Leadership Coaching, Mentoring, Counselling or Supervision? One Way Is Not Enough [1 ed.] 1527554295, 9781527554290

Citation preview

Leadership Coaching, Mentoring, Counselling or Supervision? One Way Is Not Enough

Leadership Coaching, Mentoring, Counselling or Supervision? One Way Is Not Enough By

Eileen Piggot-Irvine and Karene Biggs

Leadership Coaching, Mentoring, Counselling or Supervision? One Way Is Not Enough By Eileen Piggot-Irvine and Karene Biggs This book first published 2020 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2020 by Eileen Piggot-Irvine and Karene Biggs All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-5429-5 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-5429-0

Graphics provided by Lucy Dyke, https://www.lucydykecreative.com/

With acknowledgement to wonderful colleagues in the supervision, mentoring, coaching and counselling fields: Agnes Hermans, Vicki Hirst and Janne Belton for early thinking critique and contribution. Special thanks to Lucy Dyke, an exceptionally talented young designer who has created the graphics for this book.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables and Figures ......................................................................... ix Chapter 1 .................................................................................................... 1 Introduction Chapter 2 .................................................................................................... 7 Generic Modalities and Models Modalities of supervision, coaching, mentoring and counselling ......... 7 Models defined ................................................................................... 13 Generic models of supervision ............................................................ 14 Merging models relevant to LIS ......................................................... 24 Chapter 3 .................................................................................................. 25 The LIS Model Action research (AR) .......................................................................... 26 LIS as a model of AR.......................................................................... 28 A model for LIS ................................................................................. 35 Underpinning features of the model.................................................... 45 Values ................................................................................................. 49 Advantages of LIS ............................................................................. 50 Evidence of effectiveness of LIS ........................................................ 50 Chapter 4 .................................................................................................. 55 Authentic Collaboration in LIS What is collaboration? Why authentic collaboration? ........................ 55 Non-defensive interactions ................................................................. 58 Chapter 5 .................................................................................................. 69 Keeping Yourself Safe in LIS Importance of contracting ................................................................... 69 What safety involves ........................................................................... 71 Transparent expectations .................................................................... 71 Ethics .................................................................................................. 76 Cultural responsibility......................................................................... 82 LIS for LIS facilitators ........................................................................ 84

viii

Table of Contents

Chapter 6 .................................................................................................. 86 Differing Contexts of LIS Differing contexts ............................................................................... 86 Education sector .................................................................................. 87 Public service ...................................................................................... 91 Not for Profit....................................................................................... 93 Health .................................................................................................. 97 Corporate ............................................................................................ 98 Chapter 7 ................................................................................................ 103 Evaluating Leadership One-to-one External Support What evaluation means: Rationale and purposes .............................. 104 Definitions and process ..................................................................... 106 Deciding who will conduct evaluation .............................................. 107 Establishing an evaluation framework: Categories, criteria, data sources and tools ......................................................................... 107 Determining the data collection tools for evidence gathering ........... 110 Reporting and making recommendations from the evaluation ......... 119 A broader evaluation of LIS ............................................................. 120 References .............................................................................................. 122 Index ....................................................................................................... 131

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Tables Table 1: Focus areas for different modalities – supervision, coaching, mentoring and counselling.......................................................................... 9 Table 2: Functions and Tasks of Supervision shown in the Supervisory Alliance Model ........................................................................................ 20 Table 3: Shared activities of LIS .............................................................. 30 Table 4: Functions of LIS in the relationship with leaders ....................... 34 Table 5: An example of how the functions of LIS are utilised ................ 35 Table 6: Examples of possible issues to discuss in LIS ............................ 41 Table 7: The role of supervision in relation to leader’s well-being .......... 52 Table 8: Levels of Collaborative Challenge ............................................. 57 Table 9: Becoming Productive – Advocacy and Inquiry in Dialogue ...... 62 Table 10: Dialogue Steps.......................................................................... 64 Table 11: LIS content summary ............................................................... 73 Table 12: Contract content ....................................................................... 73 Table 13: Example LIS facilitator-leader contract.................................... 74 Table 14: LIS Code of Ethics ................................................................... 78 Table 15: LIS Evaluation Framework .................................................... 109 Table 16: Feedback form for LIS ........................................................... 111 Table 17: Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) ............................................... 116

Figures Figure 1: Van Ooijen’s ‘Double Helix Model’ (2003) ............................ 19 Figure 2: The Double Matrix Model ........................................................ 22 Figure 3: Page and Wosket’s Cyclical Model .......................................... 23 Figure 4: Proctor’s (1986) functions adapted to LIS ................................ 31 Figure 5: LIS model ................................................................................. 38 Figure 6: Ladder of Inference ................................................................... 66 Figure 7: Single and Double-Loop Learning ............................................ 67

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

The leadership coaching, mentoring and supervision sphere is densely populated with books proposing different models and methodologies drawn from diverse fields. Each of these fields has its own language, and the authors are often strong proponents of their particular field to the exclusion of others. In work providing one-to-one support with multiple leaders, we have found some aspects of each of these fields to be useful. However, when the authors seem to be zealously advocating their approach as ‘the right way’ the potential value is substantially diminished. In our experience, there is never one right way to support leaders in this type of activity. For example, no standardised set of reflective coaching questions has been sufficient to deal with the complexity of issues that varied leaders bring to our meetings: no single model has had enough flexibility to be responsive enough to meet our own or our client needs. For these reasons, we have struggled to find a suitable name for the approach that we have been adopting, and the title of this book reflects that struggle. ‘Leadership Coaching, Mentoring, Counselling or Supervision? One Way is Not Enough’ was the closest we could come to describing this struggle. The purpose of this book is to share a much less rigid, contextually flexible way of thinking about one-to-one support for leaders. We have previously, often inaccurately, described what we do as supervision or coaching but we have always known it did not strongly conform to any of those roles and some clients have not hesitated to tell us this! The thinking and its practices do not fit under any of the popularised approaches. They do, however, have roots in an action research (AR) oriented philosophy to the extent that we have adopted the term Leadership Inquiry Support (LIS), and an attendant model, to describe what we are doing. The introduction of LIS into our role in one-to-one support has not been something we have actively promoted, but it has created such a distinction in practice that many of our supervisor, mentor and coach colleagues, and

2

Chapter 1

leadership clients, have urged us to write about what we think is distinctive about what we are doing. We hope this book will make that clear in a way which will be useful to those wishing to explore a more multi-faceted approach. We also hope that the elaboration of the approach will trigger debate and challenge with others who are expert supervisors, mentors and coaches. Such dialogue generates new learning. Before outlining the content of this book, we offer a brief background to our professional journeys in both one-to-one leadership support and action research. We think this background is important as a preface to later sections of the book which show the way these two areas have collided in our practice. Eileen: I started my career in teaching biological sciences and was deeply immersed in scientific principles and research approaches. Like most teachers in Higher Education, I was shipped off to a course on how to teach adult learners using the principles of ‘andragogy’ rather than child centred learning or ‘pedagogy’ as it is frequently named. My fascination with the course was not with the content, but instead, on the way, the course facilitators were running the course and engaging us as learners! The latter has become a feature of my whole career; it seems because I am still absorbed in the unpacking process about how we best learn more than I am about content! That aside, this fascination led to my appointment as a director of a professional development centre that ran programs for teachers of adults. The role plunged me into the world of leadership and subsequently, the development of leaders. I increasingly became aware in this work that the role of a facilitator telling others what to do in their leadership was substantially ineffective. My increasing discomfort with the traditional ‘instructor’ ways of teaching leadership led me into the field of AR: a field which strongly proposes a more ‘experiential’ and ‘autonomous’ approach to growth, development and learning. In AR, what attracted me was a push for practitioners to collect evidence around their practice so that they could improve. Self-directness, selfawareness, and self-responsibility are valued, but so is the importance of dialoguing with others to challenge and critique self-perceptions. In AR, both research (evidence gathering) and action (improvement) is critical. The appeal of AR was so great that I have spent almost twenty years promoting it, writing about it in multiple books and articles, and developing hundreds of people in its use. The principles I have outlined for AR, in fact, underpin almost every facet of my work and life, whether in teaching,

Introduction

3

leading, developing systems and models, researching, evaluating, or consultancy work. Although I am now a professor of leadership, it is vital for me to have credibility and to keep my feet on the ground in my work. For this reason, I have deliberately retained a proportion of my work with oneto-one support for real leaders outside academia, and the approach adopted for this support is LIS. I am not suggesting that the LIS based approach is a ‘gold standard’ or should replace supervision or coaching. What I am saying is that what we do is somewhat different and it works for us and has worked for many of the leaders I have as clients because I receive about twice as many requests for this work as I can handle. Karene: I have moved through middle and senior leadership positions throughout New Zealand before becoming a Principal in a Secondary School. During this time, I became aware of the lack of training and support for middle and senior leaders. Subject experts usually gain leadership positions in education. Understanding the complex role of leadership, rather than merely becoming good managers is often left to chance, and individuals must develop these skills for themselves. I was introduced to AR during my Master’s degree study. AR fitted well with my interest in looking at data and in evidence-based development. I was particularly interested in finding out from non-leadership staff what their experience was and how that matched with their success or otherwise. AR completely changed my way of working with staff and leaders. The AR approach provides a robust framework for leadership inquiry, as it grounds all inquiry in action and reflection rather than the ad hoc approach many leaders take presently. In my work with leaders, I have previously provided time and the opportunity to connect and work collaboratively. With experience as a senior leader, I have become aware that this was not sufficient and that I needed to look for ways to provide 1:1 support for leadership inquiry and support and I believe LIS provides this. In the often-lonely position of a leader, the support that LIS provides in developing leaders has a ripple effect throughout the organisation as lessons learned filter to all levels of the organisation. This book outlines the LIS approach.

4

Chapter 1

In Chapter 2 we begin by exploring concepts associated with the most common, generic modalities of the one-to-one external support usually offered to organisations, i.e. supervision, coaching, mentoring and counselling, as understood and practised, where possible, within the leadership context. Following the outline of modalities, we then background previous models which have been particularly associated with supervision: models that have influenced our thinking about the LIS model introduced in this book. Chapter 3 focuses on the LIS model, exploring its distinctiveness and application in practice. It outlines how our increasing experience of overlaps between the modalities led to a conclusion that crisp distinctions can be over-prescriptive and simplistic. As an example, supervision could gain much from the more goal focused and questioning oriented coaching approach, and coaching could be enhanced by the stronger expert or informed input from mentoring, plus sometimes the broader professional and personal orientation (often with more in-depth use of counselling skills) that supervision offers. In varying contexts, it could be possible to incorporate all four modalities within one session with leaders. Further, the employment of a stronger developmental approach to supporting sustained improvement with leaders is needed. Such thinking has led us to develop this new LIS model, which is more responsive, inclusive of different modalities, and developmentally oriented. The LIS model, its AR underpinnings, functions and application are discussed in Chapter 3.

LIS offers a piece to enhance other modalities

Chapter 4 focuses on how to create authentic collaboration in LIS. We consider that establishing such collaboration is critical to the implementation of the model. The notions of recognising and overcoming defensive routines

Introduction

5

are discussed first, followed by an extensive elaboration of how to establish non-defensive, productive, trust engendering collaboration. Case study conversations are employed to illustrate the skills required for such collaboration. In Chapter 5, we discuss keeping safe as an LIS facilitator, the leader supported, and their organisation. Just knowing the principles and process, and a model is insufficient for becoming an expert and safe LIS facilitator. The complexity of the role, its conflict potential, and the politics of the organisations it is conducted within, all contribute to contention. Because of the ever-present risk of contention in such fraught circumstances, it is vital that both the LIS facilitator, the leader, and their organisation have clarity and safety around boundaries, roles, and practice. This chapter covers issues such as how to establish transparency via contracting, and how to meet ethical standards. Cultural considerations taken into account in LIS are also discussed. The chapter concludes with the elaboration of maintaining safe practice via the use of meta-support for LIS facilitators themselves. Chapter 6 covers the differences and overlaps between sectors that employ the LIS type of support engaged in. The chapter begins with a brief discussion of different contexts as a notion, followed by an outline of the varied sectors. We then consider the sectors that we have experienced have the lowest and the highest employment of this support type activity – looking in particular at the education sector (lowest) and the corporate sector (highest). We emphasise that this is based upon our own experience and accept that these perceptions may be contested. Evaluation of LIS, and potentially other similar one-to-one modalities, is the focus in Chapter 7. Of all of the material in this book, we consider evaluation to be the least explored in other publications. Evaluation is designed to ensure that we are maintaining the standards and integrity (outlined in a code of conduct) alongside ‘measuring’ how well we meet the standards of effectiveness in practice. The meaning of evaluation is explored alongside discussion of how important this is for assuring the safety both for ourselves and the leaders with whom we work. Purposes, definitions and process are discussed as well as an elaboration of the process issues. Process issues include deciding who will conduct evaluations, establishing an evaluation framework (that includes categories, criteria, data sources and tools), determining the data collection tools for evidence gathering, and reporting and making recommendations from evaluations.

6

Chapter 1

Broader approaches to evaluating one-to-one support type activity are also examined. Overall, we have deliberately adopted a semi-academic style in exploring theory and the conceptual underpinnings in this book. The style underscores our commitment to showing evidence to verify the ideas we present. Just as importantly, we have tried to put that theory into a practice context to demonstrate application of the theory. Therefore, if your interest is first and foremost to get a feel for how LIS works and how it could be applied to your work situation, we suggest that you skim the contextualising sections and focus on the tables and case studies. Each of the anecdotes has been carefully selected to illustrate principles and theory. The writing of this book is strengthened with the input of several contributors to some of the chapters. We have acknowledged each in specific chapters but comment here about their contribution. All are experienced supervisors, mentors or coaches and have considerable reputations in their fields. We will always be grateful for the openness they showed because they do differ in several areas of their approach. Fundamentally however, regardless of the varied approaches they adopt compared to our own, they all work with the same principles of integrity about supporting leaders and their ethics promoted are of the highest level in this book.

CHAPTER 2 GENERIC MODALITIES AND MODELS

In this chapter, you will learn: ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥

Modalities of supervision, coaching, mentoring and counselling Models defined Generic models of supervision Merging models relevant to LIS

Introduction The complex nature of the modalities of one-to-one support has invariably led to not only a different definition but also varied models that link to such definition. This chapter begins with an overview of the modalities of supervision, coaching, mentoring and counselling. A definition follows of what a model is, as well as what models do and do not provide. Next, generic models associated with supervision are shown alongside their various stages, features and application. We consider that it is essential for a LIS facilitator to know about such models so that they have a rich repertoire of material to draw upon in the adopting and adapting process. The chapter ends with a discussion of how merging models are relevant to LIS itself.

Modalities of supervision, coaching, mentoring and counselling External (rather than from someone internal to the organisation) supervision, coaching, mentoring and counselling as modalities all had something to offer to the development of the LIS model and are therefore worthy of summary comparison. Each modality (summarised in Table 1, and loosely adapted from Inskipp & Proctor, 2001) has shared elements of listening skills, active reflection, clarifying and questioning. Coaching has a stronger focus on goal clarification and questioning, while mentoring is often associated with content expert knowledge. Supervision, mentoring and coaching all usually have a work or a career focus, and all have

8

Chapter 2

overlaps. For example, as Johnson, Skinner, and Kaslow (2014) have noted that: “effective clinical supervision naturally incorporates many elements of mentoring” (p.1073). Coaching can also sometimes have a personal focus, and counselling substantially has this focus but frequently at a more emotional level. The premise of a functioning adult with aspirations to learn and develop underpins all modalities. Although referring to supervision, relevant to all modalities is the following comment from Beddoe (2017) that: “it is a practice that is expected to model effective relationship building, the sensitive giving and receiving of feedback and the careful management of power and difference” (p.88).

Supervision

- Low power differential supports mutuality and collegiality - Relationship usually contracted for and reviewed from time to time - All information is confidential unless otherwise agreed

- Focus is the service provided by the supervisee to clients/staff/ organisation/community

- Promotion of learning about role, including some personal growth content

- Endpoint may be undetermined

- Support through supervisee’s developmental stages

- Instructs supervisee as relevant to specific issues brought to session

- Supports the supervisee to cope with the demands and stresses of role

- To have a safe, supportive, and learning environment to express anxieties and disclose their ‘not knowing’ about their work with another experienced professional

- Receive guidance and support to deal with role complexity

- Develops practice that is aligned to professional standards

- Works with a person who has a peopleintensive role

- Develop skills, gain new insights

- Challenges practice

- Demonstrates awareness of psychodynamic processes

Goal of the ‘learner’ - Reflect on practice experience with another person and learn from this

Role of Helper - Facilitates reflection on practice

Process - Uses counselling micro skills

Agenda

- General goals contracted between supervisor and supervisee on long term basis as well as sessional goals for focus of particular session

Table 1: Focus areas for different modalities – supervision, coaching, mentoring and counselling

Generic Modalities and Models 9

Coaching

10

- Endpoint of coaching is usually predetermined

- Focus is the realm of accomplishment

- All information is confidential unless otherwise agreed

- Acknowledges historical issues, but does not explore them in depth

- Explores values, vision and standards

- Focus on coachee finding own solutions

- Question and answer process

- Defined stages of coaching: goal/reality/explore options/and way forward

- Aim for improved performance and productivity

- Setting goals and forward action

- Inventing a future based on coachee’s own possibilities

Chapter 2

- Reflects pro-active behaviours and moving the coachee forward out of their feelings and into action

- Gives suggestions, advice, requests and challenges freely

- Reduces/ reframes barriers to maintain forward momentum

- Encourages coachee to stretch and provides support if coachee falters or gets out of their depth

- Skilful use of questions to identify goals, reduce barriers, select strategies and support action

- Gain support in overcoming barriers to success

- Clarification and achievement of personal or professional goals

- To achieve success

- Personal and professional performance

Mentoring

- Endpoint may be undetermined

- Career focus

- Inventing a future based on expertise and wisdom of mentor

- Chosen by mentor and ‘mentee’ and influenced by an ‘external’ such as a workplace or educational setting

- Facilitate the development of professional skills and competence

- All is confidential unless otherwise agreed

- Solves problems, sets goals and creates an action plan

- High power differential, mentor has higher level achievements

- Mentors have power and often can influence promotion

- Advice-giving and support for mentee in their work Receiving support in dealing with challenges and learning from a more experienced/knowledgeable colleague

- Is a role model

- Indirectly influences mentee’s promotability

- Instils professional/ organisational standards and norms

- Has a broad knowledge of power, organisational culture, structure, policies etc

Career development and advancement

11

- Has professional expertise

Generic Modalities and Models

Counselling

12

- Goal is to achieve level of wellbeing and effective personal functioning

- Focuses on past related feelings

- Deals with vague or specific dysfunction

- Focus on resolution of old wounds and issues

- All information is confidential unless otherwise agreed

- Client centred

- High power differential, therapists less selfdisclosing

- Rarely gives advice

- Explores resistance and negative transference

- Recognises strengths and weaknesses

- Assists client to recognise the potential destructiveness of their actions and feeling

- Investigates and clarifies values

- Crisis management - Healing of past wounds

- Listens and reflects

- Problem-solving

Chapter 2

- An expectation of a therapeutic relationship

- To resolve old wounds and be more emotionally healthy

- Personal progress in dealing with issues

Generic Modalities and Models

13

The following sections of this chapter begin with a definition of what a model is as well as what models do and do not provide. Next, generic models often associated with supervision particularly are shown alongside their various stages, features and application. Although supervision is focused explicitly upon, mostly because it is those models which have most significantly influenced the development of the LIS model discussed in this book, skills linked to coaching, mentoring and counselling are consciously drawn upon also in the LIS model.

Models defined The complex nature of supervision for one-to-one support and its application to an increasing range of disciplines has led to the development of a range of models to describe and delineate various stages and features. Before considering such models of relevance to the leadership context, it is essential to clarify what a model is. Proctor (2000) offered that models are essential for “ordering complex data and experience” (p.12). We would extend that to include that they also provide a guide to practice to enable us to clarify both how and why we conduct our practice. Models are useful as a loose structure, especially for those who are in the early stage of their role, as they consciously use them as maps to negotiate a way through the issues brought by the leader. However, as the support person develops in experience, they are likely to move out of conscious or tight adherence to this ‘map' or model and will skilfully integrate it with the other knowledge, experience, resources and competencies they bring to their role.

14

Chapter 2

Tight adherence to a map or model reduces with experience

Generic models of supervision Models of supervision abound, and classifications of models are also numerous and varied. Ely, Boyce, Nelson, Zaccaro, Hernez-Broome and Whyman (2010) summarised the process generally “… consists of three to seven phases and may include various assessment techniques and instruments” (p.587). Glamcevski (2007) suggested that early supervision models “…mirrored theories of counselling” (p.106) and, as such, were “counselling-bound” (p.106) and quite insular. As a result of this development from counselling roots, it is unsurprising the names of the models such as ‘supervision in relative-emotive therapy’ were based on counselling theories and in Glamcevski's view they provided few directions for practice. In subsequent years the realisation that counselling and supervision have several significant points of difference (as shown earlier in this chapter) has seen these models replaced with what the latter author described as ‘crosstheoretical models’.

Generic Modalities and Models

15

Despite the cross-theoretical shift, Kilminster and Jolly (2000) argued that most models “… tend to be narrative and philosophical with little or no empirical base … support an instrumental rather than a questioning approach” (p. 829). By instrumental, the authors are referring to a technical rather than an inquiring approach. Tudor (2002) questioned whether there is ONE model of supervision but instead considers there is a range of models. He classified models of supervision under the headings of: x Functions x Tasks x Differing theoretical approaches x Development x Roles x Supervisory relationship x Process and dynamics x Organisation of supervision x Context of supervision x Systems of supervision (Adapted from Tudor, 2002, p.39). Most of these categories fall under a slightly more abbreviated classification from Van Ooijen (2003) and it is this classification we have chosen as a framework for discussion of supervision models because it is relatively simple, albeit with limitations. Van Ooijen (2003) classified models into the four following categories: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Models of reflection; Psychological type models; Developmental models; and Focus-based supervision specific models.

