +….. + An leads to B’     The As do not act together in a linear way to influence.    They may actually be like in parallel universes.   One of the As is sometimes in action and sometimes not.    Or one of the As only commences to exist in the subject’s and / or observers’ mind because we see it in a certain way.  hm……

Virtual Coaching

‘What are the things that you normally do in face-to-face coaching but cannot be done on skype?’

Some time ago, I worked in a program with a few other coaches.   Because of misunderstanding on the schedule, a few coaches could not be available on the last day of the program where 1 on 1 coaching took place.  One coach advocated for them to conduct the 1 on 1 on skype.  At a point, he asked in a challenging tone, ‘What are the things that you normally do in face-to-face coaching but cannot be done on skype?’

This is an interesting question.   At that time, I really could not think of anything.  After all, I do not touch my coachee.    Well, I guessed he has a point.

Recently, I was reflecting with another coach on some coach training (preparing individuals to become ICF accredited coach) which is done 100% online.   The above question on virtual coaching comes back to my mind.    We came up with some interesting realizations.

Yes, there is really nothing which you normally do in face-to-face coaching but cannot be done on skype.   Yet, it is not about what I DO, it is about what I SEE / SENSE.   There are things which I normally SEE / SENSE in face-to-face coaching but cannot be done on skype!!  For example:

I cannot see:

  • how the coachee comes into the scene – how she walks, what she carries, etc;
  • how she sits;
  • how closed / open is her posture;
  • how tight she holds her fists;
  • how she takes up the space in the room;
  • what she is looking at when her eyesight turned away from the camera;
  • etc

I cannot sense:

  • the feeling I would have on the coachee with the data mentioned above (I suspect counter-transference works better with these data)
  • the feeling the coach is experiencing in the room e.g. the temperature, the stuffiness

So what?   I think it depends on what kind of coaching it is.  If the approach is primarily ‘technical’ e.g. using GROW model to review a project plan, the above constraints do not really matter.   But if the approach involves work on the irrational stuff e.g. the psycho-dynamics approach, the coach needs to be aware of, or even better, to find ways to compensate for the above constraints.

 

www.davidyau.com

I recently built a personal homepage to describe my work as I launch my coach / facilitator business in Asia.  The purpose is to have something tangible to follow-up conversations with prospective clients e.g. for my contacts to introduce me to internal stakeholders.   I am very conscious that the website is not to draw new business online.

Welcome any feedback on how it can better serve the purpose.

The Good Old ‘Images’

 

This post is again about the fundamentals of learning – the use of images.    I came across the above image on ‘Moneyball of Leadership” video by Charlie Kim.   Charlie used it to illustrate his speech on how poor execution can kill even brilliant strategy

When I saw this image, an intervention jumps into my mind.     Imagine yourself an intact team sitting in a room.   After some check-in, show the image with some silence.   Depending on the intended topic of reflection / conversation (without restraining other things to emerge), we can ask the following questions:

Revealing the problem

  • ‘What do you see in the picture?’
  • ‘How would you feel if you are the painter’s supervisor?’
  • ‘In what occasion at work you experienced the similar?’
  • ‘What was the impact to the work performance?’
  • ‘What possibly caused such problem?’ 

Sharing practices

  • ‘How did you / the others tackle the situation?’
  • ‘What worked?   What did not?’

Encouraging self evaluation

  • ‘What was possibly in the painter’s mind when he / she did this?   Craft a line to describe the voice in his / her head, like those in a comic book.’
  • Put all those lines on a flipchart, and then ask ‘Share with your learning partner here an occasion where one of those voices once shows up in your own heads’
  • ‘How did you feel at that time?’
  • ‘If your mind changed at that time, what triggered such change?’

With relevant set-up and questions, one single image can provoke powerful reflection and learning conversation.

The ‘Clash’ between Coaching and Training

I recently ran a rather typical management development program.   There were a few modules in a few days.   Each modules was built around a competency topic e.g. communication, change management.  In each module, the participants are supposed to learn some specific tools / models on that topic, and then pondered how to apply them.   Such design is rather conventional.

