Mosaic Coaching: Theoretical Foundation Dr. Michael Rosebush 2013

Transcription

1 The Mosaic Coaching White Papers Mosaic Coaching: Theoretical Foundation Dr. Michael Rosebush 2013 The mission of the United States Air Force Academy s (USAFA) Mosaic Coaching is developing Leaders of Character through engaging professional coaching relationships. Furthermore, the vision of Mosaic Coaching is to become the Air Force s First Call center for professional coaching. Mosaic Coaching is the brand-name for the coaching enterprise, providing five essential pieces: training & certification; coaching interventions; personalized reports; impact results; and integration. The mosaic piece that often captures the most attention is the various coaching interventions that are conducted both within and outside of USAFA; more specifically, the Character Coaching and Leadership Coaching interventions. This White Paper provides the theoretical foundation on which the coaching interventions are based, by discussing three vital areas: the Center for Character and Leadership Development s (CCLD) Conceptual Framework for developing Leaders of Character; the industry Gold Standard for conducting professional coaching; and the practices for providing a Mosaic Coaching intervention. The Conceptual Framework A body of scholars was commissioned in 2010 by CCLD to review what science and professional wisdom believes develops a Leader of Character. In 2011, they published their Conceptual Framework for developing Leaders of Character at USAFA. (Center for Character and Leadership Development, 2011). The Conceptual Framework begins with the end in mind: the definition of a Leader of Character. Their definition involves three necessary parts: 1. Lives honorably; consistently practicing the virtues embodied in the Air Force Core Values 2. Lifts others to their best possible selves 3. Elevates performance toward a common and noble purpose At a quick glance, one can recognize that the first criterion involves character. The Conceptual Framework states that In a general sense, the term character has come to mean the constellation of strengths and weaknesses that form and reveal who we are (Center for Character and Leadership Development, 2011, p. 8). Furthermore, our character is reshaped by the different choices we make and the virtues we choose to practice (Center for Character and Leadership Development, 2011, p. 8). The virtues that are supposed to be practiced come from the AF Core Values (see Thus, the designation of these virtues is not capricious or faddish; rather, they emanate from the very core of the Air Force s highest values and the virtues that the institution demands. Rosebush, December 2013 Page 1

2 The remaining two criteria emphasize one s leadership. The notion of lifting others to their best possible selves is a concept integral to our development as leaders (Avolio, B., & Gardner, W., 2005; Center for Character and Leadership Development, 2011, p. 10). Additionally, the emphasis on elevating performance sounds a bugle cry to transform and expand capacity beyond once s own narrow self-interest (Avolio, 2005; Bass, 1996; Center for Character and Leadership Development, 2011; Erhard, W., Jensen, M., & Zaffron, S., 2010). Having now defined what a Leader of Character does, the Conceptual Framework then defines the essential elements for becoming such a person. Sequentially, the elements are: own; engage; and practice. The person wanting to develop as a Leader of Character must begin by owning the responsibility to actually live and act as such. The primary theoretical source comes from Albert Bandura s notion of self-efficacy an individual s belief about his or her capacity to perform (Bandura, 1997; Center for Character and Leadership Development, 2011, p. 14). As one succeeds in a skill, the more the person therefore comes to believe in her/his capacity to succeed (i.e., efficacy). Owning also involves a striving to ensure that one s identity toward any particular virtue is indeed consistent with one s capacity to enact that virtue (Center for Character and Leadership Development, 2011, p. 14). Thus, one s identity toward the AF virtues or leadership competencies becomes an important motivation for development. The person who strongly identifies with a specific virtue, but cannot consistently enact it, may be motivated to strengthen that virtue due to an internal drive for self-consistency. Presuming one owns an identity to continually strive for personal development, the second essential element in the Conceptual Framework is to engage in a purposeful experience a relationship that researchers confirm predicts growth and development (Center for Character and Leadership Development, 2011, p. 18; McCauley, C., & Van Velsor, E., 2004). Relative to professional coaching, the coachee must sustain over time a purposeful relationship with the coach. The Center for Creative Leadership (one of the foremost executive leadership coaching centers in the world) maintains that there are three vital parts to the engaged relationship ; assess the strengths and opportunities to grow; challenge the coachee to strengthen a specific virtue or competency; and support the coachee to persevere through setbacks and hardships, by holding the Coachee accountable to their developmental plan (Center for Character and Leadership Development, 2011, p. 19; Ting, S., & Scisco, P., 2006). The final essential element in the Conceptual Framework declares that one must practice habits of thoughts and actions. The Center has drawn upon the scholarship of James Rest s theoretical framework that emphasizes four parts: awareness (i.e., the capacity to recognize that this is the moment for enacting the virtuous behavior); reasoning (i.e., the capacity to reason about the best course of action, consistent with one s commitments); deciding (i.e., an internal commitment to a course of action); and acting (i.e., actually enacting the virtuous behavior that one intended) (Center for Character and Leadership Development, 2011, pp ; Rest, 1979). A universally embraced principle is that one cannot develop anything as a new habit without first actually enacting the intended behavior. It is hard to over-state this principle: for a person to develop virtuous habits, one must first succeed in doing the behavior creating a confidence that such behavior can indeed be achieved in the future (Bandura, 1997). The Industry Gold Standard for Conducting Professional Coaching Over the past 40 years, professional coaching has become a popular topic in the field of leadership and business (Johnson, 2013; Moen, 2010). There are numerous forms of Rosebush, December 2013 Page 2