In the first category, Van Ooijen included methods and tools to assist the process of reflection. We do not consider that these, grouped as ‘models of reflection’, are models as such. Instead, we view reflection as one of the fundamental processes occurring within a model, and we discuss reflection specifically later under the LIS model. Psychological type models fall into several categories, according to Van Ooijen, primarily derived from the characteristics of the supervisor and their preferred way of working. In commenting on these models, we will refer to various counselling theories. Many supervisors and coaches often consciously

16

Chapter 2

work using a favoured specific theoretical (and aligned strategy) approach or “approach-specific” (Van Ooijen, 2003, p.19) model. The specific theory could fall anywhere along the continuum of counselling theories from the relatively structured and tightly focused Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) theory through to a less directive, long-term, psychodynamic theory such as narrative therapy. This therapy is a form of psychotherapy using narrative where the focus is on the stories of people’s lives from which the meaning of their life might be derived. Van Ooijen noted that it is common for novice supervisors to replicate the ‘same theory’ approach to supervision in which they have trained. For example, a supervisor trained in CBT is likely to use this theory in supervision. Tudor (2002) outlined a transactional analysis (TA) model for supervision, which fits into the ‘approach-specific’ category. Tudor suggested that TA organising framework which has dynamic, interconnecting, elements of practice (task, process, operations), theory (contracts and TA scripts) and philosophy (principles of TA, method and motivation), with the practitioner/supervisee at the centre of these elements. In this model, the language (slogans), attitude, philosophy and methods (including establishing equal power relationships, whether bilateral or multilateral) of TA are employed. The T.A.P.E.S (C) model (Clarkson, 1992) for supervision is another which fits under the psychological type model categorisation because it is closely aligned to the TA field. The acronym is expanded as: T= A= P= E= S= C=

Theory, provision of theory alternatives if information is lacking Assessment, how to think about the situation Parallel process, finding out what is going on in the situation Ethics, exploring what should happen in the situation Strategies, intervention techniques guiding what to do about the situation Context, the overview of what is going on between the supervisor and supervisee.

The T.A.P.E.S (C) model might help a supervisor identify or categorise, or ‘band’, the key issues to work on in a supervision session. ‘Banding’ is then useful as a sorting tool, helping prioritise areas to be worked on in the session. The banding provides a useful tool for guiding the session, but the order of use of the bands does not necessarily need to follow the order of the acronym. Instead, they can be employed in any order or over several

Generic Modalities and Models

17

sessions. This is demonstrated in the following example of the way a leadership supervisor used the T.A.P.E.S(C) model in one session only. It also shows how the ‘bands’ might be employed over several sessions. Scenario: Mary is a team leader who is having problems accepting the feedback provided by some members of her staff in a recent external audit of the organisation. She brings the issue to her supervision session where she spends about 10 minutes talking about how stressful it has been to receive the feedback, how angry she is with some staff for being so negative, how difficult it is to be in her role and the impact of the role overload on her ability to lead well. After hearing all this from Mary, her leadership supervisor, Joe, starts exploring the issues from the ‘P’ (parallel process) band. Joe uses extensive probing, paraphrasing and open-ended questioning to explore whether Mary had ever had previous experience of receiving feedback from other people in different situations, and how she had responded to that. Mary's response to this line of enquiry revealed she had a pattern of defensiveness in response to feedback in a range of situations. In short, Mary had much difficulty accepting criticism. With this awareness, Joe gently took Mary through a deeper examination or assessment (‘A’ band) of the exact nature of her defensive response. In doing so, Joe helped Mary to identify what triggered her defensiveness and how it could be problematic for both her learning and relationships with staff, what she could do about it, and what could be some goals to improve in this area. Joe then explained an alternative theory of non-defensive response called productive reasoning, which encouraged Mary to investigate further information on the topic. This was the Theory, ‘T’, band that intentionally integrated new learning but not in a directive way. By using this process Joe sought to shift ownership for the learning to Mary but he provided overall guidance in doing so. By the time Joe got to this point in the session, he had noticed that Mary was quite thoughtful and reflective. He felt Mary had a lot to deal with and thought she might need some time to notice her defensive reactions and consider some of the alternative approaches he had suggested. Joe decided not to go on to explore specific Strategies for Intervention, ‘S’, at this stage. Instead, he thought he would wait until Mary had a chance to integrate more of the learning she had gained, so he suggested they

18

Chapter 2

check in on this issue again in their next session. At that time, Joe planned to negotiate some specific goals for Mary in order to widen her repertoire of non-defensive strategies. We did not find evidence of extensive use of the T.A.P.E.S model, although McKenna, Thom, Howard and Williams (2008) indicate that the model may be less utilised due to the high cost of training in the T.A.P.E.S model. Developmental type models of supervision have a learning or ‘educative’ intent. Van Ooijen (2003) and multiple other authors have shown that not only do supervisors shift in their application of models with experience (from novice through to expert as mentioned earlier), but also it is essential for the supervisor to match the developmental approach they employ to the level of experience of the supervisee. Hawkins and Shohet (2000) for example, stated that new supervisees tend to focus on the provision of content, what they did with their staff, as well as their anxiety about their performance. Later in the supervision process, this shifts to a stronger focus on the more sophisticated levels of critically evaluating what they did. This material requires sensitivity by the supervisor in knowing how to quickly ascertain the level of experience and then matching the level of supervision to that. In other words, the supervisor should be able to tailor the development effectively. For the supervisor to over or under-estimate the level of experience could result in the supervisee feeling shame (overestimating), embarrassment (under or over-estimating), a sense of being patronised (under-estimating), boredom (under-estimating) or other responses. Focus-based type models of supervision can also be sub-classified as: x the whole process of supervision - seeking to understand what supervision is about; x the tasks and functions of supervision - seeking to understand what supervision is for; x the process of supervision - seeking to understand how to ‘do’ supervision; and x the structure and process of supervision - combining the last two categories. Whole process supervision models cover all aspects of implementing supervision from the ‘structure’ (for example, the more technical, establishment stage of setting up a contract) through to the ‘process’

Generic Modalities and Models

19

(approaches/theories/strategies/micro skills used in the session) through to how to evaluate the ‘outcome’ of supervision. Van Ooijen’s (2003) Double Helix Model fits into this category. Figure 1 shows that each element of supervision has both a micro (private, internal world of the supervisee) and macro (public world – organisation, professional environment of the supervisee) helical strand. The strands regularly curl together (at transition points which show ‘cross-over’) and separate in an upward movement showing interaction and interdependence between the individual and the organisation. Each strand also has the three components of structure, process and outcome. The model also shows four concepts (space, time, movement, consciousness) that intercept with the helices to “indicate ongoing growth and development” (Van Ooijen, 2003, p.25). Figure 1: Van Ooijen’s ‘Double Helix Model’ (2003)

20

Chapter 2

Task and function models of supervision usually describe the three functions of supervision as described in the earlier modalities section of this chapter. Proctor’s ‘Supervisory Alliance Model’ (2000) nominated the three functions and designated associated tasks for supervision as shown in Table 2 (adapted to show the relevance to the leadership context). There are also overlaps in function with those in Carroll’s (1996) ‘Seven Tasks Model’. Table 2: Functions and Tasks of Supervision shown in the Supervisory Alliance Model (adapted from Van Ooijen, 2003) Function

Tasks

Restorative/supportive

To counsel To consult (to ensure the leader has sufficient motivation and satisfaction)

Formative/educative

To set up a learning relationship To teach (to ensure the leader has the required attitude, skills and knowledge for the role)

Normative/managerial (administrative)

To monitor administrative aspects (to ensure the leader has appropriate implementation of policy, procedures) To monitor professional ethical issues To evaluate

Kadushin (2002) noted that the supportive function is associated with emotional needs: the formative and normative functions serve instrumental needs and all three overlap. Given that we have discussed ‘functions’ of supervision earlier in Chapter 2, we refer you back to that section for detail. Process models of supervision seek to understand how we ‘do’ supervision. Hawkins and Shohet’s (2000) ‘Double Matrix' model (which is elaborated further in the ‘Seven-Eyed’ model) shown in Figure 2 falls into this category. This model has two matrices – a therapy matrix (in leadership supervision this is the focus on the supervisee and their interactions with

Generic Modalities and Models

21

staff and organisation context) and a supervision matrix (which is the focus on supervisor-supervisee, supervision context, interactions), each of which has the three modes (or ‘eyes’). The therapy matrix modes are: x Reflection on the content of the session (focus on supervisee and what they present) x Exploration of strategies and interventions used by the supervisee; and x Exploration of the supervisee processes and relationships. The supervision matrix modes are: x Focus on the supervisee’s counter-transference; x Focus on the supervisory relationship as a parallel of the supervisee’s organisation context and relationships; and x Focus on the supervisor’s own counter-transference. A seventh mode considers both the organisation and supervision contexts. Hawkins and Shohet noted that there is often a progression in the use of the modes for both supervisor and supervisee as the supervisee moves from novice to experienced practitioners. A further example of a process model of supervision is that of SolutionFocused (SF) supervision. As O'Connell and Jones (1997) suggested, this model could be used within any of the other models described in this chapter irrespective of theory or structure. The model is concerned with validating the competence and resources of the supervisee and: “… emphasises the importance of clear incremental goals and identifies pre-existing solutions and exceptions to problems in supervisee’s work” (p.289). It focuses on what the supervisee is doing effectively in interactions rather than on the client (or staff member in the leadership supervision context). The intention is to help the supervisee to strengthen the things that are done well. Celebration of success, creativity and reflection are essential components of the supervision process where a collaborative partnership and joint responsibility prevail and where the supervisor takes more of a supporter role. O'Connell and Jones described it as a “ … form of reflective experiential learning for the supervisee” (p.290). Nagel (2008) noted that the emphasis is also on the future (not the past) using tools to help define the ‘future perfect’ situation. The approach described by the latter authors

22

Chapter 2

is a variation of the original SF perception. De Shazer (1985) considered the SF approach involved seeing problems as creating a path to solutions, with multiple questions designed to solve the problem rather than offering predetermined solutions. De Shazer believed the approach would move thinking to a more positive frame. Figure 2: The Double Matrix Model (adapted from Hawkins & Shohet, 2000)

Structure and process models of supervision obviously include a combination of the last two model approaches. Hawkins (in Hawkins & Smith, 2007) CLEAR model is an obvious precursor of several of the structure and process models. The CLEAR model includes stages of: Contract; Listen; Explore; Action; and Review. Page and Wosket’s (1994) Cyclical Model is another example also falling into the ‘structure and process’ category. The iterative nature of the model indicates a fluid, unending, continuation of the five events/concepts, as shown in Figure 3.

Generic Modalities and Models

23

Figure 3: Page and Wosket’s Cyclical Model (1994)

Contract Ground rules Boundaries Accountabilities Expectations

Review

Focus

Feedback

Issues

Grounding

Objectives

Evaluation

Presentation

Assessment

Approach

Recontracting

Priorities

Bridge

Space

Consolidation

Collaboration

Goal setting

Investigation

Information giving

Challenge

Action planning

Containment

Client's perspeciive

Affirmation

This cyclical model has some overlaps with the LIS, as described in later sections of the book.

24

Chapter 2

Merging models relevant to LIS Van Ooijen (2003) suggested that, with experience, it is not unusual for supervisors to incorporate “different-theory” (p.20) approaches or models in supervision drawing on varied or integrated theories dependent on the supervisee need. Dagley (2006) also asserted in the aligned ‘executive coaching’ arena…the power and value…seems to derive from the ability of coaches to adapt to unique circumstances” (p.2). LIS practice falls into this latter category. Elements of reflection, psychological type, developmental, focus-based models are all potentially drawn upon as either counselling “core theoretical models” (Tudor, 2003, p.39) or ‘process models’ which may be used when appropriate with the different contexts leaders present in sessions. We also think it is possible to actively incorporate a focus on both the micro- (private) and macro-world (organisational) that Van Ooijen (2003) presents. We particularly adhere to the notion of importance to move between a therapy and supervision matrix in the way that Hawkins and Shohet (2000) noted is important by stating, in terms of their modes, the process: “ … must inevitably involve the movement between modes” (p.58), and that “ … indepth work with clients must involve all six … although not necessarily in every session” (p.72). Further, like Hawkins and Shohet, we suggest that different modes might be more or less appropriate for different leaders and the same leaders at different times. We consider that it is essential to incorporate a focus on the leader-staff member relationship highlighted in the Hawkins and Shohet model and to examine what those interactions look like in the leader’s organisation. Additionally, we support an emphasis on working with what is happening in LIS itself and how that might mirror or reflect what might be happening in the leader’s organisation, taking into account counter-transference and parallel processes. In other words, we believe it is more important to be flexible and responsive to the changing needs leaders present because, as noted earlier, they work in contexts that are multifaceted and complex, stressful and rife with competing demands and dilemmas impacting on both their affective and psychosocial well-being. The approach for LIS reflects this flexibility and merging of models to fit the context. The focus of Chapter 3 is on the LIS model specifically.

CHAPTER 3 THE LIS MODEL

In this chapter, you will learn: ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥

Action research LIS as a model of AR A model for LIS Underpinning features of the model Values Advantages of LIS Evidence of effectiveness of LIS

Introduction The issues which leaders bring to one-to-one support are usually complex and varied and frequently have resulted in employing diverse skills and engaging in unpredictable interactions. Therefore, it is crucial in our view, to be able to draw upon multiple approaches, facets of models and strategies. So, when talking about a ‘model’ we do not believe it should be a recipe or as a ‘one size fits all’ approach.

There is no one size that fits all!

Instead, we encourage (as do Ely et al., 2010) that the approach should be customised, personalised to the leader, their organisation and context. We think that standardised or rigid approaches are likely to be counterproductive as they would limit the extent of spontaneity and responsiveness required by

26

Chapter 3

an effective support person. Instead, models should provide guidance or reference points for use as skills are applied to perceptions, resources and experiences to the role. The LIS model offered in this chapter provides such a reference point. It has been hard to pin down a name for the type of one-to-one external support that we (and others guided by us) have provided for leaders for over a decade. Eileen, for example, started by calling herself a leadership supervisor in keeping with a clinical supervision role in which she had trained. In the leadership domain, particularly in public sector organisations, she received considerable resistance to the use of this term due to controlling connotations with the word supervisor and so, reluctantly, decided to adopt the word ‘coach’ instead as a descriptor. However, coaching did not fit well with her approach either because she has been strongly influenced by extensive experience in AR. Despite the difficulty in the initial naming of the approach, and it being slightly non-conformist in terms of conventional modalities, there has always been over-subscription of requests for such support. This chapter outlines the pragmatic LIS model we developed and have employed with leaders as clients. We begin by outlining AR as the philosophical underpinning and developmental contribution to LIS, alongside a definition and links to organisational learning theory. The learning, support and accountability functions are considered, followed by a description of the LIS model as applied to the role played by the LIS facilitator. Each of the preparatory, reconnaissance, implementation/improvement, evaluation, reporting, and continuing action phases in the model are outlined. Finally, the advantages and evidence of the effectiveness of LIS are reported.

Action research Reason and Bradbury (2008) defined AR as a participatory, democratic process involving practical knowing or learning for worthwhile human purposes. Calhoun (2002) previously suggested an improvement element when noting it as “a continual disciplined inquiry conducted to inform and improve our practice” (p. 18). In practice, it is an approach to improvement with iterative (cyclic) processes of planning, acting, observing and reflecting (coined as ‘moments’ by Lewin, 1946) which keep cycling until issues are resolved. AR is often seen in quite practical, process-oriented, terms and as its name implies it has two distinct elements which Eileen has previously described in the following way:

The LIS Model

27

The word ‘action’ in action research is key. It is an approach that always involves participants making or implementing change, rather than just investigating an issue. The word ‘research’ in action research is also important. Rather than making ad hoc decisions, the participants in projects make informed decisions about what and how they are going to implement change. They fully research the current situation (a ‘reconnaissance’) and potential changes before implementation. They also collect valid data to evaluate the changes they have made. (Piggot-Irvine, 2002, p.9)

AR has multiple underpinning features. It is usually a collaborative rather than an individual endeavour. It strives to create enhanced ownership by participants and includes experiential (hands-on) learning with an active reflection component. It is developmental in intent yet also sometimes involves meeting accountabilities. A vital feature linked to collaboration and democracy is the employment of two or multi-sided (bilateral, multilateral) dialogue rather than one-sided (unilateral) decision-making (Piggot-Irvine & Doyle, 2010). Though very similar, AR differs from another action-oriented development approach called action learning (AL) on two fronts. First, AR requires reporting on outcomes in a formal or semi-formal way. Second, in AR, there is a focus on reflection upon evidence associated with achievement.

AR involves reflecting on evidence associated with achievement

AL has all other features of AR but the two fronts of difference result in it being a slightly less rigorous, yet equally valuable, form of development. Each of the features of AR will be elaborated in the following section when discussing the LIS model.

28

Chapter 3

LIS as a model of AR It is essential to begin by acknowledging that though not named as such, use of an AR type model for one-to-one support is not entirely new. While not directly referring to AR, Hawkins and Smith (2007), for example, also noted the works of the significant action researchers Lewin (1946) and Reason and Bradbury (2000) associated with an inquiry approach in supervision. As already suggested, the use of elements of the multiple modalities described earlier has led to the adoption of LIS as a new modality. Definition and description of its functions and its practical application are outlined next. Definition The following definition determines the essence of LIS: LIS is a structured, confidential, developmental approach where the LIS facilitator and leader engage in a growth-inducing, productive, nonhierarchical and bilateral, yet challenging, supportive relationship. Such engagement includes reflecting upon and overviewing the leader's work and learning in its broadest sense (from professional through to personal) in their organisation. LIS involves an iterative process of exploring current leadership activity, planning for development and improvement using goal setting that is informed by best practice, and then evaluating and reporting on that improvement. The skills of counselling and focused ‘inquiry' type questioning actively inform the approach and considerable time is spent contextualising the practice using knowledge of the organisation and its accountabilities. In keeping with the thinking of Bond and Holland (2011) in the supervision context, a quality relationship is core to the definition of LIS. To maintain such a relationship the LIS facilitator must communicate understanding and respect so that the leader is strengthened to do their work.

The LIS Model

29

LIS strengthens the leader to do their work

The essence of a quality relationship in LIS is mutual responsibility, and this again is iterated in other modalities. Supervision, for example, has been described as a working alliance (Bond & Holland, 2011; Inskipp & Proctor, 2001) where there are agreed roles and responsibilities. Mutual responsibility in LIS occurs in bilateral and multilateral ways to create shared power between the LIS facilitator and leader. Conscious attempt to employ nondefensive, non-controlling, non-avoiding values and strategies is pivotal to such mutual responsibility and shared power (see Piggot-Irvine, 2012). We have used the word, attempt, deliberately because employing a nondefensive stance is a significant and ongoing challenge (Argyris, 2003). This topic is so important that we have discussed it further in Chapter 4. We consider that mutual responsibility in a quality relationship creates trust and effective LIS. In such a context, a safe place is provided for leaders to reflect on their work, thoughts, feelings and actions. A quality relationship and resulting trust will also affect the receipt and understanding of the LIS facilitator questions, feedback, challenge and guidance for improvement. Table 3 (adapted from Zalcman & Cornell, 1983) shows how responsibilities and tasks within the LIS facilitator and leader relationship might be shared. The leader’s role is to bring issues to the session. The LIS facilitator brings their skills and training for dealing with these issues flexibly with support and development. There is an acknowledgement that the LIS facilitator in this relationship also has the expertise, monitoring responsibility and an evaluative role that inevitably places them in a more powerful position, so a modicum of power inequality always exists in such a relationship, as also

Chapter 3

30

confirmed by Bernard and Goodyear (2009). Despite the power inequality, there are multiple opportunities within each of the functions and aligned tasks to enhance equality and mutuality. Table 3: Shared activities of LIS Leader Activities

Shared Activities

LIS Facilitator Activities

Reflection on work in preparation for session Acquiring knowledge about issues – informed Management skills and expertise Ethical and professional practice Personal skills and development Assessment of problems Selection of the interventions Session planning Evaluation of leader progress Evaluation of LIS Evaluation of the LIS facilitator Though rare, serious situations can arise, that could jeopardise the shared activities described in Table 3. The situation of a leader doing something unethical is one such example situation. Another would be if the leader fails to self-monitor adequately or if they over-identify, or are over-involved, with their staff. In such situations, the LIS facilitator would need to address these issues and, if extreme, report concerns to the employer. Functions The shared tasks identified in Table 3 somewhat evolve into functions associated with LIS. Rafferty, Llewellyn-Davies and Hewitt's (2007) learning, support and accountability categories are used to illustrate functions because in the leadership context LIS is usually focused on questions connected to personal and professional support, leadership/management competency, attaining goals at work, and it “supports the solidity of the organization and aspires to transformation and improvements” (Ollila, 2008, p. 17). Proctor's (1986) work is also seminal when considering functions and is interpreted for the LIS context in Figure 4, using the Rafferty et al. (2007) categories.

The LIS Model

31

Figure 4: Proctor’s (1986) functions adapted to LIS

Learning Functions (Continuing development of skills, abilities and understandings through regular reflection on leadership work and deep learning)

Supportive Functions

Accountability Functions

(Supporting the leader emotionally and professionally to respond to the stress of leadership work)

(Maintaining and monitoring the standards and effectiveness of leadership work)

Before describing each function, the overlap between the three is noted again given the complexity of the issues presented by leaders. Since some functions have already been referred to in the discussion about a definition of LIS, a brief description only of each of the three functions is provided.