Somehow, I noticed myself becoming less excited about such approach.   On reflection, I believe I was uncomfortable to introduce tools / models to the participants without sensing the participants’ need for such knowledge.   Perhaps I can do even more to build the WHY / ‘burning platform’ first (not in the standard design)     Yet, the very act of building the ‘burning platform’ already sounds odd or even manipulative to me.

On further reflection, from the organisational perspective, it is actually unavoidable and understandable for the central learning function to make participants learn about stuff which the latter did not necessarily see the need to do so.   After all, what the employer wants may NOT be the same as what individual employees want.

I think my discomfort is out of my growing ‘coaching mind-set’.   I have been spending more and more time on executive coaching and group coaching in the last 2-3 years.   (There are many different understandings on what ‘coaching’ is.   Mine is more around helping the coachee finding own solutions)     I thus would find it odd in a training setting to bombard the participants with unsolicited content.

I guess there is no absolute right or wrong.   Basically, if I continue to do such off-the-shelf standardized training program, I need to do better to establish the ‘burning platform’, both inside and outside the workshop.   (By ‘outside the workshop’, I mean influencing the clients on things like how to design and roll out the workshop in relation to imminent and related business challenge, how to select and orient the participants and their managers)

The Good Old ‘Training Activity’

I came across recently a clip about an experiential learning activity around the topic ‘understanding the others’.  It makes me re-examine my own view on experiential learning.

First, I really felt moved when I watched the video.   When I imagined to be one of the kids there and followed one instruction after another, I pictured myself among the kids in the front.   I believed that I would have a big ‘aha’ as I turned and looks face to face to those at the back.  I would particularly be shocked when the host said ‘…everything I said has nothing to do with what you have done…’   The resulting visual impact was huge.  In addition, when the front kids were really running, the feeling of excitement and mixed feeling about those at the back would probably enhance learning transfer a great deal.   It is such a well-designed activity – simple and to the point.

Yet, I still have my usual doubt on such activity which is designed and run with an intended (or even imposed) conclusion.   In particular:

  • In a way, the activity was like a ‘set-up’ e.g. to embarrass those kids in the front. In the video, they all seemed to follow the instructions with enjoyment.   But I cannot help imagine some would guess mid-way what the activity was about already, and became resentful.   In short, the host was not exploring together with them but in a way tricking them into some specific experience / sensation.
  • This would impact not just this activity but also the remaining event. The participants may trust the host less.
  • The experience would be quite ‘dark’ for those at the back. I believe those some containment afterward is needed.

On the whole, I think it is probably less a concern for teenagers than experienced executives.   The latter is likely to be more sceptical about things and others.

Love Art in Yourself

I happened to hear on a radio show this quote – ‘Love art in yourself, and not yourself in art’ by Konstantin Stanislavski who is a prominent theatre practitioner.   In particular, he is widely recognized by his theories on actor training and preparation.   Though this quote is more for the actors in the theatre business, I felt it super relevant for coaches and facilitators.   Specifically, the quote is a great reminder to us.

One of the biggest challenges (probably THE biggest) in the business of coaching and facilitation is the practitioner himself / herself.     (Of course, equally, it is the biggest asset as well)    It is a challenge often because we often unconsciously focus on ourselves rather than the work, especially when things does not go well.    For example, in coaching, when the work actually needs us to keep silence to provoke thinking, we keep on talking in order to ‘appear’ helpful.    Another example in facilitation / group coaching, when the work actually needs to allow productive conflict, we say something to pre-maturely harmonize the exchange.

Often, we take care of our own psychological need rather than doing the work.

I also recall an exchange with my fellow coaches in a program.   This was basically a condensed action learning program.  We were pondering when we should intervene as the coaches.   I said probably we should only intervene if we have YES to the following two questions:

  1. Are the participants STRUCK enough to have emotional attachment to the experience?
  2. Am I sure it is not my own anxiety that drives me to intervene?

‘Love art in yourself, and not yourself in art’ (or in Chinese愛你心中的藝術,而非藝術中的你)