3 professional coaching: life, character (Peterson, C. & Seligman, M., 2004), leadership (Ting, S. & Scisco, P., 2006), executive (Kampa-Kokesch, S. & Anderson, M., 2001) and more. Furthermore, professional coaching has expanded very quickly, increasing from 2,100 professional coaches worldwide in 1999, to 47,500 in 2012 (International Coaching Federation, 2012; Johnson, 2013, p. 6). Coaching, as a field, has some similarities and differences with other people-helping relationships. For starters, counseling is a helping relationship that typically addresses the healing of emotional or mental dysfunction providing a therapeutic answer (International Coaching Federation, 2012; Feldman, D., & Lankau, M., 2005, p. 832; Johnson, 2013, p. 7; Kampa-Kokesch, S. & Anderson, M., 2001). In contrast, coaching works with functioning people who want to strengthen an important area of their life sometimes moving from excellent performance to peak performance (Ellinger, A., & Bostrom, R., 1999; Feldman, D., & Lankau, M., 2005, p. 830). Furthermore, the coach never prescribes anything to the coachee; rather, the coach always puts the ownership upon the coachee to create a solution that is custom-fit. Coaching is also different from mentoring. While mentoring is another important peoplehelping relationship, it places the mentor in the position of the advice-giver speaking wisdom into the mentee, based upon the mentor s life experiences (Feldman, D., & Lankau, M., 2005, p. 831; Johnson, 2013, p. 7; Kram, 1985). In contrast, the coach never offers advice applying the old adage of being the guide on the side; not the sage on stage. In reviewing the literature on professional coaching, there are several principles that are consistently described -- indicating an industry Gold Standard for conducting coaching. Co-creating a collaberative relationship and learning environment, with new possibilities (Frankovelgia, C., & Riddle, D., 2010; Hargrove, 2008; Johnson, 2013, p. 16; Ting, S. & Scisco, P., 2006). The coachee and coach form an engaged relationship that purposefully seeks to strengthen the coachee s targeted need. The coachee owns the development, taking responsibility for the decisions and actions (Frankovelgia, C., & Riddle, D., 2010; Johnson, 2013, p. 16; Moen, F., & Federici, R., 2011; Ting, S. & Scisco, P., 2006; Whitmore, 1996). The coachee enters the coaching relationship with an intentional desire to develop and strengthen behaviors that are more in concert with one s identity. Assessment of one s strengths, within a specifc domain -- e.g., virtues, leadership competencies (Diedrich, 1996; Feldman, 2001; Feldman, D., & Lankau, M., 2005, p. 31; Frankovelgia, C., & Riddle, D., 2010; Peterson, C. & Seligman, M., 2004; Ting, S. & Scisco, P., 2006). The coachee completes a self-assessment on the specific domain that is being coached -- creating a self-identity score for each of the domain categories. Challenge the coachee to target behaviors, set goals with measureable outcomes, and establish a clear intervention that is designed to improve performance (Douglas, C., & McCauley, C., 1999; Feldman, D., & Lankau, M., 2005; Frankovelgia, C., & Riddle, D., 2010; Kampa-Kokesch, S., & Anderson, M., 2001; Kilburg, 1996, 1996; Kirkpatrick, 1996; Peterson, C., & Seligman, M., 2004; Ting, S., & Scisco, P., 2006). The coachee defines the specific behavior to practice, for the purpose of strengthening performance in a way that is measurable. Support the coachee through accountability and follow-up (Kampa-Kokesch, S., & Anderson, M., 2001, p. 208; Diedrich, 1996; Sperry, 1993; Tobias, Rosebush, December 2013 Page 3