32

Chapter 3

The supportive functions of LIS are vital

An essential function of LIS is to provide the leader with space to feel professionally and personally supported, including being listened to and feeling refreshed as a result of this experience. If this does not occur, the other functions of LIS often become irrelevant for leaders. Therefore, the supportive (particularly emotional) functions of LIS are vital and include exploring how the leader is feeling about their role, issues of self-awareness, and the impact of such things as anxiety, stress, burnout, isolation and bruised feelings. Ackerman and Maslin-Ostrowski (2002) highlighted the critical role that emotion plays in leadership practice and make the point that all leaders get wounded and that such an experience can be “a painful reminder that the very role itself can put a person at odds with his own needs and identity” (p.8). LIS, in this context, could include assisting the leader in developing skills in emotional intelligence and resilience. The learning function of LIS is concerned with the continued development of leadership skills, abilities and understandings. Learning can include a

The LIS Model

33

broad spectrum ranging from technical skills, new insights and understandings from research, personal competencies, relationship skills, to areas such as self-awareness, and learning transformational practices (e.g. meditation, visualisation, mindfulness). It is crucial that the leader is sufficiently self-aware to engage a LIS facilitator who has strengths and competencies in the areas they wish to develop. LIS aims to create focus and meaningful actions and outcomes through deep learning and reflection. Deep can be contrasted with surface (Piggot-Irvine, 2015), where a quickfix strategy is implemented for expediently completing a task. McKay and Kember (1997) stated that surface learning is “based on a motive to minimise effort and also to minimise the consequences” (p.58). Deep learning, however, focuses on considerable improvement and includes the ability to reflect both on (retrospectively) and in (on the spot response) action (Schön, 1983). Reflection in action is a more highly advanced and challenging skill involving the LIS facilitator and leader in “responding appropriately, and the capacity to change actions mid-performance” (Piggot-Irvine & Doyle, 2010, p. 57). The accountability functions of LIS are concerned with maintaining and monitoring the quality standards and effectiveness of leadership work. An understanding of such things as the standard of professional practice to be expected of a leader, membership of a relevant professional body and adherence to its codes of ethics and practice, and ideally some first-hand experience in a leadership role, would be expected of the LIS facilitator. Each of these three functions is typically applied in a fluid and flexible way in all of the later-described phases of the LIS model. By strengthening these functions in LIS, a leader is offered: structure and guidance to reflect on and improve their work; support to help overcome blind-spots and broaden thinking; a focus on clarity and depth in development and making changes; encouragement to be informed and evidence-based in making decisions about progress; reinforcement of professional and ethical standards; and a safe, validating, supportive and high trust relationship to explore challenges, stresses and uncertainties. To summarise, the function of support deals with sustaining the leader, learning aspects address the development of the leader, and the accountability function of LIS caters for the professional standard of the leader’s work. Table 4 depicts the functions of LIS demonstrated through the relationship with a leader.

Chapter 3

34

Table 4: Functions of LIS in the relationship with leaders Accountability

Learning

Support

Conforming to organisational requirements, systems and standards (e.g. policies, documentation systems, etc)

Fostering professional development (including different roles within profession) and professional identity

Improving quality through evidence-based practices Conforming to codes of professional practice, work appropriately and ethically Addressing blind spots, weaknesses, areas of vulnerability due to own wounds /biases/prejudices Lifting leader performance

Developing skills, understandings and capacities of the leader Reflecting and exploring leader’s work in a goal-focused approach Assisting to improve understanding of people dynamics and relationships

Dealing with the emotional responses – distress, anxiety (these may be conscious or unconscious) – lowering stress in a high trust environment Addressing issues in private life which may impact on work Setting boundaries between LIS and personal therapy/ counselling Validating both as person and as a leader, harmonizing personal and professional functions Recharging energy and ideals

Considering how to best use personal and professional resources

Pro-active rather than reactive

Understanding of theory in relation to practice, providing a ‘thinking partner’ Reviewing interventions and consequences, considering alternatives, and getting another perspective Increasing awareness of own reactions and responses

Supporting awareness of own fitness for job

Not having to deal with issues alone

The functions described are not limited to the LIS context. They can be integrated into a professional practice toolkit that a leader utilises to care for themselves, to develop skills and to grow in their profession. An example of this is shown in Table 5 which is adapted from work that Driscoll (2000) offered in the supervision context.

The LIS Model

35

Table 5: An example of how the functions of LIS are utilised Julia is a service leader who has been in her current job for two years. She plans to apply for a senior leadership role in the next few years. She uses the following different tools in her leadership role: Learning tools in use: 9 Attendance at study day on leadership skills 9 Personal subscription to a professional journal or magazine 9 Part of a peer mentoring group 9 Studying for a postgraduate diploma in leadership Supportive tools in use: 9 Recognises when she is feeling stressed at work 9 Starting to be more open with a trusted colleague about how she is feeling 9 Mainly relies on husband and friends to offload difficult situations 9 Takes regular holidays 9 Swims or walks four mornings per week Accountability tools in use: 9 ‘Achieved Key Result Areas’ shown at the last performance review 9 Has experience achieving goals within tight timeframes 9 Developed divisional business plan and got it approved by senior leadership 9 Successfully negotiated a staff salary settlement with union organisers. Definition and function descriptions are important in laying the foundation of any model. Discussion of the LIS model and how it is practised now follows.

A model for LIS As discussed earlier, the LIS model covers multiple modality components and includes an iterative (ongoing and cyclical) goal focus and planning orientation. The model has underpinning and embedded elements of reflection and development. The three functions of learning and development/improvement, support and accountability are the desired outcomes in this model, but it also draws strongly on ‘learning organisation’ (LO) and ‘organisational learning’ (OL)

36

Chapter 3

theory (Sun & Scott, 2003). In a LO, macro-level transformation and change are in focus for the whole organisation and learning and development are seen as central to organisational effectiveness. Hill (1996, in Copeland, 2005) described a LO as “an organisation striving for excellence through continual organisational renewal” (p.49). We have noticed that an organisation with such a LO focus usually embraces LIS as one of multiple approaches to enhance the growth of both individuals and the organisation. OL, on the other hand, is more specific to the individual learning processes within an organisation (Sun & Scott, 2003) and focuses at the micro-level on what Argyris (2003) suggested is the detecting and correcting of errors non-defensively. OL has also been described as involving dealing with dilemmas (Cardno, 2001; Piggot-Irvine & Cardno, 2005). OL occurs when the source of problems can be discovered and addressed (Boreham & Morgan, 2004; Senge, Cambron-McCabe, Lucas, Smith, Dutton, & Kleiner, 2012; Sun & Scott, 2003). The learning and development function in the LIS model has its roots in a mutual inquiry approach which, in turn, is deeply influenced by OL thinking. Here, inquiry is linked to authentic dialogue between the LIS facilitator and the leader where shared, understanding and solution generation feature strongly. The values associated with such inquiry also underpin the LIS model and include honesty and openness, shared understanding, transparency, respect, consent, discretion, courage, challenge, support, holding high standards for both process and outcomes and ethical behaviour. We believe trust results from a commitment to these values, and it is a hard-earned, slow to grow, outcome associated with employment of all the values (see Piggot-Irvine, 2012). As reported in Piggot-Irvine and Bartlett (2008), the sort of open communication and collaboration encouraged between LIS facilitator and leader can enhance ownership of responsibility for problems by the leader, their commitment to change, as well as leveraging the change to a level frequently unattainable through individual reflection alone. In LIS, similar to Van Ooijen’s (2003) Double Helix Model discussed in the last chapter, the interdependence between the leader and the organisation is considerable. The leader’s private, micro-world, has an enormous influence on their emotional, psychological, and behavioural response with staff in their organisation. The organisation, in turn, strongly influences the leader’s responses as well as their motivation to learn and develop.

The LIS Model

37

LIS facilitators should never underestimate the significance of the interactions of the micro- and macro-worlds and the model does not support an approach considering the micro-world as separate.

LIS does not consider the micro and macro-worlds as separate

For example, it is not unusual for the LIS facilitator to be asked to only focus on the organisational, or macro, realm when contracted by a leaders’ employer. A first task, in the preparatory phase of LIS, therefore, is to point out that the model focuses on the whole life of the leader and that, in encouraging healthy leadership there is too much overlap or interdependence between the micro- and the macro-worlds for the whole of life aspect to be ignored. The model, therefore, is holistic because it operates at the two levels of Hawkins and Shohet’s (2007) therapy and supervision matrices: both the leader’s organisational context and the LIS context issues and interactions are under the microscope. The LIS model incorporates distinct phases of preparation, reconnaissance, improvement/intervention, evaluation, and reporting. It is designed to be flexible because the phases can occur rapidly within a LIS session through to meticulous sequencing across multiple sessions. The model is depicted in an upward direction to denote a continuous improvement approach. This is illustrated in Figure 5, followed by an outline of each phase.

38 Figure 5: LIS model (adapted from Piggot-Irvine, 2015)

Chapter 3

The LIS Model

39

Preparatory phase The model begins with a preparatory phase where mutual clarification of the principles underpinning the process and roles, and contracting is agreed. In this phase, the LIS facilitator spends some time discussing both the depth of learning and OL principles that are integral to the LIS model. Contracting in the preparatory phase occurs at two levels: a contract with the leader’s employing organisation and one with the leader themselves. The employer contract is negotiated and agreed upon with the leader’s reporting manager or through the organisation's corporate office (often the head of Human Resources or Organisational Development). Such a contract establishes the parameters of the roles, responsibilities and ethical standards, dispute resolution etc. In contracting with the leader, the LIS facilitator establishes a formal contract for LIS in the first session. Usually, it is a separate contract to that established with the organisation. The contract includes clarification of roles and expectations, ethical guidelines, and confidentiality and safety issues between the LIS facilitator and leader. As well as clarification, establishing this contract early in the piece offers an opportunity for rapport building and exploration of each other's perceptions of the principles, process, and values of LIS. Reconnaissance: Mapping of leadership issues phase In the reconnaissance (or mapping) phase of the model, the core focus is the identification, exploration, and understanding of the issues the leader brings to LIS. This phase involves meaning-making through an examination of the leader schema (knowledge structures) and frames of reference associated with past and present events. It may also involve an analysis of current leadership practice and needs that may require data collection via a variety of tools and inventories (staff feedback etc). The latter is similar to an initial phase of assessment described in the assessment, challenge, and support (ACS) model proposed by Ely et al. (2010), as noted in the previous chapter. In essence, meaning-making substantially involves the use of a raft of micro-counselling and exploratory skills to determine the exact nature of the issues and history. Because the LIS model aims to be reasonably flexible and responsive, there may be the incorporation of multiple theoretical approaches adopted for this (and other phases) dependent on the context. In some instances, for example, a Solution-Focused (SF) approach (O'Connell

40

Chapter 3

& Jones, 1997) might be relevant. In SF, the focus is on validating the competence and resources of the supervisee, and it “… emphasises the importance of clear incremental goals and identifies pre-existing solutions and exceptions to problems in supervisee's work” (p.289). Nagel (2008) offered a similar emphasis by encouraging a focus on the future perfect situation. In other instances, one or more bands of the T.A.P.E.S (C) might be employed (Clarkson, 1992), with T. (theory), A. (assessment), P. (parallel process), E. (ethics), S. (strategies), and C. (context) considerations. The T.A.P.E.S (C) model might help a supervisor to identify or categorise, sort, or band the key issues to work on in a supervision session. Each of these approaches is discussed in the previous chapter. The variety of approaches which might be employed illustrates the importance of LIS facilitator experience with a broad range of counselling theories and processes, as well as ability to reflect quickly when weighing up how, when and what to choose from this smorgasbord. Skill in making rapid assessments and agility in discerning and responding to what is relevant, meaningful, and worthy of prioritising will keep the session at its most effective for the leader. Primarily, this early reconnaissance phase is concerned with clarifying the issues for discussion.

LIS helps leaders clarify issues

People who may have no experience of a LIS type context may ask “what sort of issues would I talk about?” Table 6 shows some typical examples of issues that might be brought to LIS.

The LIS Model

41

Table 6: Examples of possible issues to discuss in LIS a) Mary, a service manager, appointed 12 months previously in a local government department, has been noticing how one of her colleagues repeatedly talks over her and is sarcastic and negative about what Mary has to say in manager meetings. Mary is increasingly uncomfortable but ambivalent about challenging the behaviour of this otherwise popular service manager. Mary feels unsupported and marginalised in meetings. b) Jonathon, a charge nurse, has excellent people skills; however, he finds the budget management aspect of his role tedious and difficult. He sought help from an accountant but found his technical explanations challenging to follow. Jonathon feels embarrassed about admitting his ignorance to his leader and is starting to make excuses for not doing the budget report. c) Lyn, a business leader responsible for an administrative team in a busy social service organisation, is aware of tensions between staff. She feels a failure because she has tried to address the issue in various ways, yet the problems are escalating. In each of the examples shown in Table 6, the leader was faced with a challenging issue that was compromising their ability to do their job. The issue caused a block in their functioning and lowered their effectiveness in their role, causing anxiety, guilt, procrastination, avoidance and feelings of reduced competence. In LIS, once clarity about the issues has been achieved to the extent there is an initial understanding of the determinants and associated factors, a next step is goal setting for improvement. The link between clear goals and achieving results has been well reported for leaders (Cohen, 2014; Sandow & Allen, 2005; Senge, 2006). In LIS, these are called aspirational goals because the responsive nature of the model means it is essential not to be constrained by a linear, predictable, rigid set of goals that preclude openness to other lines of exploration. Moreover, in our experience, an initial presenting issue, when explored, may bear little resemblance to what is subsequently revealed. The following example illustrates this unfolding shaping of goals. Ellie (the leader) suggested at the beginning of the session; she wanted to work on the goal of ‘improving delegation with staff’. As the session progressed, it became clear there were other, more profound, issues linked

42

Chapter 3

to her goal of delegation. It transpired that staff were united in rejecting any delegation she requested of them. When Ellie outlined the way she asked staff to take on delegated tasks, it was evident that Ellie was almost issuing a command for delegation rather than engaging staff in a dialogue about the purposes and advantages associated with being involved in delegation. The focus of the session moved considerably when this became obvious and Ann, her LIS facilitator, helped Ellie to refocus the goal to ‘using a dialogue approach to engage staff as willing participants in delegation’. It is worth noting that after the first LIS session, there may be a significant component of each subsequent session where goals and issues are further explored, distilled, or refocused in the light of insights and progress being made. Such elaboration occurs before new issues are identified for discussion and often leads quite effortlessly to surfacing the new issues. Implementing improvements (sometimes called intervention) phase After the goal and issue clarification and exploration in the reconnaissance phase is a phase of planning for and implementing improvement. The improvement assumption implicit in the LIS model also renders the model as a form of professional development where deep, educative, learning results in the generation of new knowledge. Such knowledge, in turn, often generates transformation or change in practice. This is not to say that improvement and change happen at just one specific point or phase. Improvement should happen throughout the entire LIS process and at multiple levels both for the leader (personally and professionally) and for their organisation. In LIS, any improvement should be informed rather than ad hoc. Therefore, a strong learning component grounded in developmental theory and practice is the precursor to the implementation of improvements. The LIS facilitator actively introduces leaders to theoretical and research informed ideas to advance their thinking about the new practice. There is a reciprocal relationship where theory and practice inform each other and are mutually interdependent. The latter is in keeping with Dixon-Krause’s (2003) idea that there should be: “dual purposes of putting theory into practice and creating theory out of practice” (pp. í  In LIS, best practice, or effectiveness elements, are strongly drawn upon to ensure both LIS facilitator and leader are informed. An example of what being informed means can be illustrated from the previously noted incremental shift in Ellie's goal for LIS. In this case, both Ellie and Ann (the LIS facilitator)

The LIS Model

43

spent some time exploring the previous research and writing on the process of dialogue. Once informed, then a range of intervention strategies might be explored. In keeping with the SF model outlined by O’Connell and Jones (1997), there is an overarching experiential learning intent in LIS primarily derived from the early work of Kolb (1984). As noted in Piggot-Irvine and Bartlett (2008), in experiential learning, knowledge is gained from questioning and reflection related to concrete experience or action. The knowledge then leads to generalisations which are ready to be tested or implemented in new situations. Understanding, improvement, and transformation of the specific situation are the ultimate outcomes of these learning cycles. Experimenting with strategies often becomes a component of the LIS session, with skills practice and role play. LIS is designed to provide a safe environment for practising, testing, and refining new approaches before implementation within the workplace. The LIS facilitator has multiple roles to fill in this phase as a facilitator of development. They act as a mentor, guide and supporter of co-constructed learning as well as a challenger of thinking. The LIS facilitator also needs to be open and responsive to trying new ideas and to be creative and maybe even inspiring in exploring those. Linked to this, an essential facilitator task is consideration of the leader’s preferred learning style (Dunn & Dunn, 1972; Honey & Mumford, 1992). Understanding of emotional, sociological and physical needs of the leader is thought to be important as well by Honey and Mumford (1992), but it is debatable whether varying development approaches to match learning styles makes a difference (Landrum & McDuffie, 2010; Riener & Willingham, 2010). Our view is that LIS facilitators should have awareness both of their own, and the leader, style preferences in order to match approaches to maximise learning and development opportunities. Overall, it is crucial that the LIS facilitator fosters a safe environment where mistakes are valued as rich learning opportunities. It is vital that the leader takes responsibility for the personal change that might be required for such development. Change is not intended to be simple, first order, which might only create shifts at a superficial level. The LIS model is designed to elicit second and third order change: change which challenges values and assumptions, i.e. is linked to double and triple-loop learning (Senge et al., 2012).

44

Chapter 3

Evaluation phase Follow-up, critique, evaluation monitoring and review of implemented improvements are components of the next phase of LIS. As with contracting, the evaluation phase component might feature in the following number of different ways: x during and at the end of each session (as progress review, clarifying expectations for next steps); x as a review of goal attainment; and x at the end of the entire LIS process (to gain feedback on effectiveness and impact). It is highly likely that iterative interventions will occur to enhance improvement, so evaluation is not usually a single event phase and might occur at multiple phases. Multiple approaches to evaluation might be employed dependent on the context, but mostly the purpose is an honest, critically reflective analysis of effectiveness – whatever the level of evaluation. In brief, the LIS facilitator utilises a number of evaluative tools at this phase including simple reporting of progress, feedback from staff and line managers through to complex Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS). Discussion of evaluation approaches will be detailed in Chapter 7. Reporting As noted earlier in this chapter, AR generally requires reporting on outcomes in some formal or semi-formal way. Because LIS is substantially focused on improvement, reporting by the leader is mostly in the form of sharing and updating progress, where possible with evidence. The goal is to create a dialogue between the LIS facilitator and leader and they jointly record highlights and recommendations for further improvement. Such developmental ongoing reporting is often described as formative. Summative, end-point and accountability oriented, reporting to the leader’s employer is rarely requested (though sadly somewhat increasing), and in the LIS model would only occur with prior consent and input from the leader. Where this has been requested, the LIS facilitator has ensured careful wording in the contract with the employer, covering the need for this prior consent, and has noted that reporting would only cover objective outcomes rather than the detail of interactions. Regardless of the type of reporting, the LIS facilitator always strives to make the analysis of any data simple so that reporting is meaningful and useful both to the leader in terms of

The LIS Model

45

recommendations for further improvement and to themselves as LIS facilitator. Continuing action An essential feature of AR generally is that it is continuing, ongoing and iterative (cyclical). It rarely, if ever, ends at the evaluation and reporting phases. The goals that have been focused upon almost always spin-off into multiple side issues, or sometimes progress into deeper issues for investigation.

Underpinning features of the model In addition to the phases, there are multiple underpinning features of LIS. Though noted earlier, each of these underpinnings is summarised in the following sections. Private and public intersection In the model of LIS, akin to that of Van Ooijen’s (2003) Double Helix Model, we believe the interception and interdependence between the leader and the organisation are considerable. The leader's private, micro, world has an enormous influence on their emotional, psychological, behavioural response with staff in their organisation. The organisation, in turn, strongly influences the leader's responses as well as their motivation to learn and develop. The micro- and macro-worlds are not separate. Experiential learning There is an overarching experiential learning intent in the LIS model derived mainly from the early work of Kolb (1984). In experiential learning, knowledge is gained from questioning and reflection related to concrete experience or action. Such knowledge leads to generalisations, which are then ready to be tested or implemented in new situations. Understanding, improvement, and transformation of the specific situation are the ultimate outcomes of these learning cycles. Learning Style An element of our responsiveness in LIS is consideration of the learning style of the leader. Research, theory and tools associated with learning styles (Dunn & Dunn, 1972; Honey & Mumford, 1992; Kolb, 1999) have been utilised. The Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS) by Dunn and Dunn (1972), for example, identifies useful notions such as emotional needs (motivation, responsibility, persistence and the need for

46

Chapter 3

structure or flexibility), sociological needs (self or peer-orientated, authority-orientated or learn in several ways, such as kinaesthetic, tactile, auditory and visual), and physical needs (perceptual preferences, time of day, intake and mobility) of learners. The peak of interest in differing styles occurred in the 1970 – 1990 period and although the interest has continued, so has an escalated debate about whether varying approaches to development to match learning styles makes a difference (for example, see Landrum & McDuffie, 2010; Riener & Willingham, 2010). Willingham, Hughes and Dobolyi (2015) sum up this debate when stating that there is a reason to think that people view learning styles theory as broadly accurate but scientific support for these theories is lacking. We fall into the camp of believing that there are generally variables in style or preference in leaders and think it is essential we have an awareness of both our own and the leader’s style so that we maximise learning and development opportunities. However, we would never place great emphasis on style examination in LIS. Developmental/transformative The assumption of improvement is implicit in LIS, and therefore, the approach and the model constitute a form of professional development. We believe LIS should lead to a form of deep learning, which is ‘educative’ or resulting in knowledge generation. Such knowledge, in turn, should generate transformation or change in practice. This is not to say that improvement and change happen at just one specific point or phase. Improvement should happen throughout the entire LIS process and at many levels for the leader personally and professionally, and for their organisation. Holistic LIS takes into consideration that the leader is complex with personal and professional emotional, psychological, spiritual and behavioural needs and responses which, in turn, impact upon their staff and organisation. At each of the phases, multiple intersecting contextual elements could be operating at an administrative, educative and/or supportive level. The approach is also holistic because it operates at the two levels of Hawkins and Shohet’s (2000) therapy and supervision matrices. Both the leader’s organisational context, and the LIS context issues and interactions are under the microscope. Reflection There are two types of reflection - reflection on action and reflection in action. Schön (1983) describes reflection on action as the type of

The LIS Model

47

retrospective consideration of events happening after the event and this is quite straightforward because it is easy to be wise in hindsight. Reflection in action is a more highly developed skill in that we can check and test our assumptions and responses while engaged in an event and conversation. This is a challenging level of reflection because it requires thinking in action, “responding appropriately, and the capacity to change actions midperformance” (Piggot-Irvine & Doyle, 2010, p. 57). Both of Schön’s (1974) typologies of reflection-upon-action and reflectionin-action are employed in LIS. Of particular importance in this reflection are the LIS facilitator and leader awareness of the potential fallibility of their stance or assumptive frameworks (Robinson, 1993). Such awareness requires both parties continuously examine the underlying values and assumptions that generate their behaviour. An example will demonstrate each type of reflection. Scenario: Jane (the LIS facilitator) was working with Sue, who was highly stressed about the way she flew off the handle at an unpunctual staff member. Jane spontaneously responded by offering comforting reassurances to Sue, stating she had probably done the right thing and then entered into a discussion about the difficulties associated with lateness. After the supervision session, Jane could not get this response out of her mind and felt uneasy about failing to address the response of the client to the lateness. Jane’s response was firmly that of spontaneous emotional comforting. The response showed little reflection in action to check or test her underlying assumptions. Jane did, however, engage in considerable reflection on action subsequent to the session, and it was this type of reflection which led her to realise the inadequacy of her response. The ideal would have been for her to have reflected in action at the point of her emotional response with Sue and to have changed her actions on the spot. Collaborative and challenging dialogical interchange Both LIS facilitator and leader strive to collaborate in a shared power relationship (note the earlier comment though on honesty and about the inherent power differential) as active seekers and negotiators of meaning (Zuber-Skerritt, 1992). To achieve this collaboration, they need to engage in a type of dialogical bilateral interchange which involves collectively and

48

Chapter 3

openly discussing, debating and reflecting in ways that challenge and deepen insights (Piggot-Irvine & Bartlett, 2008). The result of such interchange should be what might be called public testing of private assumptions and reflections by the leader. Schön (1983) cautions against the consequent avoidance of this type of self-limiting reflection. An example of self-limiting reflection might occur if the leader’s reflection only focuses on blaming their staff for any problems which might be occurring in the team and avoids reflecting on how they, as the leader, might be implicated or contributing to any problems which exist. As reported in Piggot-Irvine and Bartlett (2008), the sort of open communication and collaboration between LIS facilitator and leader we are encouraging can enhance both ownership of responsibility for problems by the leader and also their commitment to change, as well as leveraging the change to a level frequently unattainable through individual reflection alone. This sort of communication is strongly linked to creating a ‘learning organisation’ and the associated micro-level ‘organisational learning’ skills, which are areas elaborated in Chapter 4. Accountability LIS includes a requirement for accountability on the part of both the LIS facilitator and leader. Later in the book we describe the contracting requirements in LIS. We are in no doubt that goal setting is a component of accountability, as is the monitoring, review and reporting on goals. Holding high standards, professionalism, and meeting ethical guidelines are also part of accountability. Part of such professionalism is modelling an adult to adult relationship. Ownership Although collaboration is an essential feature associated with the LIS, so is an emphasis on the leader taking a high level of ownership in each phase. For example, if finding information about effective leadership practice in a specific area is required, then the LIS facilitator would probably provide relevant articles but then guide the leader to distil the essence of the practices for improving their own performance. Similarly, if the leader prepares for a LIS session by analysing their interactions and responses, then they are more likely to gain insight into the role they play in any issues discussed and consequently be more committed to improvement.

