As discussed last week, it is impossible not to communicate – if that is the case, do we treat it with the respect and trepidation that it deserves?! As a CEO, effective communication is one of your finest tools in your armoury – so how can you use it to your very best advantage?
When was the last time that you looked/read your own communications or announcements, as if you were the recipient?
Have a quick look at a sample of your last week’s output , and what does it ‘say ‘ to you – does the style reflect your personality, what did it say about your mood that day, what assumptions had you made when writing it? Do there seem to be any hidden agendas in there? What message are you conveying? Is it written by you, or your PA?
Writing is such a powerful medium, it is invaluable to not only think about the content, but the style, format, length, and choice of media that is appropriate for the communication. When people receive your communication, their brain will be full of literally millions of transactions. Give them the best chance to get the message as you want. Firstly, give them the simple facts to be able to understand the message clearly. Make sure that your assumptions about their knowledge on the topics is correct.- spell it out if you are not sure. If you want their attention, appeal to their senses (remember last week?). Use appropriate language and style in order to demonstrate your passion or feelings around the message. If it is a message from you, use words, and phrases that are clearly yours.
How often do you send an email or text, rather than picking up the phone, or actually visiting someone?
CEO’s always have the need for 26 or more hours a day, so emailing is often a very efficient means of working. However, do you ask yourself if this is the right medium for that communication? How would it come across if you used voice, or eye to eye contact to enhance your communication? In the long run, we can often save hours of debate and nip issues in the bud, by simply meeting with someone, eye to eye, or picking up the phone.
Additionally, be honest, how much of your choice of medium is due to wanting to convey a message and not listen to a response? Be careful that you are not hiding an issue that will just get bigger in time.
What are they telling you – without telling you?!
Humans are amazing creatures in that we communicate with many parts of our body other than our voice. Eye movement, eye contact, body posture, gestures, body movement – all of these are ways to communicate without even opening your mouth. Just sitting in a pub, watching other people, you can quickly see whom is interested in whom, without overhearing the conversation – all through body language. In meetings, how often have your heard ‘Yes’ but you know that means ‘Maybe’ or ‘No’? Our subconscious mind will pick up those unheard communications – and it is up to you to do something with that information. Act on that knowledge, your intuition; it can be invaluable in telling you something that has not been ‘said’.
Communication is two-way
Being the CEO means that you are a Leader. However, that does not mean that you have to come up with all the answers. Listening to those around you; Clients, Suppliers, Colleagues, and Competitors provides you with a wealth of useful information. Why not give yourself permission to sit and listen at various times of the day, rather than doing the talking,– and you will be rewarded by a mass of hidden communication and information.
‘When to start and when…’
Mozart communicated his passion of life through music, but was clearly aware of the importance of all forms of communications. A quote from the master himself ‘To talk well and eloquently is a very great art, but an equally great one is to know the right moment to stop.’,
Until next week.
Kate Tojeiro is an Executive Performance Coach at www.the-x-fusion.co.uk
Monday, 16 July 2007
2 small questions, 1 BIG difference ...
Two simple words can lead to a wealth of information about your leadership style and those around you. Two little questions that you are asked as a leader, on a daily basis – probably hundreds of times. By simply noticing who within your organisation answers these questions, will enrich you with some very useful information.
Let’s start with WHAT?
‘What direction are we going?’ ‘What is the key aim of the organisation?’ ‘What is the most important priority?’ Using the WHAT word, is a cry for clarity and direction. Those that answer the WHAT questions will be tend to be the one(s) driving the direction, clarifying the position of the organisation, communicating the goals and priorities of the organisation – the leader(s), in simple terms. The answers will come from people who have clearly got the picture, who know what is to happen, to be expected and have thought through the purpose of the organisation. The more clarity and consistency that there is in the answer to this question, the greater the vision will be in the minds of those around you.
As an graphic example, Let me remind you of the beginning of the Epic Film, Gladiator, in which General Maximus shouts ‘Unleash Hell’ (there is the WHAT) – there is no question as to what is to happen next, and who is taking command and leading!
So within your organisation, who answers most of the WHAT questions in the top team? Is it you? Is it a combination of people? How does this analysis compare with their responsibilities – ie: who is leading the organisation?
Second question – HOW?
