The Rub-Off Effect

We go through phases in life when we grapple with what life is all about, and suddenly some incident takes place which throws a new perspective.

On some of my recent travels I was amazed by the sheer number of acts of hospitality, generosity and helpfulness from various people, some of who I did not even know well.... it was all done with little expectation of reciprocation, and totally spontaneously.

To the many whose munificence I enjoyed, and who may be reading this : I know I don't have to specifically name and thank you; in fact for you this might be just a routine daily act - so much so that you may not even realize how deeply you have touched me with your gesture....

I feel pretty humbled after this experience. I don't know why I deserved it. I don't know what qualities in them enable them to practice these noble acts.  And I wondered whether if I was in their shoes I would have been as generous, friendly and altruistic.

When we come across people with qualities we aspire to have some day, just latch on to the relationship, and refuse to let go. Hopefully those qualities will rub off on us.

Coaching vs Teaching : 12 Key Learnings

I just returned from a fantastic "Train the Trainer" program in Dubai, organised by the Nielsen Global Learning team. This was an eye-opener for me as I now realize that I was not following many of the principles of being a good Coach. Here is a bland sum-up of the key learnings - though to really understand this subject one needs to experience the full 1.5 days intensive course:

1. Coaching is all about asking the right questions.  By asking the correct questions, the coach helps the person who is seeking the solution (the Coachee) to discover the solutions by himself.  The Coachee in an office situation could be your subordinate, and in a home situation could be your son seeking a solution to a problem.
2. Coaching is not Teaching.  We are often tempted to jump in and solve problems for others under the guise of teaching. But this perpetuates dependency, and consequently a "just in time, urgent" culture which is not a good environment to practice coaching.
3. "Directing" or "telling" a person what to do is not necessarily bad - it is used in situations where there is no time or the coachee has poor competence.  However, minimise Directing to the extent possible as it is neither good for the manager (Coach) nor for the personal growth of the subordinate (Coachee). 
4. Coaching is all about the Coachee - and not about the coach.  Buy-in of the solution, and its implementation, is better if the solution is self-discovered by the coachee through the coach asking the right questions.
5. A coach figures out the level of competence of the person for that particular task, issue, challenge or question - and asks the suitable coaching questions (open-ended, suggestive, leading or directive) depending on the competence of the coachee for that particular task.
6. To be a good coach does not require one to be skilled at that task - it is all about having the right mind-set.  In fact in many cases, the best coaches are not the experts on the subject matter.
7. Coaching always operates in the environment of Trust.  Lose the trust (example by blaming the coachee for a mistake), and you lose respect and credibility as a coach
8. Coaching does not imply a hands-off, low involvement approach.  Coaching by its very nature implies very high involvement by the coach to help the coachee to self-discover the solution to the problem.
9. For pro-active coaching tying up the feedback to the Motivating Drivers of the coachee is critical - and the coach needs to ensure that he taps into the Coachee's Motivating Drivers (and not his own).  The Motivating Driver could be Achievement, Recognition, Affiliation, Power, or Safety.  Tapping into the right Motivating Driver is crucial for the feedback to be taken in the right spirit, and for the coachee to be motivated to either change his behaviour, or to continue (or even improve) his current excellent behaviour.
10. When starting the process of coaching, spend less time on "Investigative" (understanding the past) - and more time on "Insight" (understanding the future options), and "Empowerment" (arriving at the preferred option with a timeline).  Typically we all make the mistake of spending too much time on the Investigative part.
11. Coaching is a continuous process, and is best pro-actively done. Periodically re-visit the goal of coaching and keep its focus on aspects within one's control ("don't try to solve world hunger"). Coaching should be done not just for areas of improvement, but also in situations where there is a great performance (Typically we only give feedback when something needs to improve). 
12. To be a good coach requires lots of practice as we need to come out of the teaching mind-set. It requires the constant practice of skills such as Active Listening, understanding body language, and para-phrasing. It requires effort to move into unconscious competence where we do this naturally.

Thanks to Nielsen for living up to its reputation of being an Academy Company, and to the trainer Adam Pickford.    What I learnt will need to be practiced not just in office - but in life in general. 

Buddy Boss

"I am the boss in office, but outside office we are the best of buddies" claimed a senior colleague commenting on how he manages relationships with colleagues who he claimed are also his buddies outside office.

And when I say buddies, I mean Buddies - it goes beyond mere friendship.  Being a buddy is different from being a 'friend'.  A boss can be a 'friend' of his subordinate - and can socialize, share personal feelings, and go out camping together.  But this is a friendship that always tacitly respects the official position held by the senior of the two individuals.

So coming back to Buddies - such buddy-ships (for want of a better word) typically get formed when two colleagues are not in a direct reporting relationship. The challenge arises when one of them over-takes the other on the career ladder and ends up as the boss.  Or in the case of a matrix structure, where my buddy ends up in a position where he has a significant role in my assessments/appraisals - or vice versa. Would the original buddy-ship built on absolute equality still survive?

From my observations, very few do.  Despite all the talk about separating out office life from personal life, it is the rare individual who operates in water-tight compartments. The fact is that whether it comes to performance appraisals, assignment of interesting roles/projects, or even simple things like the seating arrangement, friendships do play a huge role in office life, and buddies in reporting relationships do tend to mutually benefit in the office. But inevitably there will come a time when on a certain issue some expectations from either side will not be met - and that will be the beginning of the straining of the buddy-ship.  The strain will first show in office, and willy-nilly soon it will manifest outside the office - and best buddies will turn bitter foes.