The LIS Model

49

Narrowing the theory - practice gap Theory and research are often seen as being remote from day-to-day work by leaders, usually for three reasons. First, the current culture of leadership and management practice emphasises action with little structured time for reflection. Second, and as a result, the leaders are busy practitioners who have little time to explore such material extensively. Third, they often have little assistance to develop literature search skills. In LIS, we actively introduce leaders to theoretical and research informed ideas to advance their thinking about the new practice. There should be a reciprocal relationship, where theory and practice inform each other and are mutually interdependent. As noted earlier, this is in keeping with the idea that there should be “dual purposes of putting theory into practice and creating theory out of practice” (Dixon-Krause, 2003, pp. í  Spin-offs A feature of LIS is the recognition of the inevitability of spin-off cycles - a concept adapted from the work of McNiff (1988). The spin-offs imply that unexpected issues frequently arise when discussing any specific issue. They might occur at any time during LIS and may require exploration before any further progress with the core issue can be made. There is a balance, therefore between focusing on the goals set for LIS and being open to following spin-offs. There is no hard and fast rule about how the balance is struck, or when a spin-off becomes an important goal. The wisdom of the LIS facilitator in discerning the importance of issues is necessary for guiding the balance required.

Values Strong values supporting LIS include honesty and openness, transparency, respect, consent, discretion, courage, challenge, support, non-defensiveness, holding high standards for both process and outcomes and ethical behaviour. We believe trust results from a commitment to these values, and it is a hardearned, slow to grow outcome associated with employment of all the values. In LIS, a multitude of both counselling micro-skills and strategies linked to dialogical interactions sit alongside the model. These skills and strategies are discussed in the next chapter.

50

Chapter 3

Having defined LIS and outlined its functions, a practice model and its underpinnings, some advantages and effectiveness of such a model are explored next.

Advantages of LIS There are many advantages of LIS over the single modalities of supervision, coaching, mentoring or counselling alone. In particular, LIS involves more rigour than often experienced in the slightly softer approach of coaching. The definition, functions and LIS model outlined earlier show that the elements of evidence-informed action, evaluation, challenge, inquiry orientation, more structured phase activity, and organisational accountability all point to such rigour. LIS has an advantage over supervision alone in that it incorporates from the coaching context some of the rich questioning skills alongside the stronger focus associated with planning and goal pursuit. Additionally, LIS offers the advantages of personal support and learning that all other modalities provide. Further, it strives to set and uphold professional standards for both the leader and their organisation as part of its accountability function. These significant advantages have been noted earlier in Table 3.

Evidence of effectiveness of LIS Because the definition and model of LIS are relatively new, the collection of evidence or research to support its effectiveness is just beginning. However, there is considerable evidence of the effectiveness of both supervision and coaching as separate modalities that might inform such a discussion. In terms of effectiveness, a key interest of the LIS facilitator is in the benefit experienced by the leader (or client as they are called in other contexts) their staff, and their organisation. Such benefit is difficult to demonstrate due to the number of other additional factors also influencing the leader’s work (e.g. attendance at training courses, leadership experience and qualifications). Despite this limitation, however, studies conducted in the fields of medicine, social work, teaching and psychotherapy demonstrate improved outcomes for those influenced (patients, staff) by the person being supervised as a result of supervision at a general, i.e. non-leadership, supervision level (Kilminster & Jolly, 2000). It is hoped the same impacts would translate to leader impact in LIS.

The LIS Model

51

Most research on effectiveness has tended to focus on studying the impact of supervision on the supervisee. Factors that have been shown to positively influence the effectiveness of supervision include such things as: the quality of the relationship between supervisor and supervisee (Kilminster & Jolly, 2000; Kwai, 2002); the supervisee’s input into and control over the process (Kilminster & Jolly, 2000); and the duration of the supervision sessions (lasting for over an hour), and frequency (at least monthly according to Edwards, Cooper, Burnard, Hanningan, Adams, Fothergill & Coyle, 2005). Beddoe (2017) sums up well both the effective and ineffective (harmful) features of supervision when stating: The best interests of supervisees are served by supervision in which boundaries are maintained, the relationship is respectful, and the focus is primarily on professional development. Harmful supervision may include sexual, physical, and emotional abuse and microaggressions, along with supervisory incompetence and neglect … Those who characterized their supervision as excellent speak of supervisors who were warm and engaged but willing to challenge (p.91).

In terms of coaching generally (as opposed to leadership/executive coaching), at the organisational impact level, Jones, Woods and Guillaume (2016) conducted a meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes and concluded that coaching does have positive effects at the organisational and individual outcomes level. Their examination of specific practice factors moderating (limiting) these effects highlighted “no moderation of effect size by coaching format (comparing face-to-face, with blended faceto-face and e-coaching) or duration of coaching (number of sessions or longevity of intervention)” (p.249). Of interest was their conclusion that the research confirmed coaching to be more effective when internal coaches were used, and when multisource feedback was excluded. As an approach to gauging effectiveness, some researchers have tended to opt for feedback from supervisees themselves (Hirst, 2001; Ollila, 2008), and to use measures such as the feeling of competence people may have as an outcome of supervision (Baron & Morin, 2009; Ollila, 2008). The connection between felt supervisee competence and the performance of complex and interpersonal tasks has been demonstrated many times (Baron & Morin, 2009; Ollila, 2008). As an example, Table 7 (adapted from Ollila, 2008) shows findings from a study of the effectiveness of supervision in relation to the leader’s competence and well-being.

Chapter 3

52

An overview of the benefits and impact of supervision in social work and social care by Carpenter, Webb, Bostock and Coomber (2012), provided the critical message that good supervision is associated with job satisfaction, commitment to the organisation and retention. Supervision appears to help reduce staff turnover and is significantly linked to employee perceptions of the support they receive from the organisation. Effective supervision is linked to perceived worker effectiveness and can increase critical thinking. These authors believe that supervision works best when it pays attention to task assistance, social and emotional support, and where workers have a positive relationship with supervisors. The researchers concluded that effective supervision is a crucial element of an organisation's duty of care to its employees, and to the users and carers it serves. What was less clear was whether supervision for employees leads to improved outcomes for users and carers. This is an area that needs further research. Table 7: The role of supervision in relation to leader’s well-being The role of supervision High

Leader’ s well-being

High

Leader is motivated to: x leadership x increase and maintain interaction x give feedback and x develop staff

Low Leader is motivated to: x management and x personnel developing

Roles and responsibilities have been clarified

Feels ambivalent at times in complex situations regarding staff

Feels supported

Needs problem-solving abilities to clarify difficult staff situations

With strengthened resources s/he feels better about own management abilities

Needs support especially for leadership and sensitive interpersonal situations

The LIS Model

Low

53

Motivation increases through strengthening resources and new insights

Motivation and competence will be questioned

Gains insight about leadership

Required personal support may be almost completely lacking

Needs a lot of special support and development at work to ensure own competence and the wellbeing of the whole work community

Staff situations may be experienced as difficult or challenging Ability to manage stress is low due to lack of support and personal abilities Feels isolated at work and finds this difficult Is threatened by burnout

Table 7 shows that leaders feel better and act more competently when they use leadership supervision effectively. Amongst other benefits noted, supervision is seen to strengthen a leader’s resources and support their competence, especially in dealing with staff. The same outcomes are hoped for in LIS. The area of individual learning goals studied in relation to work performance and research by Baron and Morin (2009) has shown there is a strong positive relationship between pursuing individual learning goals and factors such as effort, performance, felt competence and seeking feedback. Goal pursuit features strongly in LIS, so the benefits are also intended with the approach. Robertson (2012) has also indicated that “goal setting enables leaders to look ahead and determine desired outcomes… it gets leaders to become inquiry-minded … and to focus on the specific leadership actions necessary to achieve long-term outcomes” (p.145).

54

Chapter 3

Some studies (Gist & Mitchell, 1992, cited in Baron & Morin, 2009; Hirst, 2001; Carpenter, Webb, Bostock & Coomber, 2012) have demonstrated that leadership supervision both increases an individual’s feeling of confidence in doing a task, and their subsequent performance of a task, and can also improve their sense of commitment to an organisation because of it meeting a personal need for growth and success. The advantages of supervision match LIS facilitator experiences with LIS.

Conclusion In this chapter, we offer a model which has a specific combination and overlapping features of each modality discussed in Chapter 2. In this LIS model, leaders are actively engaged in critical reflective practice in their work context. A one-to-one, confidential setting allows the model to be implemented to offer support, learning and accountability functions through phases of preparation, reconnaissance, implementation, evaluation, reporting and on-going improvement. The goal of the LIS facilitator is to improve levels of a leader’s well-being, motivation, their sense of felt competence and their ability to perform tasks and to model behaviours with integrity, as well as enhance their level of commitment to their organisation.

CHAPTER 4 AUTHENTIC COLLABORATION IN LIS

In this chapter, you will learn: ¥ ¥

What is collaboration?: Why authentic collaboration? Non-defensive interactions: Creating openness and trust

Introduction In earlier chapters, the importance has been noted of the LIS facilitator and leader creating authentic, shared power, non-controlling, non-defensive, collaborative relationships that lead to trust. Eileen: I need to confess from the outset that this is my pet topic, and I believe it is critical - I have been immersed in the topic for over two decades. This chapter begins with a brief introduction to what the term authentic collaboration means. An overview of the non-controlling and non-avoiding values and strategies associated with authentic collaboration follows. The notions of organisational learning, defensive, and productive values and strategies are all discussed. Elaboration is provided for how difficult it is to unlearn the unconscious strategies that lead most of us to be very defensive as we develop greater expertise in a field. Value and strategy shifting that can help overcome our defensive controlling (and avoiding) tendency is introduced. It is such shifts to a productive orientation that create openness and trust in LIS. The underpinning skills associated with creating dialogue in a productive orientation are covered in the final section of the chapter with a focus on withholding assumptions, reflection and double-loop learning.

What is collaboration?: Why authentic collaboration? Before delving into a discussion about the LIS facilitator and leader creating a collaborative, non-controlling relationship we want to briefly introduce the notions of collaboration and provide a rationale for why it is so vital in

56

Chapter 4

the LIS approach. We draw upon an earlier publication (Piggot-Irvine, 2012) on these topics in this discussion where Eileen began by describing: The root meaning of the word collaboration is to ‘co-labour’. Collaboration is bound to notions of joint work, consultation, involvement and participation: it is based on shared goals and shared vision, openness, trust and democratic ideals. It is a term that expresses partnership, cooperation, agreement, consent and working in combination to accomplish mutual objectives and positive change. (p.89)

In the LIS context, almost every word in this quote is highly relevant to the ideals of the model. Words such as shared, openness, trust, partnership, cooperation, mutual, and democratic all feature in the values and strategies association with LIS and collectively comprise the intent of collaboration. Collaboration offers many advantages in LIS. Most importantly, it encourages ownership. In every step of the model, voice is given to the leader, and the LIS facilitator role is to guide the leader to decision making and implementation of improvement. Enhanced ownership by the leader is designed to create greater understanding, acceptance, motivation and commitment. Collaboration also enables the opportunity for the LIS facilitator to utilise their expertise as a supporter, developer, resource provider, clarifier, prompt, counsellor, confronter and assistant in guiding the phases of the model. Collaboration, if misused, can also be perceived as a contrived means for controlling leaders and for this reason, in LIS the word authentic prefaces collaboration, as shown in the title of this chapter. Authentic refers to a deep commitment on the part of the LIS facilitator and leader to engaging in a collaboration that is without guile, where genuine openness is evident and demonstrated through awareness of both own and others’ perspectives that leads to trust and learning. Earlier in Eileen's career, she and a colleague (McMorland & Piggot-Irvine, 2000) attempted to elaborate that there were incrementally deepening levels of challenge in collaboration and that authentic collaboration was the deepest, Level 5. The level descriptors (slightly adapted from our original outline) are provided in Table 8.

Authentic Collaboration in LIS

57

Table 8: Levels of Collaborative Challenge Level 1:

Introduction (seeking and enjoying exploring commonality, excluding discussion of difference, collaborating in a superficial and task-specific way, and with little demonstration or examination of defensive values or strategies);

Level 2:

Recognition of potential of self and others (with rising awareness of differential between self and others, waning enthusiasm for exploring commonality, and increasing willingness to entertain multilateral perspectives on reality, but action is usually limited despite personal perceptions of the value of self-contribution, and if doubt arises the response action is likely to be defensive and self-protective);

Level 3:

Gaining an inquiry perspective (increasing empathy for the perception of others, and coming to genuine acceptance of the validity of another’s way of being/thinking, seeing the world through others’ eyes);

Level 4:

Transition to collaboration (suspending one’s own known perceptions and opening up to unknown other perceptions while allowing for exploration of creativity, true inquiry and genuine collaborative action); and

Level 5:

Trust and co-generation (achieving new levels of awareness of both our own and others’ perspectives, emerging as courage is expressed and inquiry leads to action – a process distinguished by spontaneity, synergy and creativity, and leading to openness, trust and learning).

The Level 5 challenge in collaboration describes authentic collaboration and is considerably associated with non-defensive interactions.

58

Chapter 4

Non-defensive interactions: Creating openness and trust Becoming non-defensive as a LIS facilitator is no small task and involves the employment of micro-level strategies often collectively described as organisational learning (OL) skills (Sun & Scott, 2003). By non-defensive, we mean actively engaging in a relationship with the leader that is free of any dominating behaviours or demonstrating a need to ‘win’or to be the dominant expert in a conversation.

There are no losers

In a non-controlling relationship, there should be equality and openness, with no winners or losers in terms of dominance or power. Chris Argyris (2003), the expert on controlling and non-controlling interactions, was clear that most of us find it hard to authentically have such a relationship, however, especially if we have become reasonably expert in our field. He believes that as we become more experienced and expert, we often develop quite strong but subtle, and often unconscious, controlling strategies. We need to unlearn these strategies if we are to become genuinely equal and open.

Authentic Collaboration in LIS

59

Becoming non-defensive as a LIS facilitator also involves engaging in nonavoiding strategies. Argyris (2003) defined defensiveness as the tendency to protect ourselves and others from potential threat and embarrassment – we defend ourselves in other words. A strong element evident in Argyris’ definition is that of avoidance, and many strategies illustrate this, including covering up or bypassing any threat rather than confronting it, or giving mixed and confusing messages rather than being direct, or knowingly or unknowingly withholding information to prevent upsetting others. The strategies and responses of defensiveness can, therefore, be summarised as either avoidance or control, but we would suggest it is not always easy to categorise responses so simply. This is because what often looks like an avoidance strategy might also be highly controlling. We will use an example scenario to illustrate this. Scenario: Judy (the LIS facilitator) was discussing with Sam his annual 360-degree staff feedback. The feedback was weak in several areas, yet Judy constantly deflected the discussion from that feedback and always reassured Sam that most of the feedback indicated he was performing well as a leader. Superficially it could look like Judy was avoiding confronting the problems in the conversation but in fact she was controlling both the process and content by NOT confronting. Regardless of the strategy categorisation (and as the example shows, it is not always clear), both avoidance and control are usually ineffective because they lead to misunderstandings and consequently low openness and trust. The goal in LIS is to achieve high openness and trust and to, therefore, minimise defensiveness and to incorporate the strategies and beliefs described by Argyris (1990) as productive. As already noted in Chapter 2, becoming non-defensive, productive, is associated with some unlearning or requires what Biggs (1992) and McKay and Kember (1997) some time ago described as engagement in deep learning, i.e. learning that transforms values and beliefs as well as skills from those that are controlling to those non-controlling. Such learning also aligns with the notion of double-loop learning (Cardno & Reynolds, 2009), which we will discuss later. At its core, deep learning challenges us to create an environment in LIS where leaders can be open about their practice and to receiving feedback on this, as well as accepting ownership and committing to any development if change is to occur (Piggot-Irvine, 2003). It is this openness which results in trust.

60

Chapter 4

So, what do we mean by openness and being non-defensive? We believe, like many others (e.g. Argyris, 1990; Cardno, 2001; Senge et al., 2012), there are complex interactions involved in openness. For example, just one such interaction includes the need for the LIS facilitator to withhold assumptions about an issue until every aspect of the situation with a leader is checked out. Overall, when in testy situations (such as needing to confront inappropriate responses with a leader), the complexity associated with openness is heightened. Fundamentally, it is relatively easy to be open when no confronting (note that this word differs from confrontation) is required, but that situation changes quickly when there are difficulties. Unfortunately, in the latter situation, most of us unknowingly resort to defensive controlling or avoiding behaviours (such as imposing our thinking and solutions) and this defensiveness blocks openness and the opportunity to have equal sharing in LIS. Equal sharing requires a productive orientation. A productive approach In a productive approach, the two critical initial facets of a conversation when we have a testy situation are often described as advocacy and inquiry. The first facet, advocacy, involves the LIS facilitator raising concerns by stating their views (which are usually kept at a hypothetical level until checked by the leader), the premises for those views, and the evidence available to support the views. The example shown in the next scenario with Judy and Sam should demonstrate how Judy, as LIS facilitator, makes advocacy statements about the situation in the first two parts of her conversation with Sam. Here, she reasonably clearly gives her views, premises and evidence. The most important component of advocacy is that these views are expressed in such a way to invite checking and challenge by the leader to whom they are addressed. Judy made it clear it was her interpretation only, and she proposed this in a way which could be seen as hypothetical, i.e. open for checking or testing (inquiry). The second facet, inquiry, involves receiving other viewpoints which might check and challenge the advocacy statements. Just receiving the viewpoints is not enough, however, because there must be no prejudgement or need to control linked to hearing alternative points of view. As you can see in the next scenario, Judy actively invites checking and the challenge of her views

Authentic Collaboration in LIS

61

from Sam. Sam did have alternative views, and it was critical that Judy was genuinely willing to accept the challenge to her views non-defensively. Scenario: Advocacy and Inquiry Steps Judy (the LIS facilitator): I see several anomalies in the 360-degree staff feedback that I would like to explore with you if that’s okay. (ADVOCACY) Sam (leader): Oh! Okay, what do you mean? Judy: My interpretation of the data (which could be wrong, so I want to check this with you) suggests that about 60% of your staff believe that you are poor at meeting facilitation. If this is accurate, I would be worried about the implications of that on your effectiveness as a leader so can I show you how I came to this conclusion and can you check whether I have interpreted this correctly… (Judy identifies specific feedback items as evidence which might support this interpretation) … (ADVOCACY) Sam: Well, I think you might be right about one of those, but I am not sure that the feedback from the staff on the second question supports it. Judy: Can we look at that Sam? I’m not discounting what you are saying, so show me what you mean. I would really like to see that. (INQUIRY) As we have suggested elsewhere (Piggot-Irvine, 2015), the imbalance, or overuse, of either of these two critical facets of advocacy and inquiry usually results in defensive control or avoidance. For example, if Judy had spent ten minutes strongly advocating her concern and backing it with excessive reasons for the concern but then just quickly asked Sam to provide his viewpoint, Sam would likely be overwhelmed and possibly be feeling cornered by Judy’s statements. In this situation, Judy could come across to Sam as dominating and controlling. It is vital, therefore, to keep a balance between advocacy and inquiry in the conversation. The balance creates a two-way dialogue linked to mutual understanding and agreement (or agreement to disagree) about issues.

62

Chapter 4

Mutual inquiry via advocacy and inquiry generates new thinking These two facets of advocacy and inquiry are summarised in Table 9.

Table 9: Becoming Productive – Advocacy and Inquiry in Dialogue Advocacy Stating views but in a hypothetical way Disclosing premises for views Providing evidence to back up views Inquiry Actively seeking response to views and premises Inviting checking and challenge to views, premises and evidence Receiving alternative views non-defensively Once advocacy and inquiry have occurred, in a productive approach, it is essential for some summary of shared understanding to be reached between the LIS facilitator and leader. The understanding might include an agreement to seek further information in order to provide more clarity about a situation before any conclusion is made. An extension of the previous scenario will show such an agreement.