‘How do we get there?’ ‘How do we do this?’ ‘How long will it take?’ ‘How can we tell them?’ Here lies a completely different style of question, and different knowledge base in answering it. In answering the HOW question, people start to think through the challenge, to own it, and take on some personal involvement.
It is quite normal to expect considerable debate around HOW, as there are often several ways of doing things to get to the same point. As they say, there are several ways to skin a cat. The more debate – the more ownership, in its simplest form. Conversely, if this question is answered for them, people will simply ‘do the task’, and not feel the need to take responsibility for it. It can disable creativity and the drive to accomplish, if they have simply been given the answer to HOW.
So – as a leader, how often do you answer the HOW? And how often do you leave it to your team? Being passionate about a goal makes it extraordinarily difficult not to answer the HOW questions, but is it really your role as a leader to do so? Are you giving the teams the opportunity to tackle, own and enjoy a challenge – to ensure success of the ‘WHAT’, or are you supplying too much of the HOW?
Many Senior Leaders of the British Armed Forces have recently been through an education process to move away from ‘Command and Control’ style of leadership, as they recognised that often the troops on the ground had a much great idea of ‘HOW’ to do something. It was more important as Leaders to ensure that they had painted a clear vision of ‘WHAT’ was to be achieved, rather than answer ‘HOW’. Easier said than done for many, as that element of losing control was deemed a risk. But it was richly rewarded in innovation and personal ownership – ie the job got done quickly and more successfully in many cases.
Set yourself a goal at the next opportunity, to actively seek out when you answered HOW? and WHAT? Is this a normal pattern, is this appropriate in terms of your role, and aspiration of you and your teams? What about the other members of the team? What would happen if you did not supply an answer to either one? – try it out and see who takes on the gauntlet!
Until next week
Kate Tojeiro is an Executive Performance Coach at www.x-fusion.co.uk
Let’s start with WHAT?
‘What direction are we going?’ ‘What is the key aim of the organisation?’ ‘What is the most important priority?’ Using the WHAT word, is a cry for clarity and direction. Those that answer the WHAT questions will be tend to be the one(s) driving the direction, clarifying the position of the organisation, communicating the goals and priorities of the organisation – the leader(s), in simple terms. The answers will come from people who have clearly got the picture, who know what is to happen, to be expected and have thought through the purpose of the organisation. The more clarity and consistency that there is in the answer to this question, the greater the vision will be in the minds of those around you.
As an graphic example, Let me remind you of the beginning of the Epic Film, Gladiator, in which General Maximus shouts ‘Unleash Hell’ (there is the WHAT) – there is no question as to what is to happen next, and who is taking command and leading!
So within your organisation, who answers most of the WHAT questions in the top team? Is it you? Is it a combination of people? How does this analysis compare with their responsibilities – ie: who is leading the organisation?
Second question – HOW?
‘How do we get there?’ ‘How do we do this?’ ‘How long will it take?’ ‘How can we tell them?’ Here lies a completely different style of question, and different knowledge base in answering it. In answering the HOW question, people start to think through the challenge, to own it, and take on some personal involvement.
It is quite normal to expect considerable debate around HOW, as there are often several ways of doing things to get to the same point. As they say, there are several ways to skin a cat. The more debate – the more ownership, in its simplest form. Conversely, if this question is answered for them, people will simply ‘do the task’, and not feel the need to take responsibility for it. It can disable creativity and the drive to accomplish, if they have simply been given the answer to HOW.
So – as a leader, how often do you answer the HOW? And how often do you leave it to your team? Being passionate about a goal makes it extraordinarily difficult not to answer the HOW questions, but is it really your role as a leader to do so? Are you giving the teams the opportunity to tackle, own and enjoy a challenge – to ensure success of the ‘WHAT’, or are you supplying too much of the HOW?
Many Senior Leaders of the British Armed Forces have recently been through an education process to move away from ‘Command and Control’ style of leadership, as they recognised that often the troops on the ground had a much great idea of ‘HOW’ to do something. It was more important as Leaders to ensure that they had painted a clear vision of ‘WHAT’ was to be achieved, rather than answer ‘HOW’. Easier said than done for many, as that element of losing control was deemed a risk. But it was richly rewarded in innovation and personal ownership – ie the job got done quickly and more successfully in many cases.
Set yourself a goal at the next opportunity, to actively seek out when you answered HOW? and WHAT? Is this a normal pattern, is this appropriate in terms of your role, and aspiration of you and your teams? What about the other members of the team? What would happen if you did not supply an answer to either one? – try it out and see who takes on the gauntlet!
