Building a Corporate Culture
What makes a company great is a great culture. The world changes, strategies change, business models change, ‘theory of business’ changes, but the same company has to deal with all of them, live through them, thrive in all of them. The only way a company, an organization, can survive and even thrive, through all these changes, is if it has a strong culture, a strong sense of what it is, why it is, and what will never change about it.
Tatas and HLL, GE and P&G, IBM and Apple.. great companies have a great culture.
What is culture? How can it be built? Can it be built?
Stories are the fabric of culture
Whenever you ask – ‘what is the Tata culture?’ you will be told a story, a story about how JRD set up the first airline, or how Dr. Irani moved his board to make the changes Tata Steel needed to become the world’s most competitive steel company. It seems we human beings can only understand culture through stories. Perhaps culture is so rich it can only be pointed to, not really explained. Perhaps it is so varied that we can only see a glimpse of it at a time, through one incident, one parable.
Mr. Gopalakrishnan’s fascinating book ‘The case of the Bonsai Manager’ is a fine example of this very effective story-telling.
Ramayana or Mahabharata?
Even more than the Mahabharata, the Ramayana is used again and again in India, to illustrate how a person should behave. The ideal of Sita is held up to all women in India, just as Rama is depicted as the ideal ruler, the ideal son the ideal husband. Nobody talks of ‘Yudhishtira-rajya’, but everyone talks of ‘Ramrajya’. The importance of the Ramayana is surely as a holder of values and culture, through its repository of stories, more than anything else.
Don’t be too subtle
What makes the Ramayana so useful as a conveyor of values, of culture? First of all, it is a simple story, it has none of the nuances the Mahabharata has – was the Pandava’s claim to the throne of the Kurus really legitimate? Was Bhima right to strike Duryodhana ‘below the belt’? – very few of these questions arise in the Ramayana .
The first virtue of a good ‘culture story’ then, is simplicity. It should be a ‘case study’ not a ‘case’! It should bring tears to the eyes, not spark a debate!
Create larger than life characters
Rama himself is ‘larger than life’, we all know we cannot be Rama, yet we think we can be ‘like’ him. Does anyone really aspire to be ‘like Arjuna?” I doubt it.
Of course, the most obvious candidates for protagonist are the company’s founders, and the CEO. It is easy enough to make heroes of them (and to get funding for such projects!). Unfortunately, current CEOs are all too visible, everyone knows their foibles, and if their actual life is quite different than what the story makes it out to be, all you will get is sniggers and rolling eyes if you try to weave stories around them. My experience is that, if you are selecting a CEO to write about, choose one who is a bit removed, preferably retired some time ago! Even today, stories are told at EDS about Ross Perot, though Ross has long left EDS and even founded a rival company! But his very distance helps to create a myth around him.
Make heroes of ordinary people
Ordinary people do heroic deeds every day. Every company has salespeople who enter a completely uncharted territory, service engineers who give their lives for a customer, plant construction teams who cross a flooding river to meet a deadline. I have heard of several such stories, as an outsider, teaching programs at companies like L&T and ABB, for instance, so it cannot be too hard to find such stories.
Building the Repository
Assign someone very well networked in the company, highly respected in the corporate staff, to write the stories. Never try to hire a ‘professional’ writer – it takes years to build the repository and it is very much a ‘hit or miss’ affair. The person you choose should love to write, have a keen ear for a good story, and also have the ability to judge what use a story can be put to. The writer should necessarily have an intuitive understanding of the company culture, else he/she will have no inner compass to judge stories by.
At the end of every off-site management meeting, set aside time for a story-telling session. Stories flow best after a few drinks!
Use ‘employee of the month’ award functions, team excellence award functions as opportunities to collect stories about ordinary people and their daily heroics. Our ‘writer’ should make a point of attending all such functions, and talking to the award winners afterwards, to try to ‘get the story’.
Start writing even if there is nothing to write about. Once two or three stories get written and published, people begin to see the point and start contributing their stories.
Keep all stories short, they should be amenable to being told in two minutes, and occupy no more than half a written page. Complex stories are not only ineffective, they can get changed and lose their punch over time as the story is told and retold.
Don’t start with preconceptions about the ‘point’ of the story, look for good human interest stories – the picture will begin to build all by itself.
Using the Stories
Induction: many years ago, my induction program with EDS in Dallas consisted almost exclusively of stories, all of which I remember to this day.
When a senior ‘lateral’ manager is brought in, the book of stories should be given to him personally by the CEO and he should be invited to comment on them. This is, of course, only a subtle way to communicate the stories to him!
There should be a small number, say 2-3 stories that everyone knows. Over time, the most effective couple of stories will emerge by themselves, but it is necessary to look for the ‘emerging winners’ and enshrine them as ‘the corporate stories’
I know of no other way to build a culture. It is not guaranteed, but it is fun, and it sometimes works! So try it!
Thursday, April 17, 2008
On Executive Coaching
On Being an Executive Coach
Why coaching?
The CEO’s life is a lonely one. She cannot turn easily to people around her for advice when she feels something is wrong, or at least, not quite right, with her management style, or her way of dealing with problems. People around her may be sharks, waiting to scent blood, in the worst case; in the best case, they may be simply indifferent to her pain. So, whom can a CEO turn to? The same applies to most senior managers - their very seniority becomes a burden when they need help and, perhaps a change in direction. Hence the executive coach, an external advisor who can be your sounding board, and much else besides.
Executive coaches are nothing new, of course. Krishna, the divine charioteer, was executive coach to Arjuna, the great warrior. Machiaveli was executive coach to his Prince, Chanakya to Chandragupta. The Panchatantra is nothing but a chronicle of an executive coach, Visnu Sarma, trying to develop his young wards to be fit rulers.
Yet, even in these examples, we can see the different avatars of executive coaching. Why was Krishna an effective coach to Arjuna? Because, of course, Arjuna had always looked up to him and wanted to emulate him – which is why he wanted him as his charioteer in the first place. Why was Chanakya an effective executive coach to Chandragupta? Here the story is a little different – Chandragupta probably never thought of Chanakya as someone who could do what he, Chandragupta, could do, only better. He knew what Chanakya was good for, and what he was not good for. The young princes who studied under Visnu Sarma were presumably placed under him by their father, the King, and so had little choice in the matter. History does not record, so far as I know, whether they want on to become good Kings or not!
But in each of these stories, there is a common thread: the coach, who is someone wise and experienced, and the coachee, who is a great performer, but who needs grooming to take him to the next level.
In today’s world, do these characterizations make sense?
The Fallacy of the Wise Coach
In today’s world, does the coach have to be ‘wise’?
My experience as an executive coach suggests that it is important for the coach to be seen as someone who knows a thing or two, and has seen, if not actually fought, a few battles in life, but he does not have to be as wise as Viswamitra. Executives are keenly aware that the onus of learning, improving, changing, is on themselves, and external props can only go so far. This makes it possible for anyone who is less than ‘wise’ to be an effective coach, so long as she follows some simple rules (which we will discuss below).
What makes a good coach
The strength is in the process. A coach who follows a good coaching process will be a good coach. It is really as simple as that.
Of course, it takes some doing, some skill, some special personality, to follow the process easily and naturally. But anyone can learn to do it, I believe.
The Process and the Rules
‘Appreciative Inquiry’ is a term that captures much of this, but let us outline some of the key elements.
Rule 1: It is about him/her, not about you.
Actually this is THE rule. No other rules are necessary.
a) The coach does not have to constantly strive to be clever. The coaching experience is not about how clever the coach is. The coachee does not even care how clever the coach is, once the process gets under way in earnest.
What I am, what I have done, what I know, all these should be simply set aside by the coach. The only personal element that should be allowed would be: yes, that is a mistake I made too and this is what I did to overcome it. Sometimes, this helps to reassure the coachee.
b) all good ideas are his/her ideas, not yours’. Only if the coach takes this position steadfastly will the coachee actually take the ideas to heart and run with them. The coach must avoid even the very semblance of taking credit for anything that happens in the coachee’s life.
c) never say ‘I told you so’.
Rule 2: Time the Message
The coachee must be in a receptive frame of mind if he is going to take any input from anybody. Being human, he is not always receptive. If he has just come from a beating from the boss, where he has been chastised for doing something he thought was the right thing to do.. he may not be ready to listen to anything except reassurance that he was on the right track. If he is tired and stressed out after a long hard day and looking forward to going home, a coaching session is probably not what he is looking forward to.
The coach must be extremely sensitive to signals that the coachee is not ready to listen.
In fact, a good rule of thumb is to offer suggestions only when the coachee asks for them himself. Until he asks for help, and is ready to acknowledge that he needs help, there is little point in giving him any!
One implication is that it may not be terribly useful to schedule coaching sessions in a very structured way, 9:30 am to 10:00 am in your office.. the coach’s time is valuable, so it may end up being done that way, but it is probably not the best way to go about it.