Authentic Collaboration in LIS

63

Scenario: Summarising Shared Understanding Judy: Okay, I think I am getting a pretty clear picture here Sam, but can I check to see if we are both on the same page about it? It looks to me like there are three areas out of the ten items that the scoring was pretty low, but in item two, I agree, it’s not so clear cut because the comments conflict with the continuum results. Is that what you would conclude as well? Sam: Yes, that’s pretty much right, but I guess that second question does need a bit of clearing up. Judy: How do you think we might clarify that? Sam: Well, I suppose I could go back to the staff and ask them to help me to understand their responses better. Judy: That sounds like a great idea. Do you think they would feel comfortable doing that? Judy and Sam then explore the type of approach that might be appropriate for gathering further staff feedback. In this scenario, a result of either the immediately shared understanding or thinking, which might result from further feedback gathering, should be some mutual agreement to solutions to any difficulties identified. Solution generation is one of the steps with which we notice many supervisors and coaches, or their equivalents, have problems. The reason for this may be that many of us jump quickly to giving solutions, despite the fact that we know this will result in low ownership. A LIS facilitator needs to draw upon all their listening, prompting, brainstorming and clarifying skills to STOP offering solutions and to guide the leader to find their own. In our experience, it is not unusual for leaders to need to be given time to go away and think about the solutions. However, once those solutions have been offered by the leader then jointly discussed with the LIS facilitator, the leader can prioritise, plan for implementation and discuss how the improvements will be checked. Collectively all these facets of being productive are often described as a dialogue process, as summarised in Table 10.

Chapter 4

64

Table 10: Dialogue Steps STEPS 1. State views hypothetically and disclose premises for views 2. Show the evidence for these views Collectively Steps 1 & 2 are often referred to as ‘Advocacy’ Steps 3. Seek responses and invite checking and challenge to views, premises and evidence This step is often referred to as the ‘Inquiry’ Step. 4. Summarise shared understanding or the need for more information and determine if needed Repeat steps 1 – 4 if necessary before moving on 5. Leader suggests solutions and joint evaluation of these solutions occurs 6. Decide together on priorities for solutions 7. Jointly plan for implementation steps and checking of improvement Adapted from Piggot-Irvine and Doyle (2010) Productive dialogue (referred to as learning conversations by Robinson & Lai, 2006) mainly involves a translation of the theory of productive reasoning into practice steps. Productive reasoning, like Robinson, Absolum, Cardno, and Steele (1990) earlier determined, involves: ... a disclosure of our views together with the evidence of logic that led us to those views ... to enhance the freedom of others to express differing views and to make uncoerced choices about courses of action, including about how to resolve impasses. (p. 2)

Bilaterality (considering two sides) is essential in the approach because checking and understanding others' perspectives is vital. It might look like the steps of productive dialogue look logical and easy to implement, but we have found they are challenging to apply in challenging situations. Use of the steps: “requires significant, profound, shifts involving exposure, examination and alteration of defensive values at a deeply personal level which is both cognitively and emotionally difficult” (Piggot-Irvine & Doyle, 2010, p.61). Dick and Dalmau (1999) suggested that the combined value and behaviour shifting necessitates a high level of self-honesty.

Authentic Collaboration in LIS

65

Self-honesty requires honest reflection

The learning difficulty associated with creating dialogue requires both LIS facilitator and leaders to have the skills to: x withhold assumptions (not leap to premature conclusions); x employ both reflection in action and reflection on action; and x engage in double-loop learning. The latter are underpinning skills that must be engaged in alongside the dialogue process if it is to be effective. Next, we elaborate some of these skills by drawing upon Piggot-Irvine and Doyle (2010). Withholding assumptions In a difficult situation, it is common for both LIS facilitators and leaders to leap to conclusions and make assumptions without reference to any supporting evidence or facts. Argyris (1990), and Senge et al. (2012) used a ‘ladder of inference’ to illustrate the need to avoid jumping to premature conclusions without first checking facts. Figure 6 shows that what we should be doing is staying low on the ladder of inference and slowly working up to it by checking before drawing conclusions. At the bottom of the ladder is a pool of information (data/facts) derived from either the LIS facilitator or leader revelation of thinking and beliefs (their advocacy in the dialogue steps). Each rung represents the checking and questioning (the inquiry step) of assumptions/inferences linked with that information in incrementally moving towards a conclusion. The top step of the ladder

66

Chapter 4

represents conclusions drawn that should be factually/data based and therefore valid if data are checked for accuracy. Figure 6: Ladder of Inference

Reflection in and on action Reflection is also a critical skill underpinning dialogue. As noted in Chapter 3, Argyris and Schön (1974) described reflection in action as the ability to check and test assumptions while engaged in a conversation (see also Piggot-Irvine, 2014). This is a very challenging level of reflection because it requires us to reflect on the spot – to think in action, to respond appropriately and have the capacity to change our actions mid-performance. Most of us are so emotionally caught up in defensive responses when there are challenging situations, that thinking so clearly on the spot is extremely difficult. Reflection on action is much easier than reflection in action because it is associated with us thinking about the right things to say and do after the event. It is much easier to be wise in hindsight! However, the good news is that reflection in action improves significantly with practice of the dialogue steps.

Authentic Collaboration in LIS

67

Double-loop learning Taking learning beyond a superficial level is the third of the skills identified as necessary in dialogue. Here, the goal is not just to change our actions and skills when involved in dialogue (single-loop learning) but to reflect upon, examine and shift our beliefs and values if necessary, so we are genuinely productive, i.e. open. Just changing our actions and skills is described as single loop learning. In our experience, leaders are swift to recognise that their LIS facilitator is engaging in single-loop learning if the LIS facilitator presents a façade of openness but somehow reveals that their beliefs and values are based on controlling or avoiding defensive intentions. Defensiveness can only be truly overcome by engaging in double-loop learning, as shown in Figure 7. In double-loop learning the LIS facilitator and leader deeply explore the underlying reasons for actions alongside changing their defensive values and strategies. Figure 7: Single and Double-Loop Learning

68

Chapter 4

Conclusion The content of this chapter is one of the most important in the book. We believe that LIS, or any other model of one-to-one support for leaders, is likely to be ineffective if authentic collaboration is missing. If defensive controlling and/or avoiding values and strategies are associated with LIS facilitator and leader interactions, they will not only be quickly detected but also undermine any attempt to create openness and trust. Though difficult to unlearn the unconscious strategies that lead most of us to be defensive, we believe it is critical that value and strategy shifting to a productive orientation is given the highest priority in LIS. Such a stance is also supported for all modalities of one-to-one support, and Johnson et al. (2014) confirmed this for supervision when suggesting that transformational supervision results when: “… the supervisor offers increasing levels of support, empowerment, authenticity, and reciprocity; over time, the relationship has a more interdependent, egalitarian, and communitarian character” (p.1073).

CHAPTER 5 KEEPING YOURSELF SAFE IN LIS

In this chapter, you will learn: 9 9 9 9 9

What ‘safety’ involves Transparent expectations: contracting Ethics Cultural responsibility LIS for LIS facilitator: meta-level support

Introduction Just knowing the principles and processes, and a model is insufficient for becoming an expert LIS facilitator. This role is highly complex, potentially conflictual, often political, and likely to be contentious. Because of the everpresent risk in such fraught circumstances, it is vital that both LIS facilitator, the leader, and their organisation have clarity and safety around boundaries, roles, and practice. In this chapter, we discuss what safety involves in LIS, how transparency can be established via contracting, and what ethical standards need to be met. We also cover cultural considerations to take into account in LIS. The chapter concludes with a discussion of maintaining safe practice via the use of meta-support for ourselves as LIS facilitators.

The importance of contracting Before outlining practical approaches for contracting with the LIS in oneto-one support, we provide a rationale for the importance of this essential step. In the coaching field, several authors have noted that there is significant, if sporadic, involvement by organisations in setting coaching outcomes and in evaluating outcomes (Passmore & Fillery-Travis, 2011; Rogers, 2008; Stewart et al, 2008). These results are different, however, from those found by Eriksson (2011) and Ogilvy and Ellam-Dyson (2012) which have shown no involvement in contracting on the part of

70

Chapter 5

organisations. Copeland (2005) reported from her research with supervisors also that 37% had no contract at all. Challenges may arise, primarily when associated with the omission of a contract between a LIS facilitator (or any other support person) and a leader. The challenges include: lack of clarity, for examples around boundaries between line-managers above the leader in LIS and the LIS facilitator; lack of transparency about how information will be shared, when and by whom; the risk of putting facilitators under pressure to disclose information threatening confidentiality; and knowing how to deal with lack of leader engagement. We see contracting as essential. The key benefits include: setting a clear framework for the support; clarifying the roles and expectations of all parties; establishing clear boundaries and protocols; and jointly setting a focus that will deliver both individual and organisational benefit.

Contracting allows for shared understanding

For leadership/executive coaching, Turner and Hawkins (2016) have taken the contracting to an extended level in what they have described as multistakeholder contracting (leader, their manager, and coach involved in establishing goals). Such extension enables broader, organisational context, consideration in goal setting with leaders. Multi-stakeholder contracting, these authors believe, is: “one way to ensure there is shared agreement on

Keeping Yourself Safe in LIS

71

outcomes and therefore shared understanding and responsibility for evaluation” (p.51) of the outcomes of coaching. We include a comment on this research because the LIS emphasises the importance of an organisationwide view and goal setting is intended to align with organisation direction. Turner and Hawkins noted that in such a coaching approach: “to date there has been no published data on the impact, benefits and challenges” (p.49).

What safety involves Contracting is intrinsically linked to keeping safe in LIS and is equally vital for the LIS facilitator as it is for the leader. Safety involves making sure that we are transparent in our expectations and arrangements for both ourselves as LIS facilitators and the leaders with whom we work. Having a contract with the leader and their employee body ensures such safety. Safety also involves having a clear code of ethics linked to our values, principles, processes and outcomes and sharing this code openly with leaders. Cultural responsibility is a component of safety – both at a broad general level of cultural understanding and respect when we work with leaders from multiple cultures, and a deeper level in the multicultural countries that we work in. Safety requires us to ensure that we have LIS facilitator support ourselves so that we are practising effectively as well as experiencing support, learning, growth and challenge. Each of these issues associated with safety is discussed in the following sections of this chapter.

Transparent expectations Contracting offers an opportunity for the LIS facilitator, leader and the leader's employee to be explicit about and agree upon expectations, arrangements and outcomes in LIS. Page and Wosket (1994) suggested that a contract should cover ground rules, boundaries, accountabilities, expectations and relationships. Hawkins and Smith (2007) added that practicalities, working alliances, session format, and the organisational and professional context also need to be considered. Copeland (2005) outlined that the contract can also have administrative (venue, fees, etc.) and professional components (in our model, the LIS process and work itself). In this section, we offer an example of the way that we have interpreted these dimensions of contracts in our practice. We have experienced two levels of contracting in LIS. The first level is contracting with the organisation of the leaders. The second level is

72

Chapter 5

contracting between the LIS facilitator and leader. Regardless of the level, the contract should be written and signed. Contract between the LIS facilitator and the leader’s organisation This type of contract, in our experience, is becoming more prevalent. Almost all the organisations where we conduct LIS now request that we sign what is often called ‘a contract for service’. Increasingly, we are also experiencing that such contracts have expanded from a one-page signed agreement to anything up to 15 pages. Before discussing the content of such a document, we want to note what we see as the most contentious element of such contracts, that is, a growing expectation we will provide the governing board or CEO of the organisation with a summary of the content of LIS. The argument behind such an expectation is that the organisation is paying for LIS, so there is accountability on the part of the LIS facilitator to demonstrate what has happened. In most instances, when such a requirement is stated, the organisation wants to know it is getting value for money. Initially, we found considerable difficulty with a request for a summary of content because we hold strong ethics about confidentiality in LIS. We would never place ourselves in a position of colluding (or being perceived to collude, even if the perception is inaccurate) with the organisation – a danger Hewson (1999) also highlights. We have incrementally resolved this dilemma by openly discussing our concerns with organisations requesting detailed information, and we think we have reached a fair compromise by summarising only crucial discussion points from LIS and the planned actions from a session. We always consult with the leader to make a final joint decision about what is to be reported in this summary table and to date, have had no problems arising from this approach. We have developed a concise reporting format for this summary, as shown in Table 11. Returning to the contract itself, we have been asked to sign a range of different types of contracts between ourselves as LIS facilitators, and the leader's organisation, and necessarily each has included elements outlined in Table 12.

Keeping Yourself Safe in LIS

73

Table 11: LIS content summary Name Date:

Key Points Discussed x x x x

Planned Actions x x x x

Date:

Table 12: Contract content x Length of the contract (most are one year in duration) x Location x Regularity x Purpose x Fees (incl. GST), including a cancellation (‘no show’) fee x Process engaged in and any protocols if required x Roles and tasks of leader and LIS facilitator x Record keeping and reporting requirements x Expected outcomes for leader and LIS facilitator

x Follow-up expectations from sessions for leader and LIS facilitator x What LIS might NOT cover x Requirements in a crisis x Confidentiality x Ethical issues x How any problems might be resolved x Disputes resolution x Liability x Termination x Contact Details x Availability of the LIS facilitator x Sign off x Date of contract review

In one particularly lengthy contract, there was also an element of ‘evaluation via annual feedback gathering by the organisation’. This organisation was very transparent about the fact that they wanted to ensure they were getting value for money in the LIS process.

74

Chapter 5

Contracts between LIS facilitator and leader Generally, this contract results from an agreement between the leader and LIS facilitator about the expectations each has for LIS and is written after a thorough discussion of a range of arrangements. Rather than describing what such a contract might involve, we include an example contract to demonstrate a typical LIS facilitator and leader contract that we use in Table 13. Table 13: Example LIS facilitator-leader contract LIS Contract Between xxx (LIS facilitator, email xxxx, ph. xxxxxxx) and Name of Leader: Ph. No.: Date:

Workplace: Email: Length of contract:

Purpose of LIS LIS is a forum where confidentiality, the welfare and support of the leader, and the quality of the LIS they receive is central. The purpose of LIS is to enhance learning, development and leadership skills of the leader, to provide support and challenge, and to give the leader the opportunity to review and reflect on their current work in a safe and non-judgemental way. Critique and challenge are components of LIS. Expectations of Leader x To come prepared for the session with specific issues to discuss; x To fully engage in a collaborative learning relationship in LIS; x To keep notes of the session, the learning objectives and intended application; x To complete any follow-up tasks that are agreed to between sessions; and x To inform the LIS facilitator if personal or professional circumstances may affect the work. Expectations of LIS facilitator x To be fully qualified, trained and experienced in leadership and LIS;

Keeping Yourself Safe in LIS

75

x To be present, well prepared, and responsible for timekeeping and creating safety; x To work respectfully and with high integrity and to follow, uphold and monitor the code of ethics; x To overall work with the leader to create learning for both them and the organisation; x To assist the leader to understand material presented and explore alternative interventions; x To affirm the leader’s growth and competency and give clear feedback on concerns; x To complete any follow-up tasks that are agreed to between sessions and to keep clear notes of the session and to store these securely; x To engage in evaluation of the LIS when appropriate and to ensure the leader is clear and in agreement about the purposes, processes and outcomes of the evaluation and who the outcomes will be reported to (if any reporting does occur); x To undertake own LIS for improvement on a regular basis. In such a context, any discussion of the leader will be conducted confidentially. Ethics, Confidentiality and Resolving Conflicts The ethics code associated with this contract will be firmly adhered to. In every situation, strict confidentiality will be associated with LIS sessions. However, if the leader, their staff or any other person is in danger, the LIS facilitator may need to discuss the situation with the leader's employer. The leader would be consulted before such action. If any conflict should arise, the LIS facilitator will first seek to resolve this with the leader. If the problem continues the LIS facilitator and leader will consult with a mutually agreed facilitator. Location LIS sessions will be conducted at xxx. Times, Review and Termination LIS sessions will be one hour long on a monthly (or other pre-arranged interval) basis at a time set at the end of each session. Wherever possible cancellations or rescheduling will be negotiated with at least 24 hours notification. Early termination of the contract from either LIS facilitator or leader will be notified in writing at least one month before termination,

76

Chapter 5

unless necessitated by an emergency. The LIS facilitator will respect the leader right to terminate the contract. The effectiveness of this contract will be collaboratively reviewed annually. Fee and Invoicing The hourly rate for LIS is $xx, in addition to travel and any additional expenses (all plus tax). Invoicing will occur after every third session. A 50% fee will be charged for a ‘no show’. No goods or services will be accepted in lieu of payment. Record Keeping The notes from sessions will be available to the leader if requested. A summary report of session content may be forwarded to the leader organisation, but only after consultation on content with leader. The LIS facilitator will keep a personal record of session content in order to track the sequence of events. These records will be stored in a locked cabinet in the LIS facilitator’s office and will be shared with the leader on request but will not be shared with any third party without the leader’s permission. Signature, LIS facilitator: Signature, Leader:

Date of Contract Review:

As you will probably have noted, the example contract has many elements overlapping with those listed for a contract with an organisation. The one possible exception is the omission of a statement of liability in the LIS facilitator and leader contract – although many would argue that this should be a necessary inclusion.

Ethics All counsellor aligned professionals are required to comply with a code of ethics for practice – and LIS facilitators are no exception. Fundamentally, such a code has to be adhered to if a LIS facilitator is to practise safely as a professional, but we want to emphasise that the ethics we are talking about here are deep-seated, core values, beliefs, attitudes and principles we think should guide our entire lives. We do not believe we can ‘turn on’ a switch for these ethical practices in the LIS room and we would contest that anyone

Keeping Yourself Safe in LIS

77

who operates in that way would find it hard to gain long-term credibility as a LIS facilitator with integrity.

A Code of Ethics sets direction

Like Hawkins and Smith (2007), we also believe we need to be: “… constantly refining one's ethical behaviour to achieve ethical maturity” (p.250). It has been our experience that we have had to constantly strive and develop in order to live the principles we are espousing in our values, beliefs and attitudes. A code of ethics is a helpful guide for good practice and is designed to both inform and protect both LIS facilitators and leaders. A code usually outlines the nature and purpose of LIS (or aligned counselling type practice) and the associated ethical principles, as well as guidelines for practice. In the United Kingdom, multiple codes exist, including the Association for Professional Executive Coaching and Supervision (APECS) and the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP). In Europe, the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) sets of guidelines, and in New Zealand, the code of ethics established by the New Zealand Association of Counsellors (NZAC) is usually the touchstone for us as LIS facilitators. Almost all codes of ethics cover principles of respect for human rights, the LIS facilitator (or equivalent) creating relationships of high integrity,

78

Chapter 5

engaging the leader in growth and development targeted on improvement (personal and organisational), and enhancing the self-efficacy of the leader. We think it is essential to have a ‘big picture’ view of ethical principles and we have actively adopted the note from Hawkins and Smith (2007) that they were inspired by the aspirations of: do unto others what you would like them to do to you and act in the spirit of compassion. For reasons of our development, we think it is important to have considered carefully our personal code of ethics for our practice in LIS and to this end we have developed our own outline, as shown in Table 14. We acknowledge that it draws strongly on the NZAC code, our outline of LIS in earlier chapters and also the ‘productive’, non-controlling approach described in Chapter 4. The development of our own guide for ethical practice has been exceptionally helpful in reinforcing our fundamental beliefs about how we practice. Table 14: LIS Code of Ethics Introduction This LIS code of ethics is designed to ensure that we maintain standards in our practice. We set out our values, guiding principles, process and intended outcomes so that we have transparency for ourselves, the leaders we work with and their organisations. A code of ethics is always linked to key sets of documents in the various countries where we work. In New Zealand for example, these documents are the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles of protection, participation and partnership with Maori (the indigenous people), and the New Zealand law associated with employment, privacy, official information, human rights. Such law is adhered to within organisations that employ us as LIS facilitators. Values At the core of LIS work are the values of being ‘productive’ in terms of the LIS facilitator relationships with leaders. ‘Productive’ means that we work in ways that are: x Open, honest and authentic; x Non-controlling, without dominance or ‘power over’; x Bilateral (partnering in ways that are shared, two rather than onesided); x Non-judgemental and respectful; and x Empathetic and compassionate.

Keeping Yourself Safe in LIS

79

We believe that such values result in relationships of integrity, high trust, autonomy and ultimately, social justice. Ethical principles Underpinning principles elaborate how the core values are expressed. These include that we are: x Clear and transparent about contractual issues; x Dedicated to building strong positive communication with the leader’s employer; x Clear about establishing professional boundaries in our relationship with leaders; x Fair and equitable in dealing with multiple leaders if that occurs in a session; x Open in declaring any previous relationship or connecting circumstance with a leader and open to withdrawing if a conflict in roles emerges; x Non-abusive or harassing; x Actively inviting of feedback and open about outcomes and nondefensive in our response to feedback; x Compassionately confronting and challenging if needed; x Supportive of mutuality and collegiality; x Evidence-based in decision making and low in assumptions until all evidence is checked; x Double-loop learners in terms of wanting to explore the core of issues, and inquiry-based by actively inviting leader perspectives; x Dedicated to ensuring that leaders have freedom of choice in actions and are self-determining; x Holistic in seeing the leader as complex with personal and professional emotional, psychological, spiritual and behavioural needs and responses which, in turn, impact upon their staff and organisation; x Focused on high leader ownership of solutions, with leader personal change at the core; x Reflective both ‘in’ and ‘on action’ of my own and leader practice; x Enthusiastic learners in wanting to improve our own practice whilst maintaining our own competence and safety through regular LIS; x Confidential, unless prior agreement to share information is gained from leader, or there is a serious danger to the leader or their staff, or information is required for legal purposes;

80

Chapter 5

x Culturally sensitive and respectful of diversity and nondiscriminatory; x Concerned with the well-being of leaders and providing a safe space in which the leader can be honest; x Supporting a deliberate climate of vulnerability where doubts, concerns, anxieties and fears about work performance issues can be shared; x Creative in ensuring that multiple learning opportunities and choices are available yet informed and knowledgeable so that creativity is enabled; x Open to referring the leader on if incapable of providing competent LIS; x Focused on both the leader’s organisational issues and LIS context issues and interactions; x Strongly adhering to commitments and promises made, and holding high standards, professionalism, and meeting ethical guidelines; and x Modelling an adult to adult relationship as part of professionalism. Process We do not believe that there is a rigid process for LIS but rather commit to adopting the most appropriate approach for each leader and their level of experience. We intentionally eclectically use a wide range of associated counselling skills and developmental approaches in the LIS process which primarily is designed to include support, development/learning (i.e. the process is ‘educative’) and accountability. Being creative, flexible and adaptable (responsive) is crucial in the LIS process, but so is being patient enough to allow the leader to derive their own solutions. Overall in LIS, improvement is inherent in the model which follows an iterative (cyclic) process of planning, acting and reflecting that keeps cycling until the issue that prompted it is resolved or fully explored. Inevitably new issues emerge, and therefore the process is continuously iterative. The key phases in LIS might occur multiple times within a session, or one cycle might occur over multiple sessions – there is no set pattern or number of cycles. Outcomes for Leader The following outline describes just some of the support, learning/educative and accountability outcomes for leaders that we hope are associated with the process for LIS. Support:

Keeping Yourself Safe in LIS

81

x Emotional support for leadership role and validation of leader both as a person and as a leader; x Overcoming feelings of isolation; x Permitting leader to admit that they don’t know everything; x Harmonising leader personal and professional directions; x Supporting the leader to develop skills, gain new insights, to change themselves; x Dealing with, and maybe changing, a non-supportive work environment; x Assisting in reflecting on work issues, identifying such things as strengths, weaknesses, blind-spots, stresses, bullying and burnout; and x Providing a confidential and high-trust relationship that is focused on the leader and the needs in their role. Learning/Educative: x Providing a ‘thinking partner’ to identify options and strategies; x Developing effective and restorative processes in relationships; x Learning new techniques and skills and understanding theory in relation to practice; x Reviewing interventions and consequences, considering alternatives and other perspectives; x Increasing awareness of leader reactions and responses; x Recharging leader batteries, and giving renewed energy and focus; x Developing competence through reflection and self-knowledge; and x Increasing ability to work flexibly across different work situations. Accountability: x Lifting leader performance to a new level; x Clarifying leader roles and responsibilities; x Focusing via the use of goal setting and checking; x Addressing blind spots or weaknesses, and being pro-active rather than reactive; x Helping the leader to best use personal and professional resources; x The leader taking responsibility for own growth – changing themselves first; x Focusing on both the leader’s organisational issues and LIS context issues and interactions; x Dedicating to building strong positive communication with the leader’s employer; and x Clarifying and working to a professional standard and giving confidence to organisation that leader work is meeting quality requirements.

82

Chapter 5

As Table 14 shows, the code of ethics has multiple, often intersecting, elements. The values underpin the principles and the principles, in turn, guide the LIS process. In our opinion, the support, learning/educative and accountability outcomes only eventuate when we have firmly adhered to these elements. We believe the two components of cultural responsibility are particularly crucial to our own ethical safety, and we have chosen to elaborate on these next to underscore their importance.

Cultural Responsibility A bicultural and multicultural society is a feature of almost every developed country in the world and brings with it a considerable demand for cultural awareness, understanding, appreciation and responsibility for counsellors, coaches, mentors, supervisors and LIS facilitators. It is essential for LIS facilitators to have the capacity to work cross-culturally.

Cultural awareness is vital in LIS

Many of the elements outlined in the values and principles in the code of ethics guide us in our practice with diverse cultures. Fundamentally we can narrow the significant features down to a need to work sensitively, flexibly with openness and respect – all have previously been discussed as predominating underpinnings in the productive approach we recommend in earlier chapters. However, if we highlight just ‘respect’ as one of the values and begin to unravel what this actually means in terms of cultural responsibility, we reveal that ‘respect’ requires us to have an understanding of the values, principles, processes and outcomes revered by cultures (and even subcultures within cultures) but which may differ from our own.

Keeping Yourself Safe in LIS

83

Without this understanding, we think it is more challenging to engage in LIS with clients authentically. What does such ‘understanding’ in general mean? We think it is essential to clarify the latter because we do not have the time to understand every aspect of a client's culture, and we are not signalling this is feasible. Mainly, the understanding involves us taking the time in LIS to continually explore what each client believes is essential in terms of their guiding values, principles, processes and outcomes. This does not happen at any one particular point in time or at the beginning of a LIS relationship necessarily. It happens whenever we might be discussing topics in LIS when cultural influence might be significant. In a recent LIS session, for example, a Malaysian leader was discussing difficulties they were having dealing with the nonchalant attitude of a member of their team. Probing to determine the values and principles the leader had about ‘work ethic’ revealed they held strong beliefs about meeting deadlines, they considered a cultural norm in their society. Articulating these beliefs helped both the LIS facilitator and the leader to understand how they were reacting and how to approach the difficulty. In many countries where a distinctive bicultural society exists just ‘understanding’ at the general level described is not enough. In New Zealand, for example, a bicultural society exists with 0ƗRUL as the indigenous people and much more in-depth understanding is required of LIS facilitators. Considerable respect is accorded to the biculturalism, and this respect is played out actively in the social services field, as reflected in the writing of Wepa (2005). A separate bicultural code of practice has been developed for Social Workers in New Zealand to ensure employers and employees understand ethical social work practice with 0ƗRUL promote indigenous identity, recognise models appropriate to working with 0ƗRUL be aware of socio-cultural-economic impacts, base policies and practice on the Treaty of Waitangi with its principles of partnership, participation and protection. Regardless of whether ‘understanding’ is at a general or more profound level, for us to be culturally safe as a LIS facilitator, there is a need to be consciously vigilant of our practice. We need to continually examine our own cultural values, principles and beliefs and how these impact on our practise – particularly if they create conflict or barriers in LIS. Such critical examination requires us to ensure we have our own LIS.

84

Chapter 5

LIS for LIS facilitators Just as counsellors need supervision, as a LIS facilitator, we also need LIS to ensure we are practising effectively and safely. We believe the principles and processes for LIS associated with outcomes of support, learning and accountability outcomes described in this book are equally necessary for our own development. We relish the opportunity to be challenged, to grow and to keep up to date with our practice. We fully support Beddoe’s (2017) premise that training and monitoring are vital for the type of role we are in as a LIS facilitator. There is considerable support for the importance of the type of ‘meta’ level practice we are promoting here and most commonly, it is described for supervision. Wheeler and King (2000), for example, surveyed 70 supervisors and found such meta-level practice was seen to be: “important, helpful and necessary” (p. 287). Carroll (2006) emphasised many of the points already raised in this book as being equally important to such a metalevel context. He suggested as we do that flexibility is needed in the approach because one size will not fit all. He also noted that if this metalevel of practice is a: “… conversation about a conversation then let's make sure it's thoughtful, helpful, vital, and lifegiving …” (p.8). Adding to this, Butwell (2006) suggested such practice should provide a place to review and reflect, to maintain standards and to get support and ongoing learning. More recently, Hodge’s (2016) exploration of relevance and value of supervision for executive coaches showed that: “one-to-one reflection on practice with a qualified supervisor is a vital factor” (p. 87). Further, Lawrence and Whyte (2014) interviewed 33 executive coaches from Australia/New Zealand about the functions of meta-level coaching supervision. Though coaches cited supervision as the intervention they would be most likely to deploy if they felt the need for emotional support, few coaches said they often felt the need for such support. The predominant function of coaching supervision for coaches was developmental. We have varied the approach to receiving our own meta-level support. At times, we have participated in group process: at other times, we have received one to one sessions with individuals who have varied from psychologists, counsellors and once, a nun. We have chosen the approach or person for our own meta level support based on a current need in terms of development. When choosing the individual for this role, the criteria for selection have usually been unconsciously based on finding a person whose values and principles of work are close to those we have outlined in the code

Keeping Yourself Safe in LIS

85

of ethics. Their processes, however, have often been considerably different to our own and that has been welcomed. We have wanted to experience divergent approaches to this meta-level support in order to challenge and enhance our own practice. We have also varied the timing of the meta-level support. On occasions, we have contracted such support for one to two hours each month, sometimes once every two months. Regardless of the processes used in such support, an important consideration is that of ensuring confidentiality for the leaders we work with if we are discussing them as a ‘case’ in our own meta-level support. We have made sure we have noted in our contract with leaders that if any discussion about them occurs, it will be treated as confidential.

Conclusion Contracting and establishing ethical principles are two key ways we attempt to ensure we create safety in LIS – safety for ourselves, the leaders we work with, and for their organisations. More broadly, we also strive to have cultural understanding to support such safe practice. Engaging in our own meta-level support is a key way to ensure we are being challenged to be effective. Another approach to ensuring an effective and safe practice is to evaluate our LIS process more formally. This is the focus of Chapter 7, but before that, we broaden the discussion of the support context in Chapter 6.

CHAPTER 6 DIFFERING CONTEXTS OF LIS In this chapter, you will learn: 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Differing contexts of LIS LIS for leaders in the education sector The ‘not for profit’ sector The public service sector The health sector The corporate sector Conclusions about LIS in varying sectors

Introduction We have been employed in a LIS one-to-one support role for leaders in almost as wide a range of organisations as conceivable from working voluntarily with community leaders through to the highest level of executives in the corporate sector. In this chapter, we attempt to show whether there are differences and/or overlaps between these sectors with this type of work. The chapter begins with a brief discussion of different contexts as a notion. We have somewhat sequenced the analysis of the varied sectors by looking at those we consider having the lowest employment of LIS type activity first (the education sector) through to that which has the greatest (the corporate sector). We note that this discussion of the employment of such support is a perception based on our own experience, and we are willing to accept this perception may be contested.

Differing contexts First, we would like to emphasise that ‘context’ does not cover ‘type’ of an organisation alone. We have already discussed issues of cultural understanding, appreciation and respect linked to LIS. Culture could, therefore, be considered as a context, as could gender, or variable age groups or religious and philosophical beliefs of leaders, the list associated with

Differing Contexts of LIS

87

context is considerable. Context is a broad term, but in this chapter of the book, we limit the scoping of the term to an organisational type. Within the term organisational type itself, there are almost endless ways that organisations could be grouped, including size, location, structural arrangement, and so on. We have decided to use sector grouping as a way of categorising type. We do this knowing that within each of the sectors discussed, there are further sub-types of organisations. For example, in health, there are occupational, community/district, mental health, to name just a few. In education, there are sector groupings from early childhood through to tertiary/post-schooling types as well as groupings linked to compulsory and non-compulsory, private and public. There is a great deal of complexity associated with sector type! Because the scope even within groupings is so extensive, the discussion in almost every sector category is generic or focused on an identified dominant group. In the education sector, for example, we will only focus on the compulsory school sector. In health, the focus is the general setting, while the not for profit and public service sectors have a generic focus with specific examples. In the corporate sector, the range of types is so vast we have provided a general overview only. When discussing specific types of organisations within which one-to-one support is conducted, the critical issue we have pondered over is whether such support is unique or different in varying sectors. Given the complexity we have started to introduce associated with sector type alone, it is probably evident that our pondering has also been complex! We will return to this issue at the end of the chapter after examining each of the main groupings of organisations within which we have conducted LIS.

One-to-one support for leaders in the education sector It is common for in-school leaders (particularly middle leaders) to engage in the coaching of teachers associated with teaching and learning. Variable, short-term (often 1-2 days), training for coaches is linked to the role. For this book, we will side-step this coaching role and focus more specifically on the one to one support of a deeper kind. Rosenblatt (2011) expressed that: “a common catch-cry is that schools are inefficient, inept, and wasteful, and the oft-cited remedy for such failures is to make them act more like a business” (p.26). Rosenblatt was clear that although schools might learn from business, overall, they are considered effective at achieving their mission to educate children within a

88

Chapter 6

heterogeneous constituency. In particular, he pointed out that schools operate in much more of an ‘open book’ way than most other sectors and notes the fundamental tenet of school governance is openness. Such openness is reflected in participation, consultation and decision-making processes associated with almost every aspect of functioning, including salaries. We share Rosenblatt’s analysis and would conclude, in essence, there is little a community does NOT know about what is happening inside a school. Openness and its contingent consultative processes have multiple benefits, but it is far from unproblematic. It brings with it a need for exceptional communication, negotiation, diplomacy and mediation skills on the part of leaders, as well as a very high-end capacity to demonstrate and model impeccable integrity within the competing demands of the internal and external school community. It is an emotionally, physically and psychologically challenging role and this is made further challenging by the difficulties linked to showing measurable outcomes in education for the less tangible functions a school attempts to achieve such as improving social conditions for children. We have experienced higher levels of stress, loneliness, isolation and burnout in principals and leaders in schools than in any other sector that we have been associated. Ironically, given the perception, the leadership role carries a high-stress burden, in the compulsory education sector across the world LIS, or any one-to-one support approaches for leaders, are almost unheard of. In a study by Eddy, Cardno and Chai (2008), an examination of the current practice and future options for professional supervision for school leaders was conducted in New Zealand. The authors revealed there was no literature reporting on supervision or executive coaching for principals specifically, but some covered mentoring and coaching in broad terms. They also said that approximately two-thirds of principals in New Zealand had no current or recent experience with such professional support type activity and most saw the concept as “broad and illusive” (p.6). We would argue the illusiveness is due to substantial unawareness of processes for support available. The findings of Eddy et al. (2008) are supported in a later report of survey findings by Riley (2017). Of the 561 respondents (principals, deputy and assistant principals), 5.58% noted that they sought support from a psychologist or counsellor; 10.47% from a medical practitioner. It is a common perception in the education sector that ‘appraisal’ (labelled ‘performance management’, ‘performance review’, or ‘evaluation’ variously

Differing Contexts of LIS

89

in different countries) should provide sufficient support for leaders. However, such appraisal/performance evaluation, which is a legislative requirement in most developed countries, is primarily conducted with an audit, accountability, emphasis often seen as more controlling than supportive. As Cardno (2001) noted: “… performance appraisal at its best can be one of the most satisfying, supportive and beneficial experiences for those engaged in it. At its worst, it can be a threatening and even destructive tool for control and compliance” (p. 144). High accountability does not sit comfortably with many school leaders, and a significant body of writing exists critiquing appraisal/performance evaluation as a hierarchical managerialist activity (Down, Chadbourne & Hogan, 2000; Fitzgerald, Youngs & Grootenboer, 2003; Forrester, 2011, to name a few). A high accountability emphasis is not an approach which we endorse. As noted in Piggot-Irvine and Cardno (2005) and Piggot-Irvine (2015a), both developmental and accountability purposes of appraisal/evaluation are essential, and such a ‘dual purpose’ perception of appraisal is shared by other authors (Gratton, 2004; Middlewood & Cardno, 2005). These two purposes of appraisal/evaluation are interdependent and vital if both the organisational and individual needs are to be met. Given the reality (despite our disapproval of the situation) of the previously described emphasis towards accountability in appraisal/evaluation in schools, we propose that the support needs of leaders are significantly not being met and the outcome is the stress and burnout described.

An outcome of burnout and stress is likely if support needs are not met

90

Chapter 6

Until the imbalance in the purposes of appraisal/evaluation is substantially addressed, we contest that more than any other sector, school leaders are desperately in need of the type of LIS outlined in this book. Our stand is supported by a 51% response from principals in the Eddy et al. (2008) research indicating a high or very high need for such professional type support. We do not agree with the conclusion of Eddy et al. (2008) that the: “… models of supervision in the counselling and health sectors are not easily transferable to the context of educational leadership” (p.5). We believe the approach we are proposing in this book is highly applicable to school leaders, and we have employed it within this context with equal effectiveness to any other sector. The LIS approach would offer school leaders all of the advantages of support noted in earlier chapters. Learning, development, a change/improvement orientation and the ‘learning organisation’ underpinnings (Sun & Scott, 2003) fit well with the educative and developmental intent of schools. So too does the reflection, ‘inquiry’, focus which is deeply influenced by an action research/action learning philosophy. Schools are currently among the strongest proponents of this philosophy as a way to inform and improve practice. A critical barrier to acceptance of LIS in the school sector could be linked to the use of anything resembling the word ‘supervision’. In schools, ‘supervision’ is associated with what we have described in Chapter 1 as a traditional interpretation, i.e. a line manager focusing on monitoring that insists on good practice. The Eddy et al. (2008) literature review also identified that the term might not be appropriate for schools because of this ‘work performance’ focus. Many principals in the recent study noted the term had negative associations linked to: “being checked-up” (p.6). In our experience, there is little understanding in the school sector of the way we interpret alternative support in the form of LIS in this book, i.e. an enabling process supporting good practice. One way of eliminating this interpretation barrier is to enlighten school leaders about the enabling definition. One of the reasons for writing this book is to provide such enlightenment. We think the use of the term ‘LIS’ itself will be palatable to school leaders. We also believe that school leaders, with their developmental, inquiry, improvement, bent would be attracted to the LIS intent described in previous chapters.

Differing Contexts of LIS

91

Regardless of the way to overcome barriers to acceptance of LIS, or the model adopted, we do not consider that LIS in schools should be compulsory. In this respect, the education context may differ from others, such as areas of the health sector, where supervision and/or coaching are mandatory for some. In schools, we think a highly developed sense of autonomy and professional self-regulation is held as an ideal and, as Mather and Siefert (2011) suggested, such an ideal is vital for high trust relations. Choice rather than compulsion would, therefore, be preferred in this sector, and we consider any ‘directive’ for LIS would potentially undermine its acceptance and effectiveness.

LIS for leaders in the public service sector The Public Service Sector includes organisations producing, delivering or allocating goods or services on behalf of the government for its citizens. They are resourced and controlled by the government or state. While there is some variance between countries, most would include services such as police, housing, education, and defence. Traditionally, public servants are employed to assist in the formulation and implementation of government policies and deliver services on behalf of the government of the day. The context in which public service organisations deliver services has undergone significant reform since the 1980s aimed at bringing a more private-sector and business-like approach to the public sector; a sector long criticised for being bureaucratic, hierarchical, and controlling. These reforms have emphasised efficiency, performance, accountability, competition, risk management and use of contracts, and increased the pressure on public servants to perform as managers. The demands on public servants to manage in today's complex environment are huge. They must grapple with consistently achieving high standards while managing continuous change and improvement. Promoting leadership alongside management in the public service is supported by a study of public services in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Victoria and Queensland undertaken for the Australian Public Service Commission by the National Institute for Governance (Edwards, Seth-Purdie & Nicoll, 2003). The authors suggest it is essential to increase the leadership capacities of public servants: firstly, by ensuring senior public servants are capable of thinking strategically and of providing informed and innovative advice to political officials; and, secondly by

92

Chapter 6

developing technical and managerial skills and expertise at all levels in the public service. In its first report examining key leadership issues across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, the OECD found there was a: “gap between how their public sectors are, and how the interests of the nation need them to be now or in the future” (OECD, 2001, p7). More specifically, there was a common complaint of a lack of commitment to the underlying values of the public service and the interests of the citizens served. New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Norway, Canada and the United States have given a high priority to address this issue by promoting leadership development. An issue in this sector is the rising numbers of retiring public servants and the need to identify possible future leaders at an early stage and to provide them with training and mentoring programmes. The issue was recognised recently by the Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management (CAPAM) – an international network of senior public servants, Heads of Government, leading academics and researchers located in over 50 different countries across the Commonwealth (CAPAM Featured Report, 2009). The report also noted ‘new’ types of leadership were needed in the current public service context requiring innovation, commitment and respect. The context for public servants provides ample evidence to encourage the implementation of LIS as a means to support and develop leaders to continually act with integrity in a complex and challenging context. In our experience in this sector, LIS is an effective means to reinforce learning from training programmes, promote leadership and to assist leaders in acting with integrity. It provides a confidential forum outside of the public service to review and plan actions, explore ideas and decisions, acknowledge frustrations and problem-solve difficult situations. We think having a confidential forum outside the public service is particularly useful in being accountable to ‘serving the public interest’. There also appears to be a growing acceptance of the value of LIS for frontline leaders who have staff dealing with the public (police officers, case managers, youth workers and justice department workers, etc.). These leaders and managers are often not mandated by a professional body to have LIS or alternative professional support, yet they often deal with extremely stressful situations. LIS for such leaders offers a confidential space to

Differing Contexts of LIS

93

process the challenges, to identify and address issues causing stress and fatigue, and resolve conflict arising in the workplace. Without such support, we believe these leaders may feel less confident over time, more isolated, defensive, unappreciated and become cynical about the public. We have observed that these negative impacts can, in turn, lead to reduced empathy, inappropriate use of authority, impaired decision making, reduced competence, problematic relationships with citizens, colleagues and staff, increased sickness, burnout and staff turnover. Despite the considerable advantages we have noted, generally, in the public sector, LIS type support is barely recognised as being valuable for leaders or managers. In times of fiscal restraints and increased public accountability, it is often considered a luxury in both time and taxpayer money. We would argue this is a short-term view because the longer-term costs to the public sector in terms of attracting, training and retaining high performing leaders are more significant. We have experienced that it is much more cost effective to provide regular ongoing LIS for leaders in providing an excellent service than to be continually dealing with the performance and service issues arising from unhappy staff members. It is heartening for us to see that in some public sector organisations, the uptake of LIS type activity is increasing. For example, in the justice sector alone, Eileen has experienced an approximately five-fold increase in LIS requests in the last four years. As with the education sector, we do not believe making LIS compulsory for leaders in this sector would be helpful but providing it as an option of choice for managers and leaders, particularly as a means of reinforcing training programmes, may enhance its appeal and effectiveness.

LIS for leaders in the not for profit sector The Not for Profit (NFP) Sector - also known as the Third Sector, Voluntary Sector or Non-profit (NPO) – has workplaces which are not government run and do not return profits to shareholders but use all revenue towards meeting their mission or goals. In most countries, some laws govern how NFPs are established and managed, and NFPs are exempted from paying tax. NFPs vary widely in their size, structure and purpose: from national church-run organisations governed by a church body, to locally run small groups governed by elected community board members.

94

Chapter 6

Traditionally, many NFPs have relied on donations or gifts, the selling of goods, lottery grants and government grants for their sources of funding. Their independence and separateness from the government have been valued. However, market reforms, along with local and global economic crises, have meant income from traditional sources has increasingly been under threat, reduced or not forthcoming at all. Thornton (2011) reported from a survey of 243 New Zealand NFPs that 70% noted funding was their most significant issue. A similar situation was borne out for Canada in the ‘Wellesley Institute Report’ (Eakin & Graham, 2009) and Australia in the ‘Managing in a Downturn’ report (Johnson, McMillan, & Shergold, 2009). Reduced and threatened funding has occurred at a time when NFPs are under on-going pressure to improve their efficiency and effectiveness, including the use of increasingly complex and ever-changing computerised information systems, while the needs of their clients have become more significant and more complex to address. The lack of reliability of funding has made it difficult to plan or grow services, and NFPs have been challenged to look widely for funding. Some NFPs have sought government funding because they believed the work they were undertaking was the government’s responsibility. Some have entered into collaborative ventures with other organisations to secure government funding, while others have become more market-driven and dependent on fee-paying clients. Most, however, operate on a mixed funding base, which may include some government funding, fees for service, income-generating activities, along with donations from private individuals, corporate sponsorship, or trust sources. As increasingly the activities of the NFPs are wholly or partially funded from other sources, they risk losing their independence and vision. Responding effectively to this threat requires leaders to give full consideration to the potential benefits as well as drawbacks for the organisation. Such examination includes clarifying what the partnership entails – including the sharing of information, processes, resources, responsibilities, staffing, management and agreement from key stakeholders - to ensure that the partnership is directed towards mutually agreed goals and is sustainable for the organisation. It also requires the leader to be very clear and committed to the organisation's mission. This sector continues to come under the scrutiny of its governance and leadership, financial and performance accountability, and upholding of the safety and confidence of the public as service users and taxpayers.

Differing Contexts of LIS

95

Highlighting several misdeeds and economic losses of some very big NFPs in the United States, Snyder (2009) argued that Boards of many NFPs are ineffective in their governance function, lacking vision and accountability, and do not adequately assess the manager's performance nor make the manager accountable. We have experienced many of the issues raised within LIS of leaders from this sector, and since other countries are experiencing a similar context, these are likely to be issues elsewhere. We also find that many leaders who are not supported by their Board, are often isolated, and end up taking on responsibilities which should belong with the Board. Board support for on-going professional development and LIS of leaders in this sector is often compromised when funding is tight, yet because it is difficult to attract good leaders to the industry due to low remuneration, there has never been a time when such support is so needed. Commenting on the decrease in both staffing and pay levels in the voluntary sector in England, Chief Executive of the National Council for Voluntary Services Sir Stuart Etherington stated in Hudson (2012) that the situation is deeply troubling. He further commented that diminishing resources and less staff, means voluntary organisations struggle to meet the increased demand for their services. Added to the financial constraints are other serious challenges faced by leaders in this sector. These include improved risk management and compliance with regulations, including legal requirements for reporting as a public body. Given the wide-ranging pressures leaders face in this sector, their responsibilities, relative isolation and lack of support, it is surprising that more leaders have sought minimal LIS type support. It is even more remarkable considering leaders in this sector, particularly those managing human service organisations, are likely to have professional qualifications and experience and therefore have observed professional supervision approaches when in previous practitioner roles. As a consequence, they are likely to be aware of the purposes and value of support. When it does exist, LIS type activity in this sector is often budgeted into contracts with government funding bodies and therefore, there is a requirement for auditing to ensure its provision on a regular basis. In our experience, however, the provision of LIS type activity is limited to senior leaders who are required by their professional body to have such support. Pressure on funds is a key reason why more leaders and managers do not seek such support in this sector. Many leaders struggle with the idea of

96

Chapter 6

spending scarce funding on their support and development, especially when it is not mandated. While we have some sympathy with such an altruistic view, we do not think it serves staff members or their clients and organisation well in the longer term – let alone leaders themselves. There is also a common perception amongst many leaders in this sector that as leaders, they should be able to manage themselves and therefore not require professional support. We observe that even the best leaders, those who are competent and experienced, can benefit from the support offered in the professional LIS process and relationship, particularly given the pressured context of NFP organisations. There is some support for this stance in the literature (Hirst, 2001; The Council of Social Service of New South Wales, NCOSS, 2006). Hirst’s (2001) study exploring the place of supervision in the NFP context of complexity, change, and ambiguity, found both on-going leadership and organisational learning were required to develop effective and sustainable services. Furthermore, it was considered that both could be achieved through a LIS type model underpinned by a commitment to critical reflection and learning. The NCOSS (2006) study also noted that professional support approaches had become an option of choice for increasing numbers of executive officers and senior managers in the community sector. The purposes of the support identified by NCOSS included: “the development of the professional competence of the leader, and a responsive stance towards the clients they serve” (p.1). In parallel, the leader can also develop: “a coherent sense of professional identity and purpose, and a considered crystallization of their notion of personal integrity” (p.1). These purposes are certainly in line with the LIS model. Indeed, we have seen a marked increase of leaders of NFPs who do not have professional qualifications or experience seeking LIS as a means of gaining knowledge and understanding of the sector, professional practice and developing critical self-awareness and sound ethical judgment. With growing awareness of the lack of support and potential for burnout in NFPs, some leaders are entering into informal peer support arrangements to overcome issues of cost. Concerns about confidentiality, different levels of experience that can impact on the quality of the experience, and the time commitment – especially when there is not a cost attached - often undermine such arrangements.

Differing Contexts of LIS

97

As we have noted for other sectors, while we do not usually support the notion of LIS being compulsory, we believe a strong case can be put for it to be offered as part of an Employment Agreement for leaders in NFPs, given the very challenging context, responsibility for service delivery, and relative isolation.

LIS for leaders in the health sector The public health sector in many countries has undergone considerable structural changes in the last four decades. A common element of the changes has been reduced funding, often linked to an increase in population numbers and demand associated with an ageing population. The consequence is district health boards (or their equivalent) running large deficits annually. These deficits have negatively affected the provision for leadership support in this sector. Varied authors outline the benefits of coaching for potential leaders in the health sector (Risley & Cooper, 2011; Sambunjak, Straus & Marusic, 2010) but we have found it challenging to find examples of research to support the on-going development of leaders in the health sector (Grant, Studholme, Verma, Kirkwood, Paton & O'Connor, 2017). Despite the argument that coaching and mentoring provide wellbeing benefits to a workforce that is under considerable pressure and stress (O’Connor & Cavenagh, 2013), often the burden of funding limits the opportunities for leaders to engage in this support. Around the world, however, there is evidence of coaching through preceptor support of nursing students, new nurses and those in new clinical positions. The mental health sector has mandated regular supervision provided for those working in this area. Nurse educators are employed in the health sector to provide training and support for new nurses, nursing students and to upskill staff on new developments for their professional development. In many countries, health boards make their own decisions about how they allocate resources. Consequently, the availability of LIS or any one-to-one support is variable across hospitals and departments within a hospital. One hospital or department within a hospital may prioritise such support for leaders, while other departments within the same hospital will not. One-toone support for leaders, organised as a regular part of their development seems to be inconsistent.

98

Chapter 6

As in the education sector, appraisal, often referred to as performance review or performance management, is seen as a way of providing support for leaders. Appraisal, however, is seen as a summative judgement and a compliance act by participants, rather than a supportive developmental act. LIS however, as we have defined it, is an ongoing form of support which provides for far more than an annual appraisal event in terms of continuing development. An appraisal may identify the goals and skills needing development, but LIS delivers ongoing support to realise these and has a much more powerful effect on the leader’s development. Grant et al., (2017), for example, have indicated that there were: “significant improvements in goal attainment, solution-focused thinking, leadership self-efficacy, perspective-taking capacity, self-insight and resilience, and ambiguity tolerance” (p. 237) from their evaluation of providing coaching within an Australian healthcare setting. A barrier to implementing LIS in the health sector could be linked to the use of clinical supervision. Clinical supervision is provided to address areas of concern in a clinician’s practice, whether the clinician is a nurse, doctor or specialist. Usually, these concerns are regarded as severe, life-endangering and could threaten the ongoing employment of a clinician in some cases. Where we have been involved with clinicians, the focus has been restricted to the use of LIS for their leadership role. We do not have the authority or expertise to be involved in their clinical role. We see LIS as an enabling process that supports and develops good practice of their leadership alone. We consider LIS should be available to all clinical leaders if the sector is serious about supporting, retaining and growing leaders from within their sector. It should not be a request as part of a contract negotiation or an ad hoc arrangement within a team, but a right for all as the benefits across the sector far outweigh the cost of this provision.

LIS for leaders in the corporate sector By far the most prolific implementation of LIS that we conduct occurs in the corporate sector which can cover as diverse organisations as manufacturing, industry, and retail etc. We acknowledge, however, that the interpretation and practice of leadership support aligned activity in this sector most often fall under the banner of ‘executive coaching’.

Differing Contexts of LIS

99

Executive coaching is defined by Kilburg (2000) as a: … helping relationship formed between a client who has managerial authority and responsibility in an organization and a consultant who uses a wide range of behavioural techniques and methods to assist the client to achieve a mutually defined set of goals to improve his or her performance and personal satisfaction and consequently to improve the effectiveness of the client's organization within a formerly defined coaching agreement. (pp. 66-67)

Kilburg’s definition is in keeping with the goal-oriented bent of coaching generally identified in Chapter 2. We have already shared our misgivings about what appears to be the less flexible approach of ‘coaching’ compared to the way that we have defined and are practising as ‘LIS’. The spread of executive coaching activity in the corporate sector is now so extensive that we would conclude it would be rare for it not to be a part of a leader's employment package. Given there is little research on LIS, specifically in this sector to date, we will focus our discussion on executive coaching and how effective it is. Because the corporate sector is primarily focused on entrepreneurial and profit generating activity, it is our experience that it is the sector which has, in the past, been most prepared to fund LIS type activity generously. Dagley (2006) informs us that an average investment in executive coaching in Australia in 2005 was over $700 per person and somewhat less in smaller organisations. Executive coaching is a considerable investment – multiple times the amount we would typically charge, or be offered, in other sectors. Regardless of the amount, however, Dagley is clear that: “HR professionals, however, need to be able to demonstrate the financial value of programs” (p.2). In the current competitive financial environment, we are noticing such demonstration has become more critical and there is an increasing focus linked to value for money or, in corporate terms, good ‘return on investment’ (ROI).

100

Chapter 6

A balance between developing people and return on investment is often needed

Overall, Dagley’s (2006) findings, from his study of experiences and perceptions of HR professionals utilising executive coaching with more than 1000 executive coaching programmes, indicated that this is an effective intervention for development in the sector. There are problems, however, associated with drawing conclusions because executive coaching, like LIS, is complex with numerous variables (coach characteristics, the coachexecutive relationship, the process) influencing effectiveness and outcomes - a point reiterated by Ely et al. (2010). Respondents in Dagley’s (2006) research rated the highest factors influencing success as issues of quality, integrity and credibility of coaches, their relationship (rapport and trust) and confidentiality with executives, organisational (senior management) support, and participant engagement and commitment. We do not think these factors differ from any other sector in which we practise. The most common personal benefits of coaching reported for executives in Dagley’s research included: enhanced clarity about their style and responses; improved communication and engagement skills; improved coping with stress and robustness, and clearer understanding of professional performance. There are slight overlaps with benefits suggested by Blackman (2006) who included increased self-awareness and development of leadership skills. Again, we see no difference in these individual benefits to those in other sectors. Organisational benefits such as professional development of a talent pool (behaviour change stated as a ‘great outcome’), building capability, talent retention and increased morale, and effective leadership were also noted in

Differing Contexts of LIS

101

Dagley’s research. This list does not differ substantially from those organisational benefits shown by Hall, Otazo and Hollenbeck (1999) linked to performance management, change management, talent leadership development, career management and organisational management. The emphasis placed in these lists is where we have observed some distinction in the corporate sector, particularly around the concepts of ‘talent’ development and retention. The word talent has ‘competitive’ connotations, and although such competition and its bed-mate entrepreneurship are vital in the corporate world, they would barely rate as a focus in most of the other sectors discussed in this chapter. In terms of the purposes of LIS in the corporate sector, we also see little overall difference with other sectors. Dagley (2006) noted negative connotations when coaching is employed for “remediation” (p.4) purposes by senior executives. Here, coaching is used mainly to deal with problems with executives below the senior level. Such an indirect approach could be seen as allowing senior executives to avoid dealing with the issues themselves. However, where there is a real commitment to coaching by senior executives and where developmental purposes predominated, Dagley reports positive outcomes. The latter is in keeping with our experience throughout all sectors. Dagley (2006) also found the two most common problems in coaching with executives in the corporate sector were those of finding time for sessions, and the expense. We consider the time issue is a problem across every sector we work in, so this is not a distinguishing feature of the corporate sector. As noted earlier, until recently we would have also suggested that the almost total disregard for the expense of LIS type practice is what would have set the corporate apart from other sectors. We think this is changing, however, because we have seen a significant shift in considerations around expense latterly hence the current emphasis in evaluation on ROI.

Conclusion The discussion of LIS, or similar type activity, in the varied sectors reveals there is considerable variation in uptake not only across sectors but also within. We noted at the beginning of this chapter that the lowest employment of LIS, coaching and supervision is evident in the education sector, yet this sector has some of the most stressed leaders with whom we have engaged. We believe the traditional definition of ‘supervision’ as a control type relationship has possibly created a barrier for interest in this

102

Chapter 6

type of activity in education. However, we are observing increasing interest in the sort of support and development that LIS has to offer in the education sector, and the increase also applies to leaders and line managers in the public service sector – another sector where historically such activity has been considerably under-utilised but possibly more for reasons of fiscal restraint. In the NFP sector we have experienced a slightly enhanced LIS uptake but nowhere near as would be anticipated since many leaders in this sector have moved from professions, particularly in the health sector, where professional supervision is often mandatory. Once again, it has been our observation that lower uptake is linked to a fiscal constraint. The most significant uptake of LIS type activity is occurring in the corporate sector, usually in the form of executive coaching or mentoring. Increasingly employers are looking for evidence of ROI in this sector, and this has led to our enhanced interest in the way evaluation of LIS can be conducted. This is a topic addressed in the next chapter. Finally, we noted at the beginning of this chapter that we would return to the issue of whether LIS is unique or different in varying sectors. We conclude we do not believe this to be the case. We have reiterated similar benefits and barriers to LIS in almost every sector discussed. Primarily, we see the only differences that exist are associated with individual leader integrity, values, professionalism and style – and they vary just as much within sectors as between!

CHAPTER 7 EVALUATING LEADERSHIP ONE-TO-ONE EXTERNAL SUPPORT

In this chapter, you will learn: ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥

What evaluation means: Rationale and purposes The definitions and processes of evaluation Establishment of an evaluative framework Who should undertake the evaluation The data collection tools for evidence gathering Reporting and making recommendations Broader approaches to evaluation

Introduction Part of the challenge in any one-to-one support for leaders (whether LIS, supervision, mentoring or coaching) is maintaining the standards and integrity we follow in our codes of conduct with whatever modality we are using. Every coach, mentor or supervisor that we have known, including ourselves, strives to live these espoused codes: or to put it another way, we attempt to match our espousals to our practice. In Chapter 2, we have described a boundary-busting, pragmatic, LIS model for one-to-one support for leaders. In this model, a key to the maintenance of continuing integrity with leaders is to evaluate how well the LIS facilitator meets standards of effectiveness and to determine the impact of LIS practice. All discussion in this chapter is focused on evaluation associated with the LIS model. However, the principles and practical tools could be adapted to apply in any model of leadership support. Most importantly, the chapter outlines developing thinking and practice on evaluation as ideas under construction that we wish to encourage dialogue about - the sort of

104

Chapter 7

discussion noted as so crucial for the LIS process in earlier chapters. We, therefore, welcome feedback and critique!

What evaluation means: Rationale and purposes Evaluation of leadership support such as LIS is far from typical, as Ely et al. (2010) confirmed when stating that a dearth of evaluations is a “systematic complaint” (p. 588). The latter authors offered several suggested reasons for this dearth, including multiplicity of needs and expectations of stakeholders (e.g. leader needs are likely to vary from their organisation needs), varied data sources and evaluation methodologies, lack of appropriate populations to provide samples, the complexity of the evaluation process, and the uniqueness of approaches adopted that would need to be evaluated. Dagley (2009) added to this list the issues of confidentiality, lack of organisation support, and diversity of goals as further limitations to measurement/evaluation. To add to this complexity of reasons for under-utilisation of evaluation, and hence perhaps avoidance of it, Falender (2014) argues that: “a myriad of uncontrolled variables (i.e., developmental level of supervisees, unequal comparison groups) make existing data virtually meaningless.” (p.144). The suggested reasons for complexity in evaluation, we believe, should not be used as excuses for not evaluating one-to-one leadership support. We also do not think it is a meaningless exercise. Instead, the lack of evaluation could be seen as a reason to explore approaches to evaluation more rigorously. We also argue that the sort of research reported by Dagley (2006) indicating that outcomes from coaching and supervision are considered to be moderate and non-specific provides something of a challenge. The challenge is to show that outcomes can be more than moderate and quite specific if an evaluation is conducted well. Any discussion of outcomes raises questions about which level, or depth, of evaluation is considered to be necessary. Dagley (2009), when reporting on perceptions of Human Resource Managers of executive coaching (the approach most reported in the corporate sector), noted that informal qualitative data was most valued in measuring effectiveness.

Evaluating Leadership One-to-one External Support

105

Evaluation is focused on examining effectiveness

Hawkins and Smith (2007) described that evaluation could progress through stages of development from a first stage where the evaluation method is to collect structured or informal feedback on providers by coaches, through to a final stage where multiple evaluation methods are used (including 360degree feedback). The latter evaluation approach is used to determine not only effectiveness itself but also to compare the efficacy of interventions and their outcomes, as well as the impact on shift in organisational culture with links made to hard performance data. So, what is evaluation? Evaluation is a term used widely to describe a vast range of activities and such a range provides a problem if trying to pin evaluation down to a straightforward description of its purpose. PiggotIrvine and Cardno (2005) drew on an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 1989) description of the purposes of evaluation as: “any activity where the quality of provision is the subject of systematic study” (p.12). The quality of provision in LIS, for example, might be associated with elements of the process (including LIS facilitator and leader relationships) as well as progress/outcomes for leaders or the organisation. Outcomes, in particular, are often quite different for leaders and their organisations. Support and development outcomes are often expectations of leaders, while the organisation frequently requests concrete data to show return on investment (ROI) which, in one of our own experiences was also used in decision making about our retention as a LIS facilitator!

106

Chapter 7

Whatever the dimension or different expectations of evaluation, for a LIS facilitator, the overarching purpose is that of enquiry about the quality of improvement or change and the generation of data to guide next steps in LIS. Such enquiry is grounded in data-based decision making to establish sound conclusions and recommendations. This is not too far removed from Page and Wosket's (2001) perception that evaluation in the supervision context allows the supervisor and supervisee to determine the value of the experience and to consider implications for change. Frequently cited purposes of evaluation are described as formative (during) and summative (endpoint) (Davidson, 2005; Preskill & Russ-Eft, 2005). These two purposes are often noted as separate – an approach which is not supported in LIS evaluation, and also clarified in the following statement in Piggot-Irvine and Cardno (2005): Evaluation’s role is inherently summative. That is, it is associated with the making of judgements which invariably impact on decision-making. But evaluation can also have a formative role, in the sense that investigation into and description of an issue might also lead to development and improvement during the process itself. The formative and summative roles of evaluation can be seen to overlap and blur rather than be limited to either side of an imaginary barrier. (p.19)

The assumption of a formative - summative purpose distinction is therefore often an oversimplification, and in LIS evaluation the explicit intent is for both to occur. The goal is a combination of during and end-point decisions that have development and accountability purposes. Such evaluation is strongly associated with the purposes of learning. The evaluation should create knowledge that helps to improve both the process and outcomes of LIS and to assure safety. Such a learning, improvement, orientation associated purpose in evaluation is linked to engaging the stakeholders (leaders, their managers, their staff, governing bodies) as participants in any evaluation conducted.

Definitions and process From the range of purposes described for evaluation, it is probably selfevident there will also be a raft of definitions. Definitions have varied somewhat over the years as purposes and models of evaluation have evolved. Despite this variation, Preskill and Russ-Eft (2005) considered there were essential commonalities in the definitions of evaluation, including it:

Evaluating Leadership One-to-one External Support

x x x x

107

Is a systematic process; Involves collecting data about the issues being evaluated; Enhances knowledge and decision-making; and Has some aspect of judgement about merit, worth, or value.

There are overlaps with Guskey’s (2000) perception of the purposeoriented definition of evaluation as: “the systematic investigation of merit or worth.” (p.42). Guskey expanded that systematic implies a thoughtful and intentional process, the investigation is associated with collection and analysis of appropriate and pertinent information, and merit or worth involves appraisal and judgement. In terms of process (or a roadmap for evaluation), LIS has adapted a model proposed by Preskill and Russ-Eft (2005) who suggested that the following actions are associated with evaluation (note our additions are shown in italics): Deciding who will conduct the evaluation; Establishing an evaluation framework and criteria; Constructing standards; Determining the data collection tools for evidence gathering; Measuring performance and comparing with standards; Synthesising and integrating evidence into a judgement of worth; and x Reporting and making recommendations.

x x x x x x

The actions are used to illustrate the LIS process elements in the following sections.

Deciding who will conduct the evaluation There are multiple options available when deciding which model of evaluation to adopt, and an essential first decision links to whether the evaluation should be undertaken by the coach/supervisor (internal, where formative learning is a purpose), or an outside expert associated with the contracting agent (external, where summative accountability and objectivity is a purpose), or a combination of both. In LIS, the choice is for the latter because LIS's intended purposes are for both LIS facilitator learning (formative) plus accountability (summative) to the client, i.e. the leaders and the organisation as the contracting agent. However, if there are summative purposes, we want to add our support for the position of researchers such as

108

Chapter 7

Falender (2014) who notes that that: “supervisors are generally untrained in supervisee evaluation” (p144). He emphasises further that the relationship the supervisor has with the supervisee makes any data that they collect in evaluation unreliable. Like Falender, we encourage that a neutral individual collects the data in summative portions of evaluation.

Establishing an evaluation framework: Categories, criteria, data sources and tools The establishment of a clear evaluation framework has been vital for work in LIS, as it is in many other evaluative practices (Piggot-Irvine & Zornes, 2016). A framework provides the focus for the evaluation: an anchor (Baxter & Jack, 2008). It consists of categories for evaluation, criteria associated with these categories, and the data sources to be used. A framework usually has multiple categories and in developing the framework for LIS Kirkpatrick’s (1994) four-level taxonomy (reactions, learning, behaviour and outcomes) which was, in turn, adapted by Ely et al. (2010) was initially considered. After multiple attempts to further adjust the taxonomy for LIS purposes, a decision was made to assign categories based on the principles outlined in LISs code of ethics (derived from LISs values, guiding principles, process and intended outcomes) – although the overlaps with the previous taxonomy categorisations are evident. These categories are shown on the left side column in Table 15. Guthrie, Wamae, Diepeveen, Wooding, and Grant (2013) emphasised that a framework: “requires careful selection of units of aggregation for the collection, analysis and reporting of data.” (p.x). The criteria for the framework categories (also shown in Table 15) are the units of aggregation, and in the case of LIS, these criteria were also drawn from the code of ethics. The detailed criteria are incorporated in Table 15 ‘LIS Feedback Form’ designed to be adapted for self-report from LIS facilitator and leader as well as 360o feedback from leader, staff and managers. In other words, the LIS code of ethics prompted the development of categories and criteria for effectiveness. Ely et al. (2010) recommended that criteria should be set for both outcomes (summative evaluation) to assess effectiveness as a development intervention, and for processes (formative evaluation). Both of these sets of outcomes are included in the evaluation criteria for LIS, as noted in the middle column of Table 15.

Evaluating Leadership One-to-one External Support

109

Table 15: LIS Evaluation Framework Adapted from Ely et al. (2010) based on Kirkpatrick’s (1994) Four-Level Taxonomy Categories

Criteria

Values and Ethical Principles

x Effective implementation of the values of a productive LIS facilitator and leader relationship x Effective implementation of the ethical principles underpinning values in a ‘productive’ LIS facilitator and leader relationship x LIS facilitator and leader perceptions of flexibility of process in terms of meeting their own needs for growth/learning x Implementation of a range of counselling skills and developmental approaches x Process is inclusive of support, learning (i.e. the process is educative) and accountability x The LIS model is evident in cyclic steps of planning, acting and reflecting x Overall, integrity, high trust, autonomy and ultimately social justice are outcomes x Support for leader is evident x Learning has occurred x Goals have been set, implemented and achieved x Enhanced accountability is apparent x LIS facilitator and leader self-efficacy is enhanced x Leader has changed attitudes to the leadership role (job satisfaction and organisational commitment) x Changes in leader behaviours (managing staff etc.) have occurred x Leadership pipeline establishment is enhanced x Increased performance and satisfaction of leader staff may result x ROI is apparent

Process for Learning and Leadership Improvement

Outcomes for leader, staff and organisation

Data Sources and Tools Self-report from LIS facilitator and leader using rating scales and reflective qualitative responses Self-report from LIS facilitator and leader using rating scales and reflective qualitative responses

Self-report from LIS facilitator and leader using rating scales and reflective qualitative responses 360o feedback from staff/managers of leader (conducted by contracting employer) Pre and post selfassessment from leader that is focused on specific goals Goal attainment scaling (GAS)

110

Chapter 7

The framework also details the possible types of data sources and data collection tools used to gather evidence for the criteria listed, as shown in the third column of Table 15. The sources and tools are of varied types: too diverse to cover the full range in the evaluation framework. The tools noted in Table 15 are those used by LIS facilitators and found to provide useful feedback on the effectiveness of LIS. Types of tools are discussed in more detail in the next section.

Determining the data collection tools for evidence gathering The data collection tools noted in Table 15 have been designed to align with the earlier noted purposes for evaluation (i.e. combined development and accountability) and the framework criteria. The criteria, in fact, also helped form the content within the tools. One essential tool, the feedback form, has predominated in LIS evaluation work and LIS facilitators use it primarily as a formative reflection tool with leaders: an approach also encouraged by Hawkins and Shohet (2000). The feedback form is included as an example in Table 16. The form has both closed rating scales (for quick response and analysis) and open-ended questions (more difficult and time-consuming to analyse). If there are too many open questions, in our experience, there is a reduced quality of responses because respondents typically do not like writing a lot (a point confirmed by Bryman, 2012). Alternatively, if there are too many closed questions, the responses might not provide the critical, more in-depth, insights we think is vital in feedback. Table 16 hopefully shows a balance of both open and closed questions.

Evaluating Leadership One-to-one External Support

111

Table 16: Feedback form for LIS This form is designed to get both LIS facilitator and leader responses to the LIS process. The feedback will be used to improve our LIS further, and I will take time in a later session to discuss our responses. All information gained from this feedback will be treated in the strictest confidence and will only be available to me as the LIS facilitator and you as the leader. It will only be made available to the organisation manager if we have previously agreed to that. You will be providing written responses and continuum response statements. For continuum statements please place a tick “¥” in the appropriate box that best represents your response. Each statement has a 5point scale where the highest scoring is given a score of 5 (strongly agree) and lowest a score of 1 (strongly disagree). If you feel unable to provide feedback for a particular statement, please leave it blank. SCALE: 1= strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= not applicable / can’t comment; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree PART ONE: VALUES AND ETHICAL PRINCIPLES In my LIS: 1. Communication is open and honest 2. The relationship feels authentic 3. Interactions are non-controlling, without dominance or ‘power over’ 4. Bilateral (partnering in ways that are shared, two rather than one-sided) dialogue occurs 5. Non-judgementalism is evident 6. Respect is a hallmark of the relationship 7. Empathy and compassion are present 8. Transparency occurs over contractual issues 9. Professional boundaries are respected in my relationship 10. Openness to feedback is encouraged 11. Non-defensiveness is the norm 12. Compassionate confronting and challenging occur

1



2



3



4



5













































112

Chapter 7

13. We are evidence-based in decision making 14. Double-loop learning (exploring the core of issues) occurs 15. Leader perspective is invited 16. A holistic view of leader (personal and professional) is apparent 17. Reflection is valued 18. We are both enthusiastic learners 19. Confidentiality is practised 20. Cultural sensitivity and respect for diversity is apparent 21. A ‘safe’ place exists where vulnerability is okay 22. Multiple learning opportunities and choices are available 23. LIS facilitator knowledge about leadership is strong 24. High standards, professionalism, and meeting ethical guidelines are paramount 25. An adult to adult relationship is part of professionalism 26. We are both accountable and responsible for my own effectiveness













































































Please elaborate on any of the aspects of the LIS values and ethical principles in the box below.

Evaluating Leadership One-to-one External Support

113

PART TWO: PROCESS In my LIS: 27. Approaches are adopted to match leader needs 28. A wide range of counselling skills and developmental approaches are used 29. Processes include support, development/learning and accountability foci 30. Overall, being creative, flexible and adaptable (responsive) is valued 31. The leader deriving their own solutions is valued 32. Planning, implementing improvement and reflecting happen regularly

1

2

3

4

5



































Please elaborate on any of the aspects of the LIS process in the comment box below.

PART THREE: OUTCOMES In my LIS: 33. Emotional support and validation for the leader leadership role is provided 34. Feelings of isolation as a leader are overcome 35. Support to develop skills, gain new insights, is a focus 36. Dealing with and maybe changing a nonsupportive work environment occurs 37. Assisting in reflecting on work issues, identifying strengths, weaknesses, blindspots, stresses, bullying and burnout occurs

1

2

3

4

5



























114

Chapter 7

38. There is provision of a ‘thinking partner’ to identify options and strategies 39. Understanding theory in relation to practice is encouraged 40. Reviewing interventions and consequences, considering alternatives, and getting another perspective occurs 41. There is recharging of leader batteries, renewed energy and focus 42. Increasing leader ability to work flexibly across different work situations results 43. Leader performance is lifted to a new level 44. There is enhanced clarity about leader roles and responsibilities and professional standards 45. Blind spots or weaknesses are addressed 46. The leader being pro-active rather than reactive is an outcome, taking responsibility for own change 47. Help is provided for the leader to best use personal and professional resources 48. The leader gains confidence in meeting quality requirements for their organisation Comment generally on the outcomes of LIS.

Thank you for your time and reflective input







































































Evaluating Leadership One-to-one External Support

115

It is beyond the scope of this chapter to describe all tools suitable for the evaluation of LIS and the attendant advantages and disadvantages of each tool, or their construction. Multiple evaluation books cover such material. We recommend Guskey (2000), Bryman (2012) or Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2011) as sound sources. However, a summary of the tools determined to be appropriate for LIS evaluation is provided in the framework outlined in Table 16. Note that for the more accountabilityfocused (summative) 360 feedback, the evaluation process is designated to the contracting employer. The LIS facilitator does not take responsibility for this process. One of the tools featured in the evaluation framework is not so well known and therefore worthy of elaboration and inclusion. Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is a tool designed to numerically (quantitatively) evaluate the effectiveness of goal setting, implementation, and achievement of goals generally (Piggot-Irvine, Ferkins & Cady, 2017). It is relevant to the LIS context because goal setting is shown clearly as a component of the ‘Mapping’ phase in the model and is part of the accountability purpose of LIS. It is important to note that the GAS tool is not used in LIS for purposes of comparing results between leaders or for tracking ratings over time: purposes sometimes mentioned as alternative uses of GAS. Establishment of the GAS as a tool in LIS was influenced by the work of Roach and Elliot (2005) whose work, in turn, was derived from that of Kiresuk and Sherman (1968). The latter authors used the GAS method in evaluating community mental health programmes. In GAS, an initial step is the setting of descriptions of probable outcomes for goals, and this is followed by linking these descriptors to scaling from highly positive/excellent outcomes (+2) through to highly negative/poor (-2). Table 17 demonstrates the interpretation of the descriptions for goals in LIS and the associated scales.

Goals clearly collaboratively established

LIS facilitator and leader fully use theory and background evidence to draft goal. Leader finalises goal

Goal collaboratively formed in LIS with some evidence base

GOAL

2 best possible

1

Regular feedback and dialogue specific to goal occurs in LIS

Strong, regular feedback and dialogue specific to goal occurs in LIS

Goal regularly revisited and progress checked using dialogue process

Table 17: Goal Attainment Scale (GAS)

116

LIS facilitator view of how successfully the goal has been monitored and achieved Goal is clear priority for development – with leader indicating evidence of focus via actions, reflection and achievement. LIS provides excellent forum for dialogue about goal Clear evidence that goal is being focused on by leader. LIS provides a forum for dialogue about goal

Chapter 7

Goal is clear priority for development – evidence shows that it provides a focus for actions, reflection and achievement. LIS provides excellent forum for dialogue about goal Clear evidence that goal is being achieved. LIS provides a forum for dialogue about goal

Leader view of how successfully the goal has been monitored and achieved

Strong awareness that goal is clear priority for development – evidence provided that it is a focus for actions, reflection and achievement. LIS provides excellent forum for dialogue about goal Clear evidence that goal is being achieved. LIS provides a forum for dialogue about goal

Employer view of how successfully the goal has been monitored and achieved

Leader somewhat contributes to goal setting and some evidence base used to inform goal

Leader minimally contributes to goal setting and limited evidence base used to inform goal

Leader offers no contribution to goal setting and no evidence base used to inform goal

0 no change

-1

-2 worst possible outcome LIS facilitator feedback only. Leader has low input to dialogue

Some feedback and dialogue but not strongly related to goal

Intermittent feedback and dialogue specific to goal occurs in LIS

Goal is being achieved but without great focus. Some dialogue about goal in LIS Goal appears to have been somewhat forgotten – little evidence it is being worked on. Limited dialogue in LIS around goal No effort by leader to work on goal. No dialogue in LIS around goal No progress on goal. No awareness of goal even being set

No evidence shown that goal is priority by leader but indirectly aware that it is being monitored by LIS facilitator

No evidence shown that goal is priority. Limited dialogue in LIS around goal

No progress on goal. No dialogue in LIS around goal

Goal is being achieved but without great focus. Aware of some dialogue about goal in LIS

117

Goal is being achieved but without great focus. Some dialogue about goal in LIS

Evaluating Leadership One-to-one External Support

118

Chapter 7

Evaluating goals and their achievement is never easy, but good feedback has been received on the usefulness of the GAS tool shown in Table 17. It is most useful as a formative, quick, reflection tool allowing both the LIS facilitator and the leader to share perceptions of goal progress and outcomes (it is noted in Table 15 that each party records ratings). Such sharing is in keeping the perception of Bovend’Eerdt, Botell and Wade (2009) that GAS should be used to encourage ongoing consultation between all associated with the goal. The sharing enables a non-threatening dialogue which also, when necessary, strongly refocuses LIS on the improvement goals. Further, the tool has been useful for engaging the employer in dialogue about LIS and, more summatively in keeping them up to date with outcomes. When involving the employer, the final column relevant to them is separated from that of the LIS facilitator and leader and the employer does not see those evaluations. In this way, confidentiality is maintained with the results. Regardless of the tools employed for evaluation, the mantra of beginning with the end in mind was held firmly when we developed and trialled the evaluation data collection tools.

Avoid confusion: begin with the end in mind

Evaluating Leadership One-to-one External Support

119

LIS facilitators learnt quickly that the data needed to be easily collated, interpreted and reported upon for it to be useful. Some tools we developed earlier (e.g. those generating extensive qualitative comments from respondents) created such a mass of data it was almost impossible to derive concise meaning from the responses, and it was time-consuming to wade through the material. Our approach now with the tool is to ensure manageable data which is meaningful yet relatively easy to collate.

Reporting and making recommendations from the evaluation Outlining how to report on results and recommendations is an essential component of the evaluation process. An excellent place to begin evaluation is to think about how to report the findings and recommendations. ‘How’ does not mean detailed summative reports – although one employer contracted to in LIS did require such reporting! Instead, the emphasis here is about how to make the analysis of data simple so that reporting is meaningful and useful to the LIS facilitator and the leader in terms of recommendations for further improvement. To this end, evaluation efforts in LIS have focused firmly on reporting expectations and have emphasised ‘beginning with the end in mind’, as suggested earlier! The reason for this is to provide a clear focus in the evaluation so that others do not fall into the trap, as we did in early practice, of using tools creating an overload of data. Because practice in evaluation is substantially focused on the improvement of the LIS process for both LIS facilitator and the leader, reporting is mostly in the form of sharing via dialogue with the joint recording of highlights and recommendations. As an example, with the self-report feedback form (the critical evaluation tool utilised), once both the leader and LIS facilitator have each completed the form each share what they have independently written on the feedback form and compare and contrast responses. The honesty and openness associated with the productive (non-defensive) approach (Argyris, 2003; Piggot-Irvine, 2012) described in Chapter 3 are actively utilised in this dialogue. At the end of the dialogue, LIS facilitator and leader jointly reflect upon, and record, areas of strength and recommendations for further improvement. The LIS facilitator sometimes formatively reports on the evaluation results with their meta-level supervisor. The LIS facilitator makes a point of informing the leader that the sole purpose of such meta-support is for improvement as a LIS facilitator. They also remind the leader of the

120

Chapter 7

statements in the LIS contract noting that meta-level support will occur at regular intervals and any discussion of the leader (or reporting of information) will be treated confidentially. In terms of summative reporting, LIS facilitators are facing increasing demands to provide data to contract employers on their staff. This is an awkward position to be placed in and poses a dilemma for LIS facilitators associated with confidentiality. In terms of reporting, generally, the dilemma is dealt with by asking the leader which parts of the feedback or GAS they would agree to be seen by their employer. Unless there is a critical incident or concern that results in an imperative that the LIS facilitator reports information to the employer, only the leader agreed information is shared. As LIS facilitators, we think it essential to share only those parts agreed to with the employer that demonstrate effective LIS, and reflection on the approach. A stronger summative (accountability orientated) reporting of evaluation results occurs for other tools mentioned in the framework (Table 15), and responsibility for those tools is assigned to the employer.

A broader evaluation of LIS Evaluation of LIS does not just occur at the one-to-one level. There is some research now emerging on the aligned field of leadership/executive coaching focused on what could be called the broader evaluation level, i.e. the level overarching the field as a whole as opposed to the localised, specific, evaluation discussed in the previous section. Dagley’s (2006) work is an example of such broader evaluation and involved seeking feedback from 17 Human Resource professionals who had a combined responsibility for 1,033 individual coaching programmes. He focused on three research questions linked to how coaching has been used, its effectiveness and the factors predicting success. Keep in mind this research also is a form of evaluation, and it may provide ideas for how to evaluate your coaching or supervision.

Conclusion Assuring safety, adhering to principles, maintaining standards, integrity and effectiveness are all critical in LIS practice. The approaches outlined in this chapter to operationalise such standard maintenance all fall under the broad heading of evaluation. Evaluation is the key to keeping the LIS facilitator true to living/practising the espousals articulated in LISs code of ethics. In this chapter, we have tried to be as practical and open as possible in sharing

Evaluating Leadership One-to-one External Support

121

the way LIS is evaluated, and we are aware this material falls into a somewhat contested domain because not all providers of one-to-one support would entertain the detailed way that LIS facilitators engage in evaluation. It is a contested domain also because it is probably the least discussed in the literature associated with such support. We are hoping the chapter creates a strong response because you may recall we mentioned in the opening paragraphs that we invite response and dialogue. Let the dialogue begin!

REFERENCES

Ackerman, R. H., & Maslin-Ostrowski, P. (2002). The wounded leader: How real leadership emerges in times of crisis. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational learning. Needham Heights, US: Allyn and Bacon. Argyris, C. (2003). A life full of learning. Organization Studies, 24(7), 1178–1192. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01708406030247009 Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Baron, L., & Morin, L. (2009). The impact of executive coaching on selfefficacy related to management soft-skills. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 31(1), 18-38. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-599. Beddoe, L. (2017) Harmful supervision: A commentary. The Clinical Supervisor, 36(1), 88-101. doi: 10.1080/07325223.2017.1295894 Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2009). Fundamentals of clinical supervision. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Blackman, A. (2006). Factors that contribute to the effectiveness of executive coaching: The coachee’s perspective. The Business Review, Cambridge, 5, 98-104. Bond, M., & Holland, S. (2011). Skills of clinical supervision for nurses. Buckingham: Open University Press. Boreham, N., & Morgan, C. (2004). A sociocultural analysis of organisational learning. Oxford Review of Education, 30(3), 307-325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305498042000260467 Bovend’Eerdt, T. J. H., Botell, R. E., & Wade, D. T. (2009). Writing SMART rehabilitation goals and achieving goal attainment scaling: A practical guide. Clinical Rehabilitation, 23, 352-361. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Butwell, J. (2006). Group supervision for coaches: Is it worthwhile? A study of the process in a major professional organization. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 4(2), 43-53.

Leadership Coaching, Mentoring, Counselling or Supervision? One Way Is Not Enough

123

Calhoun, E. (2002). Action research for school improvement. Educational Leadership, March, 18–24. Cardno, C. (2001). Managing dilemmas in appraising performance: An approach for school leaders. In D. Middlewood & C. Cardno (Eds.) Managing teacher appraisal and performance: A comparative approach (pp. 143-159). London: Routledge Falmer. Cardno, C., & Reynolds, B. (2009). Resolving leadership dilemmas in New Zealand kindergartens: An action research study. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(2), 206-226. doi: 10.1108/09578230910941057 Carpenter, J., Webb, C., Bostock, L., & Coomber, C. (2012). Effective supervision in social work and social care. Research briefing 43, Social Care Institute for Excellence. Carroll, M. (1996). Counselling supervision: Theory, skills, and practice. London: Cassell. Carroll, M. (2006). Key issues in coaching psychology supervision. The Coaching Psychologist, 2(1), 4-8. Clarkson, P. (1992). Transactional analysis psychotherapy. An integrated approach. London and New York: Routledge. Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management (CAPAM), (2009). CAPAM featured report: Building public service leadership capacity. CAPAM: Ottawa. Cohen, S. (2014). Interprofessional and interdisciplinary collaboration: Moving forward. Policy, Politics and Nursing Practice, 14(3–4), 115116. doi: 10.1177/1527154414533616 Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (6th edit.). Abingdon: Routledge. Copeland, S. (2005). Counselling supervision in organizations: Professional and ethical dilemmas explored. Hove: Routledge. Dagley, G. (2006). Human resource professionals’ perceptions of executive coaching: Efficacy, benefits, and return on investment. International Coaching Psychology Review, 1, 34–45. Dagley, G. (2009). Exceptional executive coaching. Research conducted in association with the Australian Human Resources Institute. Davidson, E.J. (2005). Evaluation methodology basics: The nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. De Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to solution in brief therapy. New York: WWW Norton & Co. Dixon-Krause, L. A. (2003, April). Does action research count as scientifically-based research? A Vygotskian mediational response. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

124

References

Research Association, Chicago, Illinois. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No. ED 476 472) Down, B., Chadbourne, R., & Hogan, C. (2000). How are teachers managing performance management? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28(3), 213-223. Driscoll, J. (2000). Practising clinical supervision: A reflective approach for healthcare professionals. Philadelphia: Elsevier. Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1972). Practical approaches to individualizing instruction: Contracts and other effective teaching strategies. New York: Parker Publishing Company. Eakin, L., & Graham, H. (2009). Canada’s non-profit maze: A scan of legislation and regulation impacting revenue generation in the non-profit sector. Wellesley Institute: Toronto. Retrieved from http://www.wellesleyinstitute.com/news/social-innovationnews/canada’s_non-profit_maze/ Eddy, D., Cardno, C., & Chai, C. (2008). Professional supervision for New Zealand school principals: Analysis of current issues and options. Research and evaluation final report to Ministry of Education. Auckland: Auckland Uniservices Ltd. Edwards, M., Seth-Purdie, R., & Nicoll, G. (2003). Conflicts and tensions in commonwealth pubLIS sector boards: A report on research conducted by the National Institute for Governance. Canberra, Australia. Edwards, D., Cooper, L., Burnard, P., Hanningan, B., Adams, J., Fothergill, A., & Coyle, D. (2005). Factors influencing the effectiveness of clinical supervision. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 12, 405414. Ely, K., Boyce, L. A., Nelson, J. K., Zaccaro, S. J., Hernez-Broome, G., & Whyman, W. (2010). Evaluating leadership coaching: A review and integrated framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 585-599. Falender, C.A. (2014). Supervision outcomes: Beginning the journey beyond the emperor’s new clothes. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 8(3), 143–148. Fitzgerald, T., