EMCC Conference Initial Thoughts

March 26, 2008

I’ve just returned from the EMCC (European Mentoring & Coaching Council) at Ashridge. It was a great learning opportunity. Instant highlights for me included; ‘Creativity in coaching supervision by Alison Hodge, ‘Coaching with the brain in mind’ by David Rock and ‘Virtual Coach/Virtual Mentor by Zulfi Hussain & David Clutterbuck.

I’m just in the process of trying to work up a research proposal for my MA (Coaching & Mentoring) and want to focus on the latter area. It seems to me that there is so much scope now for virtual & remote coaching as part of a rich multi-media approach (that includes social networking). It appears that there is limited empirical research that has been done in this area & I’d really like to make a difference.

My challenge now is to decide;where should I focus, how can I narrow this down & what can I refer to in my lit review?

Any thoughts would be welcome

I’ll share more detailed thoughts re the conference once I’ve had a chance to reflect (as always!) 


EMCC Conference

March 20, 2008

I’m looking forward to attending this conference next week. The trouble is how do I decide which sessions to attend. I will share my thoughts after I’ve attended.


Self efficacy & coaching (part 2)

March 16, 2008

If self efficacy is accepted as a valid concept, here are some ideas & considerations of how it could influence our coaching practice;  

  • Focus on building specific self efficacy perceptions rather than outcome expectations
  • Influence the building of high self-efficacy by   providing feedback on coachees capabilities and performance (including challenge),
  • Give and encourage the coachee to consider positive vicarious experiences,
  • Give coachees feedback and encourage them to value others feedback regarding their capabilities
  • Encourage learners to reflect & judge their own ability in the task at hand (including physiological factors)
  • Encourage self-observation of specific behaviour, self-judgement of progress towards a specific goal and self-reaction of evaluative judgements of performance
  • Discuss self-efficacy with the coachee
  • Consider how coachees self efficacy beliefs may affect the goals that they set for themselves
  • Consider using anchoring as a technique to increase expectancy of specific task performance
  • Encourage the coachee to set themselves (culturally appropriate) challenging goals
  • Combine goals & feedback for optimal performance
  • Help coachees identify areas in which they are dissatisfied with their performance and also have a high self efficacy for optimal effort towards chosen goals
  • Support coachees in breaking down tasks into sub-goals, encourage them to monitor their own performance and give feedback to enhance performance
  • Consider how personal evaluative standards and self efficacy can synthesize in order to increase intrinsic interest in meeting goals
  • During assessment with a coachee use specific measures to determine benchmarks
  • When agreeing goals or discussing change or performance use specific & detail focussed questions
  • Listen for statements made by the coachee that would indicate high or low self-efficacy perceptions and construct questions designed to increase self-efficacy.   
  • Encourage coachees to understand how failure can affect perceived self efficacy in order that future negative repercussions on performance can be combated
  • Ensure the coachee has a specific understanding of the task/goal
  • Suggest exploring additional development options in areas that may increase self efficacy (e.g. technology, complexity)
  • Consider levels of optimal perceived self efficacy differences that may exist in an individualist or collective culture.
  • Consider the influences of collective self efficacy in collective cultures

Self efficacy & coaching

January 10, 2008

 I’ve been thinking about self-efficacy & it’s links with coaching. Thought I’d share an extract of my thoughts to date………….

Self Efficacy is defined (Bandura 1997 p.3) as “belief in one’s capabilities to organise and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” It is concerned then with judgements about personal capability in a specific domain & individual expectation about capability for performance in future situations. Self-efficacy therefore can determine “how people feel, think, behave and motivate themselves” (Cox 2006) seemingly a powerful concept with a plethora of evidence based research to support its claims.

Collective efficacy defined as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organise and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment” (Bandura 1997 p 477) perhaps has more relevance & impact when applied in collective cultures such as India, Indonesia or China (Klassen 2004) or in the changing web 2.0 western world.

Self esteem differs in that it refers to a global & perhaps abstract evaluation of personal worth rather than a specific judgement of what one can do. It is recognised that people will have different self-efficacy beliefs in different situations that may not affect their overall sense of self-esteem (Pervin, Cervone & John 2005)

Bandura (1997) identifies four behavioural mechanisms that are influenced by self efficacy perceptions; Commitment to challenging tasks, persistence with efforts, staying calm during task performance and organising thoughts in an analytical manner. People with a high perceived self-efficacy therefore are more likely to display these characteristics and achieve greater levels of success than those who have a low perceived self-efficacy and may; fail to attempt difficult tasks, give up in adverse conditions, become anxious and unable to think clearly.  

There is a large amount of diverse research that strongly supports a relationship between measures of perceived self-efficacy and performance. If this is to be accepted it’s application to coaching & mentoring as well as many other areas is significant. If the coach for example can support the coachee in increasing their perceived self-efficacy in the following influential areas (Bandura 1997) then their performance will improve.

  • Provide feedback on learners own capabilities (enactive mastery experiences)

  • Provide comparative information about the attainment of others (vicarious experiences)

  • Tell learners what others believe them capable of achieving (verbal persuasion)

  • Learners judge their own ability to engage in the task at hand (physiological states)

  Locke & Latham (2002) believe that peoples task goals may differ. Expectancy of performance & importance of outcome influence goal setting and variables include level of difficulty, proximity of goal, and type of goal being set. They conclude as Bandura, that people with higher perceptions of self-efficacy will often set higher goals and remain more committed to them. Law, et al (2007) describe goal setting as a western preoccupation and report that even in European studies where coaches work in coaching relationships without clear goals, coachees have evidenced no negative outcomes. In addition in a changing world where more emphasis is being placed on informal learning, collaborative learning (web 2.0) and emergent learning, coaching may become less constrained by goals especially detailed sub-goals.