If I have a good buddy and recently one of us has started reporting to the other, how do we protect our friendship?

If I am the boss, then the simplest thing I do is to manage my own expectations in terms of how much I think my buddy-subordinate should go beyond his normal role to help me - whether it is in terms of over-over-stretching himself or snitching on his other colleagues.  I would also involve another senior colleague in sensitive - and potentially confrontational - issues such as performance appraisals, determination of increments, bonus etc.  By this process I am sending the message that I want a neutral person involved to prevent any mis-understandings between us - especially when the news being delivered may not be pleasant. Of course my buddy will still think I am deliberately distancing myself - but at least this will ensure that the relationship does not deteriorate sharply. He will still continue to be a friend, if not my buddy.

And if I end up as the subordinate, what then? I can then play a bigger role in ensuring the buddy-ship survives - if I want it to.  From my observations it is all about how much one values the buddy-ship, and therefore how willing one is to walk away from bitter confrontations in office.  To give an example :  I may think I deserve a bigger team to manage the work load, or an x% higher bonus.  If my boss is not a buddy I would probably raise this issue gently with him, and if that does not work - fight it out through escalations.

But if my boss is my buddy, then I need to think very carefully before I escalate : Is the larger team or the x% potential increase (that I MIGHT get after a fight) more important than the buddy-ship I would most probably lose - after all I am dealing with a human being, and not some emotionless organisational position.....

If the x% is really important and I feel I have not been treated fairly, then I will go ahead and fight.  Probably he is not a genuine buddy anyway and he is just exploiting our friendship.......

But in many cases - and after careful thought - I find it better to manage my own expectations.  In which case I choose to walk away from a potentially nasty fight (and a potential x% increase). Walking away could either mean diplomatically and gradually maneuvering myself into a different role (and a different boss), or staying back and accepting and trusting my buddy-boss' decision without showing dissent.

Walking away may sound wimpish.......

But after all, I don't know : maybe he has already tried his best to fight my case internally, and is too embarrassed to tell me he lost the fight.

Or maybe my expectations from my buddy-boss are not fair.

Or maybe it has dawned on me that we are blessed with so few buddies in our life-time...... 

Decisions Decisions

Any decision need to be examined through the lens of the life-stage of the person who took that decision, and the emotional state he was in when he took the decision. A decision taken by a person in one life-stage when he is in an exuberant state of mind (e.g. by a 'care-free' bachelor) may look flippant or selfish to a person who is in another life-stage (e.g. a person who has 2 teen-age kids).  And similarly, to a care-free bachelor a decision taken by a person in another life-stage might seem ridiculous and too compromising.

Every decision involves a trade-off and a risk that events will not turn out the way you had anticipated at the time of taking the decision.  E.g. I may decide to invest in a large 3 bedroom apartment even though I may not be able to afford the large EMI at my current salary.  The trade-off here is that I will need to work harder in order to pay off the loan, and the risk is that the real estate market may crumble in the future, or I may lose my job.  Only people who have been in that particular life-stage will understand or appreciate the thought process and emotional feelings that a person must have gone through to arrive at a decision - particularly a tough or an unpleasant decision.

As I become older, I have noticed 2 changes in the way I approach decisions:

CHANGE 1
Change in speed of decision making :  I notice that decisions that I used to take quickly in my younger days are now-a-days taking me much longer; and conversely, decisions that I once used to agonise over I take it quickly now without even thinking much.  I have become faster when the decisions pertain to money, investments, how much money I should put into a car or a holiday etc.  I guess I have become faster at this because these are skill based decisions where I become better over time at assessing risk vs reward and I am now able to distance myself from "feelings" when I take such decisions.

But I have become much slower now when the decisions pertain to anything that affects individuals in my family, and my family as a unit : when to take a holiday, whether or where to re-locate, whether to accept a new exciting job offer which might mean spending more time away from family, and how and with whom I spend my time.  Here I am not dealing with risk - I am dealing with its big brother -  uncertainty - as I am no longer dealing with probabilities but with the dynamics of human emotions.  As my life-stage evolves such decisions will becoming increasingly complex - so a constant learning curve.

CHANGE 2
Stopped Justifying and Being Judgemental : I have stopped - or at least consciously trying to stop - two of my bad habits when it comes to decisions.  The 1st bad habit is explaining the rationale for my decisions to others, and the 2nd bad habit is passing value judgments on others' decisions.

Explaining a decision (which has already been taken) to a person in another life-stage is a waste of time for both parties - the other person will only indicate a hundred other equally valid reasons why that decision was wrong. Since nobody can ever be sure whether their decision was "correct", that would only provoke a defensive response leading to unpleasantness - so nowadays I just shrug my shoulders and smile when somebody comments on my decision.

And as for my other bad habit - I was guilty (during my care-free years) of the crime of passing judgement on other's so called "emotional and compromising" decisions : I blush now at such behaviour.  I now only mull over what circumstances would have forced the other to arrive at that decision.  And then I keep my mouth tightly shut.