4 Short-term, structured interventions (Feldman, 2001; Feldman, D., & Lankau, M., 2005, p. 832; Hall, D., Otazo, K., & Hollenbeck, G., 1999; Palmer, 2003; Sperry, 1993). The coaching intervention is intentionally structured, with a limited duration, and specific milestones to accomplish. Increases self-awareness (Johnson, 2013, p. 8; Kilburg, 1996; Moen, F., & Federici, R., 2011; Whitmore, 1996). The coachee becomes more adept at recognizing moments that call for action and move toward habits that launch the person into reaching peak performance. Results in increased confidence and competence (Bandura, 1997; Feldman, 2001; Feldman, D., & Lankau, M., 2005, p. 830; Johnson, 2013, p. 10; Mukherjee, 2012; Peterson, C. & Seligman, M., 2004). The purpose of the coaching intervention is not merely to become more self-aware and self-satisfied, but to go further in actually developing new competencies and gaining confidence in an identity that is consistent with one s actions. Mosaic Coaching: Applying the Gold Standards to the Conceptual Framework Given that CCLD has a Conceptual Framework that declares the best way to develop someone as a Leader of Character and given that there exists Gold Standard principles for conducting professional coaching Mosaic Coaching arranges the wedding of the two. This section focuses on the specific practices in providing a professional coaching intervention, utilizing the Mosaic Coaching method. For the purpose of this paper, only the commonalities of both Character Coaching and Leadership Coaching will be described. For a more explicit description of the two interventions, the reader is encouraged to read The Character Coaching Manual (Center for Character and Leadership Development, 2013a) and/or The Leadership Coaching Manual (Center for Character and Leadership Development, The Leadership Coaching Manual, 2013b). Own. The coachee enters into the coaching relationship with an identity of wanting to develop as a Leader of Character. Furthermore, the coachee must own an attitude of being excited and committed to become even stronger; if not, the coaching relationship should cease. The coach explains that the coachee s duty is to honor her/his word to the coach: meeting on time for the face-to-face sessions; sending Accountability s to the coach on time and with sufficient detail; and providing any follow-up information sought by the coach. The coach explains that if the coachee repeatedly demonstrates that s/he cannot honor her/his word to the coach, then the coach will terminate the coaching relationship. Assess. The coachee completes an assessment of her/his strengths in a particular domain (i.e., character virtues or leadership competencies). The coachee is provided a personalized and confidential report, indicating the coachee s self-identity toward the various virtues or competencies. Prior to the first session, the coachee is instructed to reflect upon the report and then determine which one virtue (or competency) s/he is excited and committed to strengthen. Challenge. The coachee and coach meet for the first face-to-face session (called the Strategy Session ), whose purpose is to faciliate the coachee in determining her/his strategy of practicing a targeted behavior. The duration of the coaching experience is short-term (i.e., five weeks for Character Coaching; nine weeks for Leaderhsip Coaching). The experience is structured, allowing for engagement between coach and coachee virtually every week. The coach utilizes a series of very intentional questions ( prompts ) to facilitate the coachee s: Rosebush, December 2013 Page 4

5 Decision of which specific virtue or competency to strengthen. Reason for selecting that specific virtue or competency. Action that the coachee has targeted to practice. Awareness moment that will alert the coachee of the opportunity to enact the targeted behavior. The coach provides the coachee an overview of the five/nine week experience, then secures a commitment from the coachee to be on time and provide sufficient information when required. Support. During each of the five/nine weeks, the coachee is on the alert for the moment when the targeted behavior can be enacted. The hope is that the coachee, upon recognizing the moment, will enact the targeted behavior. To support the coachee in succeeding, the coach requires the coachee to send an Accountability during the weeks when they are not meeting in person. The Accountability describes the moments in which the coachee recognized the opportunity to enact the targeted behavior, and then provides a candid admission of whether the behavior was actually enacted. In accordance with Bandura s self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997), the presumption is that the more the coachee succeeds in enacting the targeted behavior, the more s/he becomes confident that it can be done in the future. Thus, new habits of thoughts and actions are occurring. Purposeful engagement. After the initial Strategy Session, there are two more face-to-face sessions: the Mid-Course Session and the Closure Session. The Mid-Course Session provides a review of how well the coachee s strategy is being implemented. If the coachee is having difficulty enacting the targeted behavior, then the coach facilitates a discussion to try to help the coachee determine the barriers that may be preventing success. In contrast, if the coachee is repeatedly demonstrating an ability to recognize the awareness moment and enact the targeted behavior, then the coach merely encourages the coachee to continue doing what has proven to be successful. The Closure Session allows the coachee to reflect upon what made the coaching experience successful (or not). The session concludes with encouragement for the coachee to continue to utilizing these developmental principles in the quest to develop as a Leader of Character. Outcomes. Upon conclusion of the coaching relationship, the coach assesses the coachee s ability to become aware of the need to take action, and the coachee s abilty to actually enact the targeted behavior. It is extraordinarily common to find that the coachee has indeed had multiple successes enacting the targeted behavior and is resultantly feeling much more confident in her/his identity toward the selected virtue or competency. In short, the expectation is that in a mere five or nine week period, the coachee will have demonstrated successful enacting of a targeted behavior that was previously vexing to do. It is not unusual for the coachee to develop stronger self-esteem as a result of this intentional coaching experience. Conclusion If indeed the Conceptual Framework is an excellent model for developing Leaders of Character, and if the Gold Standard principles of professional coaching are credible, then why would anyone anticipate anything other than success in implementing Mosaic Coaching? In reality, Mosaic Coaching produces what one would expect: coachees develop more selfawareness and new habits of thoughts and actions, while increasing their identity toward the Air Force s prized virtues and leadership competencies. Rosebush, December 2013 Page 5

6 Works Cited Avolio, B., & Gardner, W. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly(16), Avolio, B. (2005). Leadership development in balance. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bass, B. (1996). New paradigm leadership: An inquiry into transformational leadership. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Center for Character and Leadership Development. (2011). Developing leaders of character at the United States Air Force Academy: A conceptual framewwork. United States Air Force Academy: Center for Character and Leadership Development. Center for Character and Leadership Development (2013a). The Character Coaching Manual. United States Air Force Academy, CO: Center for Character and Leadership Development. Center for Character and Leadership Development (2013b). The Leadership Coaching Manual. Unites States Air Force Academy: Center for Character and Leadership Development. Diedrich, R. (1996). An iterative approach to executive coaching. Counseling Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, Douglas, C., & McCauley, C. (1999). Formal developmental relationships: A survey of organizational practices. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10, Ellinger, A., & Bostrom, R. (1999). Managerial coaching behaviors in learning organizations. Journal of Management Development, 18, Erhard, W., Jensen, M., & Zaffron, S. (2010, NOM Working Paper). Integrity: A positive model that incorporates the normative phenomena of morality, ethics and legality. Harvard Business School, No Feldman, D. (2001). Career coaching: What HR professionals and managers need to know. Human Resources Planning(53), Feldman, D., & Lankau, M. (2005). Executive coaching: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 31(6), Frankovelgia, C., & Riddle, D. (2010). Leadership Coaching. In E. M. Van Velsor, The center for creative leadership handbook of leadership development (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hall, D., Otazo, K., & Hollenbeck, G. (1999). Behind closed doors: What really happens in executive coaching. Organizational Dynamics, 27, Hargrove, W. (2008). Masterful coaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. International Coaching Federation (2012). Global Coaching Study. Retrieved from Johnson, M. (2013). Character Coaching at the U.S. Air Force Academy: A mixed methods study. Denver: University of Denver. Kampa-Kokesch, S., & Anderson, M. (2001). Executive coaching: A comprehensive review of the literature. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 205. Kilburg, R. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding and definition of executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research(48), Kirkpatrick, D. (1996). Great ideas revisited: Revisiting Kirkpatrick's four-level model. Training and Development(50), Rosebush, December 2013 Page 6

7 Kram, K. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. McCauley, C., & Van Velsor, E. (2004). Handbook of leadership development, 2nd Ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Moen, F. (2010). Coaching and performance psychology. Norway: Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Moen, F., & Federici, R. (2011). Perceptions of coach competence and perceived need satisfaction: Assessing a Norwegian coach competance scale. The International Journal of Coaching in Organizations., 8(4), Mukherjee, S. (2012). Does coaching transform coaches? A case study of internal coaching. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 10(2), Palmer, B. (2003). Maximizing value from executive coaching. Strategic HR Review, 2, Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York: Oxford University Press. Rest, J. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Sperry, L. (1993). Working with executives: Consulting, counseling, and coaching. Individual Psychology, 49(2), Ting, S., & Scisco, P. (2006). The CCL Handbook of Coaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tobias, L. (1996). Coaching executives. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, Whitmore, J. (1996). Coaching for performance: The new edition of the practical guide. London: Nicholsa Brealey. Rosebush, December 2013 Page 7