Until next week
Kate Tojeiro is an Executive Performance Coach at www.x-fusion.co.uk
Saturday, 14 July 2007
FT REPORT - UNDERSTANDING THE CULTURE OF COLLABORATION: Organisational behaviour
By Rod Newing, Financial Times
Published: Jun 29, 2007
Companies collaborate to achieve better results by exploiting skills and knowledge. But to make sure it works, companies need to recognise the different cultures of each organisation, writes Rod Newing
One of the reasons that organisations collaborate is that they are trying to benefit from their different skills, geographies, industries and resources. These are the very factors that drive corporate cultures, which will inevitably be different. For instance, one may be expert at people-based activities of product development or marketing, whilst the other might be highly-skilled in the resourcesbased activity of manufacturing or distribution. If a collaboration is to be effective, each party must recognise and respect the different culture of the other. It must be seen as a source of value and no attempts should be made to dominate or compromise the other party because it could damage the value of the partnership. "Different cultures are a good thing, because diversity drives innovation," says Roland Harwood, head of Connect at the National Endowment for Science, Technology & the Arts (Nesta). "If managed well, exposure to new ideas, new organisations and new disciplines stimulates more and better innovations. It should be encouraged, but you have to engineer and successfully manage the clash of cultures and the creative sparks that result from it." However, the benefits of collaboration are not reflected in traditional management development, which is based on giving potential managers a team of people and a set of resources to control and success is rewarded with more people and more resources to control. By contrast, collaboration requires managers to achieve success through people and resources outside their control and for this they have had no preparation.
"People's natural instinct is to work as individuals, so you have to create a culture of collaboration," says Angela Barron, adviser on organisation and resourcing at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). "Reward, career and talent management systems tend to recognise individual talents, rather than the capacity of the individual to share knowledge and collaborate." Ms Barron advises organisations to make sure that their HR systems and processes recognise the need for collaboration. That way they will send out the right messages about the behaviour that is to be rewarded. In a recent survey on political skills by the Chartered Management Institute, 58 per cent of respondents said that it is about building and managing alliances (only 31 per cent say it is about "protecting their turf") and 39 per cent said that reconciling differences was a critical skill. "There is recognition that building alliances is a really important skill and we need to be better," says Jo Causon, the Institute's director of marketing and corporate affairs. "Making partnerships work" is a Mori research report published in February 2007 on behalf of Socia, a partnership consultancy. Nearly nine out of ten respondents said that collaborative partnerships are either very important or essential to the success of their organisation. When managers were asked to identify the most important factors in building successful partnerships, 59 per cent said having a common purpose and shared objectives, 49 per cent cited good personal relationships, trust, openness and honesty and 29 per cent identified a good understanding and acceptance of each other's culture. "We do not train and develop our leaders to be able to collaborate," says Alex Cameron, director of Socia. "They have to share control and share power, which requires such key skills as influence, relationship-building and empathy. Consistently, respondents identified mutual understanding and cultural fit as being important to success in partnership, yet these are precisely the areas in which they would like more capability." Mr Cameron suggests putting young managers in situations during their development where their success depends on working with other parts of the organisation or with other organisations. He also suggests more coaching and mentoring.
Clearly, collaboration is all about identifying, communicating and achieving a common shared objective. "You have to have an open mind, but be very clear what your agenda is, what you want to achieve and why," says Ms Causon. "You must also understand what the potential partner wants and why. Then you can find areas where you might be able to work together with a common goal to your mutual benefit." When asked for their advice to others involved in partnering, 59 per cent of the Socia research respondents said the cornerstone of successful partnering is the development of a good understanding between partners. However, Lucy McGee, head of marketing at OPP, a business psychology consultancy, warns that the problems arise when the two organisations agree on the objective, but differ on how to get there. "Very often, conflict will come less from what you are trying to achieve and more from the way people approach the issue," she says. "Senior managers are sometimes the worst offenders, because they are the ones whose own style most impacts the culture." She points out that it is very important that they understand their own style, so they can recognise the differences and be willing to negotiate. They must approach collaborative ventures with a degree of openness and honesty and be prepared to trade.
"They have to accept that they have something to learn from each other and must do things in different ways," she says. "They must be more appreciative, less intolerant and strip away some of the personality 'noise' that gets in the way. Real innovation and creative spark comes from the managed friction of the two different approaches, from which they derive their competitive strengths." As part of this process, managers will want to split the risk and reward more or less equally. However, Mr Harwood points out that the parties may have different views on what constitutes risk or reward. A business might want to harness innovation from a university, for example, in order to minimise costs and maximise profits, whereas the university may be more interested in generating peer review articles.
Outsourcing is a collaborative relationship that has been largely successful for many years. Nigel Roxborough, research director of the National Outsourcing Association, advises rigorously adhering to a governance process. "It ensures that the key parts of the teams come together regularly and establish their objectives, discuss how they are doing in achieving them and take corrective action together," he says, "rather than dividing along party lines." Mr Cameron warns that many governance procedures measure lagging indicators, which means that they know when things have already gone wrong. He recommends measuring collaboration with forward-looking indicators of conflict and dysfunction that will warn that objectives will not be met. Some simple examples are reasons for missed deadlines, non-attendance at meetings and decisions overturned. "They are not hard to do and they get to the heart of the matter pretty quickly," he says. There are many organisational issues to be faced in creating a collaborative culture. However, David Price-Stephens, director in the human capital consulting practice at Deloitte, the professional services firm, warns that culture is very difficult to replicate and incredibly hard to change. "It is not just a matter of publishing a set of espoused values," he says.
"Desired collaborative behaviours must be properly defined, communicated effectively to people, demonstrated consistently by leaders and role models and reinforced and embedded by performance management arrangements." Kate Tojeiro, founder of Xfusion, an executive performance coaching firm, says that typical barriers to collaboration are turf battles, blame and finger pointing, inconsistent approaches to change, a lack of trust, resistance to change, a lack of accountability and even fatigue. "It is not enough for an employee just to read or hear about the change," she says, "they need to feel it. They must understand the importance of change and how it will be deeply rewarding for them." There is much to do to create a collaborative culture, but it starts at the top. "The development of our managers is lagging behind the need," concludes Mr Cameron. "The business schools haven't woken up enough to the need for collaborative leadership."
Published: Jun 29, 2007
Companies collaborate to achieve better results by exploiting skills and knowledge. But to make sure it works, companies need to recognise the different cultures of each organisation, writes Rod Newing
One of the reasons that organisations collaborate is that they are trying to benefit from their different skills, geographies, industries and resources. These are the very factors that drive corporate cultures, which will inevitably be different. For instance, one may be expert at people-based activities of product development or marketing, whilst the other might be highly-skilled in the resourcesbased activity of manufacturing or distribution. If a collaboration is to be effective, each party must recognise and respect the different culture of the other. It must be seen as a source of value and no attempts should be made to dominate or compromise the other party because it could damage the value of the partnership. "Different cultures are a good thing, because diversity drives innovation," says Roland Harwood, head of Connect at the National Endowment for Science, Technology & the Arts (Nesta). "If managed well, exposure to new ideas, new organisations and new disciplines stimulates more and better innovations. It should be encouraged, but you have to engineer and successfully manage the clash of cultures and the creative sparks that result from it." However, the benefits of collaboration are not reflected in traditional management development, which is based on giving potential managers a team of people and a set of resources to control and success is rewarded with more people and more resources to control. By contrast, collaboration requires managers to achieve success through people and resources outside their control and for this they have had no preparation.
"People's natural instinct is to work as individuals, so you have to create a culture of collaboration," says Angela Barron, adviser on organisation and resourcing at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). "Reward, career and talent management systems tend to recognise individual talents, rather than the capacity of the individual to share knowledge and collaborate." Ms Barron advises organisations to make sure that their HR systems and processes recognise the need for collaboration. That way they will send out the right messages about the behaviour that is to be rewarded. In a recent survey on political skills by the Chartered Management Institute, 58 per cent of respondents said that it is about building and managing alliances (only 31 per cent say it is about "protecting their turf") and 39 per cent said that reconciling differences was a critical skill. "There is recognition that building alliances is a really important skill and we need to be better," says Jo Causon, the Institute's director of marketing and corporate affairs. "Making partnerships work" is a Mori research report published in February 2007 on behalf of Socia, a partnership consultancy. Nearly nine out of ten respondents said that collaborative partnerships are either very important or essential to the success of their organisation. When managers were asked to identify the most important factors in building successful partnerships, 59 per cent said having a common purpose and shared objectives, 49 per cent cited good personal relationships, trust, openness and honesty and 29 per cent identified a good understanding and acceptance of each other's culture. "We do not train and develop our leaders to be able to collaborate," says Alex Cameron, director of Socia. "They have to share control and share power, which requires such key skills as influence, relationship-building and empathy. Consistently, respondents identified mutual understanding and cultural fit as being important to success in partnership, yet these are precisely the areas in which they would like more capability." Mr Cameron suggests putting young managers in situations during their development where their success depends on working with other parts of the organisation or with other organisations. He also suggests more coaching and mentoring.
Clearly, collaboration is all about identifying, communicating and achieving a common shared objective. "You have to have an open mind, but be very clear what your agenda is, what you want to achieve and why," says Ms Causon. "You must also understand what the potential partner wants and why. Then you can find areas where you might be able to work together with a common goal to your mutual benefit." When asked for their advice to others involved in partnering, 59 per cent of the Socia research respondents said the cornerstone of successful partnering is the development of a good understanding between partners. However, Lucy McGee, head of marketing at OPP, a business psychology consultancy, warns that the problems arise when the two organisations agree on the objective, but differ on how to get there. "Very often, conflict will come less from what you are trying to achieve and more from the way people approach the issue," she says. "Senior managers are sometimes the worst offenders, because they are the ones whose own style most impacts the culture." She points out that it is very important that they understand their own style, so they can recognise the differences and be willing to negotiate. They must approach collaborative ventures with a degree of openness and honesty and be prepared to trade.
"They have to accept that they have something to learn from each other and must do things in different ways," she says. "They must be more appreciative, less intolerant and strip away some of the personality 'noise' that gets in the way. Real innovation and creative spark comes from the managed friction of the two different approaches, from which they derive their competitive strengths." As part of this process, managers will want to split the risk and reward more or less equally. However, Mr Harwood points out that the parties may have different views on what constitutes risk or reward. A business might want to harness innovation from a university, for example, in order to minimise costs and maximise profits, whereas the university may be more interested in generating peer review articles.
Outsourcing is a collaborative relationship that has been largely successful for many years. Nigel Roxborough, research director of the National Outsourcing Association, advises rigorously adhering to a governance process. "It ensures that the key parts of the teams come together regularly and establish their objectives, discuss how they are doing in achieving them and take corrective action together," he says, "rather than dividing along party lines." Mr Cameron warns that many governance procedures measure lagging indicators, which means that they know when things have already gone wrong. He recommends measuring collaboration with forward-looking indicators of conflict and dysfunction that will warn that objectives will not be met. Some simple examples are reasons for missed deadlines, non-attendance at meetings and decisions overturned. "They are not hard to do and they get to the heart of the matter pretty quickly," he says. There are many organisational issues to be faced in creating a collaborative culture. However, David Price-Stephens, director in the human capital consulting practice at Deloitte, the professional services firm, warns that culture is very difficult to replicate and incredibly hard to change. "It is not just a matter of publishing a set of espoused values," he says.
"Desired collaborative behaviours must be properly defined, communicated effectively to people, demonstrated consistently by leaders and role models and reinforced and embedded by performance management arrangements." Kate Tojeiro, founder of Xfusion, an executive performance coaching firm, says that typical barriers to collaboration are turf battles, blame and finger pointing, inconsistent approaches to change, a lack of trust, resistance to change, a lack of accountability and even fatigue. "It is not enough for an employee just to read or hear about the change," she says, "they need to feel it. They must understand the importance of change and how it will be deeply rewarding for them." There is much to do to create a collaborative culture, but it starts at the top. "The development of our managers is lagging behind the need," concludes Mr Cameron. "The business schools haven't woken up enough to the need for collaborative leadership."
Friday, 6 July 2007
Business Performance Coaches
Steve Driver is MD of Spirit Circuits, a Hampshire-based manufacturer of printed circuit boards. Three years ago the company was in trouble. ‘There was no real harmony among the board of directors. They were going in different ways because there was no overall direction,’ he admits.
The situation was especially bleak as Driver had spearheaded a management buy-out of a division of his former company that he had, in turn, put into liquidation. Seven months later, ‘the new company had the old behaviour’ and was ‘haemorrhaging cash’.
It was Driver’s accountant who suggested he contact a business coaching organisation. He attended a presentation by Shirlaws and liked what he heard. He says: ‘When I put it to the board that I wanted to use a coach, it was deemed an unnecessary expense at a time when we were losing money. But I absolutely believed it was the way forward for the company. I am the MD and the major shareholder, so when I told the board what I wanted the answer had to be “yes”.
‘Two people objected, so they were removed before the company could go forward or else it would have been a dead programme.’
Mike Wheatley, CEO at Envisional, a Cambridge-based internet security specialist, also experienced a lukewarm response when announcing he wanted to introduce a performance consultant. ‘People are very cynical. They like to joke that bringing in a mentor is pink and fluffy,’ he says, noting that the mentor he used soon illuminated faults in the team. ‘We have got rid of people. That is not the object of this, it is a side effect.’
Leadership Styles
Kate Tojeiro established and runs the business coaching outfit Xfusion. Working with organisations of all sizes, she focuses on areas such as leadership styles and building effective communication techniques.
In practice, she says, this may mean going into an office one day a month to facilitate group and individual coaching sessions – perhaps using a business tool like psychometric testing or organising day trips – to understand whether the leaders in an organisation are geared towards the same goals.
For an MD or chief executive, the objectivity provided by a good consultant can be invaluable. Spirit Circuits’ Driver says that after bringing in a mentor, the board were forced to ask questions like:
Eventually, the company shifted its business model from concentrating purely on production to providing a good service.
According to Driver, there has been a 25 per cent growth in turnover and a 35 per cent uplift in profit. ‘We’ve gone from being a loss-making business to a very profitable one in the space of 18 months to two years,’ he says.
As for the length of time you use a mentor, Driver notes that after about a year of coaching he recently put a stop to it. ‘We were using it too much as a sounding board as opposed to a coach. It was turning into a management meeting and we weren’t yielding anything from it.’
That, however, isn’t the end of the sessions. ‘It’s more of a sabbatical,’ says Driver. ‘We’ll revisit it in six months and take it to another level.’
By Marc Barber
The situation was especially bleak as Driver had spearheaded a management buy-out of a division of his former company that he had, in turn, put into liquidation. Seven months later, ‘the new company had the old behaviour’ and was ‘haemorrhaging cash’.
It was Driver’s accountant who suggested he contact a business coaching organisation. He attended a presentation by Shirlaws and liked what he heard. He says: ‘When I put it to the board that I wanted to use a coach, it was deemed an unnecessary expense at a time when we were losing money. But I absolutely believed it was the way forward for the company. I am the MD and the major shareholder, so when I told the board what I wanted the answer had to be “yes”.
‘Two people objected, so they were removed before the company could go forward or else it would have been a dead programme.’
Mike Wheatley, CEO at Envisional, a Cambridge-based internet security specialist, also experienced a lukewarm response when announcing he wanted to introduce a performance consultant. ‘People are very cynical. They like to joke that bringing in a mentor is pink and fluffy,’ he says, noting that the mentor he used soon illuminated faults in the team. ‘We have got rid of people. That is not the object of this, it is a side effect.’
Leadership Styles
Kate Tojeiro established and runs the business coaching outfit Xfusion. Working with organisations of all sizes, she focuses on areas such as leadership styles and building effective communication techniques.
In practice, she says, this may mean going into an office one day a month to facilitate group and individual coaching sessions – perhaps using a business tool like psychometric testing or organising day trips – to understand whether the leaders in an organisation are geared towards the same goals.
For an MD or chief executive, the objectivity provided by a good consultant can be invaluable. Spirit Circuits’ Driver says that after bringing in a mentor, the board were forced to ask questions like:
- Who’s leading this company?
- Who’s giving direction?
- Who’s looking after finance?
- Who’s generating sales?
Eventually, the company shifted its business model from concentrating purely on production to providing a good service.
According to Driver, there has been a 25 per cent growth in turnover and a 35 per cent uplift in profit. ‘We’ve gone from being a loss-making business to a very profitable one in the space of 18 months to two years,’ he says.
As for the length of time you use a mentor, Driver notes that after about a year of coaching he recently put a stop to it. ‘We were using it too much as a sounding board as opposed to a coach. It was turning into a management meeting and we weren’t yielding anything from it.’
That, however, isn’t the end of the sessions. ‘It’s more of a sabbatical,’ says Driver. ‘We’ll revisit it in six months and take it to another level.’
By Marc Barber
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