Rule 3: Be specific, not general
Coaching sessions must center around specific ways the coachee wants to improve. Both coach and coachee must be very explicit about what the issue is, and how the coachee is going to improve. There is little point, for instance, in saying, ‘I have a short temper’. The discussion must get down to specifics like: what kinds of things make you angry? Why is this? What actions can you take next time someone behaves in a way that really riles you?
Rule 4: Focus on positives, it is not always about negatives
I am sorry to say that 90% of coaching sessions focus on ways the coachee is supposed to improve. Weaknesses are identified, and an action plan outlined to shore up the weakness. Well, Pete Sampras had a lousy backhand – did that prevent him from winning 14 Grand Slam titles? Everyone has weaknesses, the only way to become a champion is to have great, world-beating strengths. I firmly believe 90% of coaching effort should be devoted to identifying strengths and figuring out ways to take the coachee ‘from good to great’.
This approach transforms the coaching process into a search for excellence, and appreciation for the coachee, rather than a debilitating hunt for weaknesses, recognition of which will only make him more weak. To give another tennis example, Chris Evert had a mediocre serve, yet she never acknowledged it. In fact, when questioned on it, she would respond, ‘what’s wrong with it? It is perfectly fine’. And because she never saw it as a problem, it was hard for her opponents to attack it.!
Rule 5: The onus is on the coachee, not on the coach
There are none so blind as those who will not see; you can lead a horse to the water.. all these aphorisms are well known. And perfectly true, as most aphorisms are. It is for the coachee to recognize what he needs to strengthen, it is for the coachee to seek help, it is for the coachee to find the answers! If the coach starts giving answers, well, they will remain the coach’s answers. This is actually the one area where, my personal experience tells me, the coach really has to train himself. A consultant (like me) finds it very easy and natural to give the answers, for that is what consultants do. But it is not the coach’s answers that count, it is the coachee’s. The coach has to learn to restrain himself even when the answer is blindingly obvious to him.
Finally, let us turn to the qualities a coachee must have.
What makes a good coachee?
Very simply, the ability to recognize one’s own shortcomings, or, indeed, one’s own strength which one is not leveraging enough. Next, the ability to be honest about it, the risk-taking ability to talk about it to someone else, namely, the coach, and the self-belief that weaknesses can be corrected and strengths honed to perfection. The desire to learn, to change, can only come from within. The ability to trust someone else, and finally, the ability to try something out seriously and evaluate whether it is working for oneself, this is all it takes. .. all, did I say? It is a lot. But if you have it, if you can bring yourself to the edge, you can take off and fly, and soar to the skies!
Why coaching?
The CEO’s life is a lonely one. She cannot turn easily to people around her for advice when she feels something is wrong, or at least, not quite right, with her management style, or her way of dealing with problems. People around her may be sharks, waiting to scent blood, in the worst case; in the best case, they may be simply indifferent to her pain. So, whom can a CEO turn to? The same applies to most senior managers - their very seniority becomes a burden when they need help and, perhaps a change in direction. Hence the executive coach, an external advisor who can be your sounding board, and much else besides.
Executive coaches are nothing new, of course. Krishna, the divine charioteer, was executive coach to Arjuna, the great warrior. Machiaveli was executive coach to his Prince, Chanakya to Chandragupta. The Panchatantra is nothing but a chronicle of an executive coach, Visnu Sarma, trying to develop his young wards to be fit rulers.
Yet, even in these examples, we can see the different avatars of executive coaching. Why was Krishna an effective coach to Arjuna? Because, of course, Arjuna had always looked up to him and wanted to emulate him – which is why he wanted him as his charioteer in the first place. Why was Chanakya an effective executive coach to Chandragupta? Here the story is a little different – Chandragupta probably never thought of Chanakya as someone who could do what he, Chandragupta, could do, only better. He knew what Chanakya was good for, and what he was not good for. The young princes who studied under Visnu Sarma were presumably placed under him by their father, the King, and so had little choice in the matter. History does not record, so far as I know, whether they want on to become good Kings or not!
But in each of these stories, there is a common thread: the coach, who is someone wise and experienced, and the coachee, who is a great performer, but who needs grooming to take him to the next level.
In today’s world, do these characterizations make sense?
The Fallacy of the Wise Coach
In today’s world, does the coach have to be ‘wise’?
My experience as an executive coach suggests that it is important for the coach to be seen as someone who knows a thing or two, and has seen, if not actually fought, a few battles in life, but he does not have to be as wise as Viswamitra. Executives are keenly aware that the onus of learning, improving, changing, is on themselves, and external props can only go so far. This makes it possible for anyone who is less than ‘wise’ to be an effective coach, so long as she follows some simple rules (which we will discuss below).
What makes a good coach
The strength is in the process. A coach who follows a good coaching process will be a good coach. It is really as simple as that.
Of course, it takes some doing, some skill, some special personality, to follow the process easily and naturally. But anyone can learn to do it, I believe.
The Process and the Rules
‘Appreciative Inquiry’ is a term that captures much of this, but let us outline some of the key elements.
Rule 1: It is about him/her, not about you.
Actually this is THE rule. No other rules are necessary.
a) The coach does not have to constantly strive to be clever. The coaching experience is not about how clever the coach is. The coachee does not even care how clever the coach is, once the process gets under way in earnest.
What I am, what I have done, what I know, all these should be simply set aside by the coach. The only personal element that should be allowed would be: yes, that is a mistake I made too and this is what I did to overcome it. Sometimes, this helps to reassure the coachee.
b) all good ideas are his/her ideas, not yours’. Only if the coach takes this position steadfastly will the coachee actually take the ideas to heart and run with them. The coach must avoid even the very semblance of taking credit for anything that happens in the coachee’s life.
c) never say ‘I told you so’.
Rule 2: Time the Message
The coachee must be in a receptive frame of mind if he is going to take any input from anybody. Being human, he is not always receptive. If he has just come from a beating from the boss, where he has been chastised for doing something he thought was the right thing to do.. he may not be ready to listen to anything except reassurance that he was on the right track. If he is tired and stressed out after a long hard day and looking forward to going home, a coaching session is probably not what he is looking forward to.
The coach must be extremely sensitive to signals that the coachee is not ready to listen.
In fact, a good rule of thumb is to offer suggestions only when the coachee asks for them himself. Until he asks for help, and is ready to acknowledge that he needs help, there is little point in giving him any!
One implication is that it may not be terribly useful to schedule coaching sessions in a very structured way, 9:30 am to 10:00 am in your office.. the coach’s time is valuable, so it may end up being done that way, but it is probably not the best way to go about it.
Rule 3: Be specific, not general
Coaching sessions must center around specific ways the coachee wants to improve. Both coach and coachee must be very explicit about what the issue is, and how the coachee is going to improve. There is little point, for instance, in saying, ‘I have a short temper’. The discussion must get down to specifics like: what kinds of things make you angry? Why is this? What actions can you take next time someone behaves in a way that really riles you?
Rule 4: Focus on positives, it is not always about negatives
I am sorry to say that 90% of coaching sessions focus on ways the coachee is supposed to improve. Weaknesses are identified, and an action plan outlined to shore up the weakness. Well, Pete Sampras had a lousy backhand – did that prevent him from winning 14 Grand Slam titles? Everyone has weaknesses, the only way to become a champion is to have great, world-beating strengths. I firmly believe 90% of coaching effort should be devoted to identifying strengths and figuring out ways to take the coachee ‘from good to great’.
This approach transforms the coaching process into a search for excellence, and appreciation for the coachee, rather than a debilitating hunt for weaknesses, recognition of which will only make him more weak. To give another tennis example, Chris Evert had a mediocre serve, yet she never acknowledged it. In fact, when questioned on it, she would respond, ‘what’s wrong with it? It is perfectly fine’. And because she never saw it as a problem, it was hard for her opponents to attack it.!
Rule 5: The onus is on the coachee, not on the coach
There are none so blind as those who will not see; you can lead a horse to the water.. all these aphorisms are well known. And perfectly true, as most aphorisms are. It is for the coachee to recognize what he needs to strengthen, it is for the coachee to seek help, it is for the coachee to find the answers! If the coach starts giving answers, well, they will remain the coach’s answers. This is actually the one area where, my personal experience tells me, the coach really has to train himself. A consultant (like me) finds it very easy and natural to give the answers, for that is what consultants do. But it is not the coach’s answers that count, it is the coachee’s. The coach has to learn to restrain himself even when the answer is blindingly obvious to him.
Finally, let us turn to the qualities a coachee must have.
What makes a good coachee?
Very simply, the ability to recognize one’s own shortcomings, or, indeed, one’s own strength which one is not leveraging enough. Next, the ability to be honest about it, the risk-taking ability to talk about it to someone else, namely, the coach, and the self-belief that weaknesses can be corrected and strengths honed to perfection. The desire to learn, to change, can only come from within. The ability to trust someone else, and finally, the ability to try something out seriously and evaluate whether it is working for oneself, this is all it takes. .. all, did I say? It is a lot. But if you have it, if you can bring yourself to the edge, you can take off and fly, and soar to the skies!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