As well as being a western conceived concept, much of the research regarding self-efficacy has been completed in the western world. Klassen (2004) reviewed 20 studies and focussed on whether self-efficacy beliefs appeared to be influenced by the cultural dimensions of collectivism and individualism. Features in individualist cultures such as US, GB & Australia included; emphasis on ‘I’, independence & initiative and collective cultures such as India, China & Indonesia as emphasizing ‘we’, collective identity & group solidarity. Results of his review included;

  • Efficacy beliefs operate differently in western vs. non-western cultures

  • Self-efficacy beliefs are typically higher in western participants & individualist cultures

  • People from collectivist cultures typically rate self-efficacy lower than Individualist cultures even when performance levels are equivalent or higher.

  • Lower self efficacy in some groups does not signify a lower level of performance or functioning

  • Realistic – as opposed to optimistic efficacy beliefs do not necessarily predict poor performance for all cultural groups

 Klassen (2004) concludes that although rated differently efficacy beliefs remain important factors in the motivational functioning of individualist and collectivistcultural groups. Klassen’s (2004) review has significant relevance to the application of self-efficacy when working cross culturally. (Bandura 1995 p.13) suggests that a level of optimistic efficacy correlate with optimal functioning. However lower self-efficacy and selection of realistic goals by individuals in collective cultures, for example, does not mean that performance or persistence will be necessarily negatively affected. When applying this to coaching, it would be important that the coach’s approach is congruent with the culture and each individuals perception of self within that culture.These concepts may not only be applicable cross countries but also in our own practice in the UK. We are living in a multi-cultural society where cultural values and diversity add to the richness of our society. In addition organisational culture in the UK varies across the spectrum of collectivism and Individualism. The impact of web 2.0, social networking and collaborative sharing & creation of content is having and will continue to have an impact on the way in which we work, interact, perform and work towards goals at work. This revolution has the potential to change the individualistic focussed culture to a more collective one. This therefore could in time put more emphasis on collective efficacy and contradict Bandura’s optimistic goals perspective.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman

Cox, E. (2006). An adult learning approach to coaching. In Evidence Based Coaching Handbook. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc

Klassen, R. M. (2004). Optimism and Realism: A review of self efficacy from a cross cultural perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 39 (3), 205-230.

Law, H. C., Ireland, S & Hussain, Z. (2007). The Psychology of Coaching, Mentoring and Learning. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002) Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35 year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717

Pervin, L. A., Cervone, D. & John, O.J. (2005) Personality: Theory and Research. Ninth Edition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.


Culture, compliance and coaching approaches

September 30, 2007

I’m thinking about how organisations seek to achieve compliance of behaviour that is linked to their culture & values and how different approaches & to coaching & mentoring either enhance or conflict with the culture.

This is hurting my head at the moment, any ideas very welcome.


Coaching at work conference

July 30, 2007

CIPD’s annual coaching at work conference is due to take place on 17th-18th October in London. Speakers include;

  • David Megginson
  • Carol Gaskell
  • Peter Hawkins
  • David Rock
  • John Leary-Joyce
  • David Clutterbuck.

Case studies include;

  • NHS
  • Aviva
  • Logica CMG
  • Cadbury Schweppes
  • Zurich Financial Services

  • EMCC 14th Conference

    July 5, 2007

    The EMCC 14th Conference is taking place in Sweden on 11th-13th October 2007.

    Sessions include;

    On-line coaching to aid retention

    Measuring and maximising the ROI of executive coaching

    Coaching men & women-does gender make a difference

    Coaching to accelerate learning in complex environments

    Speakers include; David Clutterbuck, Jenny Rogers, Erik de Haan, Bob Garvey and David Megginson.


    Develop the Developer 2007

    May 21, 2007

    Here’s an opportunity for everyone who is involved in developing others to take part in a valuable on-line survey.

    “A lot of research has gone into looking at the skills people need to fulfil occupational roles. Little has been done to explore the skills required for people who develop others but are not in the role of teacher or trainer. Even the role of trainer and coach has changed dramatically.

    Developing the developers is a project with an aim of researching the current and future needs of people developers. As the business world progresses so does the role of people developers. At one time this was the remit of the HR or training team. Now with an increasing pace within the world of business, most of us have some responsibility for the development of others. But do we have the necessary skills? What skills do we need and where can we get them?

    This project sets out to answer these questions. So if you manage, mentor, coach, train teach, educate or develop people in any way we want to know how you develop these skills and most importantly how you learn new skills, just when you need them”

    http://www.developthedeveloper.com/index.htm


    EMCC Coach Mentoring Standards

    April 19, 2007

    EMCC’s Coach Mentoring standards can be downloaded here.

    “The growth and development of coaching and mentoring in Europe is dynamic and evolving and these standards provide the start point. The standards are operating inthe UK and are now being piloted across Europe.The competence framework and competence standards element of these standards are part of a two year consultation process in the UK during which time feedback will be welcomed and invited from all coach mentoring organisations, purchasers of coaching and mentoring services, developers of coach mentoring programmes and individuals practising coaching and mentoring. A similar two year consultation process is due to start in Europe.”

    http://www.mentfor.co.uk/downloads/articles/748/EMCC_UK_Consultation_Standards_pack_130307.pdf