“Milton Erickson Principles and Leadership Success”
by Talyaa S. Vardar
Studies have shown that coaching in the workplace is an effective strategy for enhancing productivity, job fulfillment, motivation, culture, and ROI. Coaching in organizations is no longer just the role of human resource professionals, organizational development experts, internal/external coaches or trainers, but it is a fresh perspective and approach to leadership success. Increasingly, executives and managers in multiple corporations of many kinds have been engaging with employees and colleagues through coaching competencies. Our expectation is that this is likely to continue to grow in years ahead.
In their book, The Set-Up-to-Fail Syndrome: How Good Managers Cause Great People to Fail (HBS Press, 2002), management experts Jean-François Manzoni and Jean-Louis Barsoux explain a special case of a self-fulfilling prophecy: the Pygmalion effect suggests that the expectations of a powerful “other” (boss, parent or teacher), even if they are inaccurate, can influence the behavior of the weaker individual (subordinate, child or student). The process starts with the development of expectations about a target person. These expectations are communicated, more or less consciously, to the target person. The target person notices and internalizes these expectations and starts to behave as expected. They explain how the blame culture can sink an employee’s performance.
This book describes how, as corporate managers and executives, we all know that we have direct impact on employee motivation, eagerness to contribute, workplace engagement, thus total success and fulfillment level.
Where does coaching stand in this process?
How can Ericksonian coaching specifically contribute to the success of today’s organizational leaders?
Originated from Milton Erickson approach, top Erickson coaching principles include “people are okay” and “people have the best resources available to themselves.” When a leader starts to see his/her employee as okay and resourceful rather than as a low achiever or someone who needs to be fixed, then they start cultivating a “learning culture” versus a “judging culture” within their organization. A learning culture is driven by creativity, well-considered strategies, future solutions and betterment of an existing situation whereas a judging culture is fed by blame, guilt, fear based status-quo and past as evidence of keeping the mediocre. We call this a “social context” within an organization which helps us understand the soft factors behind organizational productivity.
Which culture do you think has higher chances of success and fulfillment? A learning culture promotes inquiry approach through powerful questions. Instead of making judgments, learners get curious about deeper reasons of others’ behaviors and actions. Curiosity and desire for learning at a deeper level ignites authentic communication between people, openness and constant development. Thus coaching becomes a strong skill for driving toward becoming a learning organization (the term was suggested by Peter Senge in his book The Fifth Element). Peter Senge describes how learning organizations can become a sustainable source of learning, growing, cultivating and innovating. A learning organization is always a step ahead of the competition. Employees find meaning in their work that results in motivation from within.
When organizations adopt these principles, leaders become natural motivators for their employees. Through inviting powerful inquiry into the workplace they naturally tap into employees’ true potential and creativity. As explained by the Gallup Study more than a decade ago with more than 1 million employee and manager interviews to identify the most important elements in sustaining workplace excellence, now we all know that such engagement has direct impact on creating strong workforce and success culture.
A leader as Ericksonian coach does not have to act like a professional coach. Rather the leader as coach acts as a catalyst for creating and maintaining a learning organization culture-an organic organizational approach for talent management and leadership development.
Finding flow
Reviews the book ‘Finding Flow,’ by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.
By Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, published on July 01, 1997
Although adults tend to be less happy than average while working, and their motivation is considerably below normal, ESM studies find more occasions of flow on the job than in free time. This finding is not that surprising: Work is much more like a game than most other things we do during the day. It usually has clear goals and rules of performance. It provides feedback either in the form of knowing that one has finished a job well done, in terms of measurable sales or through an evaluation by one’s supervisor. A job tends to encourage concentration and prevent distractions, and ideally, its difficulties match the worker’s skills.
Nevertheless, if we had the chance most of us would like to work less. One reason is the historical disrepute of work, which each of us learn as we grow up.
Yet we can’t blame family, society, or history if our work is meaningless, dull, or stressful. Admittedly, there are few options when we realize that our job is useless or actually harmful. Perhaps the only choice is to quit as quickly as possible, even at the cost of severe financial hardship. In terms of the bottom line of one’s life, it is always better to do something one feels good about than something that may make us materially comfortable but emotionally miserable. Such decisions are notoriously difficult and require great honesty with oneself.
Short of making such a dramatic switch, there are many ways to make one’s job produce flow. A supermarket clerk who pays genuine attention to customers, a physician concerned about the total well-being of patients, or a news reporter who considers truth at least as important as sensational interest when writing a story, can transform a routine job into one that makes a difference. Turning a dull jot into one that satisfies our need for novelty and achievement involves paying close attention to each step involved, and then asking: Is this step necessary? Can it be done better, faster, more efficiently? What additional steps could make my contribution more valuable? If, instead of spending a lot of effort trying to cut corners, one spent the same amount of attention trying to find ways to accomplish more on the job, one would enjoy working–more and probably be more successful. When approached without too many cultural prejudices and with a determination to make it personally meaningful, even the most mundane job can produce flow.
The same type of approach is needed for solving the problem of stress at work. First, establish priorities among the demands that crowd into consciousness. Successful people often make lists or flowcharts of all the things they have to do, and quickly decide which tasks they can delegate or forget, and which ones they have to tackle personally, and in what order. The next step is to match one’s skills with whatever challenges have been identified. There will be tasks we feel incompetent to deal with. Can you learn the skills required in time? Can you get help? Can the task be transformed, or broken into simpler parts? Usually the answer to one of these questions will provide a solution;that transforms a potentially stressful situation into a flow experience.
FLOW AT PLAY
In comparison to work, people often lack a clear purpose when spending time at home with the family or alone. The popular assumption is that no skills are involved in enjoying free time, and that anybody can do it. Yet the evidence suggests the opposite: Free time is more difficult to enjoy than work. Apparently, our nervous system has evolved to attend to external signals, but has not had time to adapt to long periods without obstacles and dangers. Unless one learns how to use this time effectively, having leisure at one’s disposal does not improve the quality of life.
Leisure time in our society is occupied by three major sorts of activities: media consumption, conversation, and active leisure–such as hobbies, making music, going to restaurants and movies, sports, and exercise. Not all of these free-time activities are the same in their potential for flow. For example, U.S. teenagers experience flow about 13 percent of the time that they spend watching television, 34 percent of the time they do hobbies, and 44 percent of the time they are involved in sports and games. Yet these same teenagers spend at least four times more of their free hours watching TV than doing hobbies or sports. Similar ratios are true for adults.
Why would we spend four times more of our free time doing something that has less than half the chance of making us feel good? Each of the flow-producing activities requires an initial investment of attention before it begins to be enjoyable. If a person is too tired, anxious, or lacks the discipline to overcome that initial obstacle, he or she will have to settle for something that, although less enjoyable, is more accessible.
It is not that relaxing is had. Everyone needs time to unwind, to read trashy novels, to sit on the couch staring into space or watching TV What matters is the dosage. In a large-scale study in Germany, it was found that the more often people report reading books, the more flow experiences they claim to have, while the opposite trend was found for watching television.
Source:Psychology Today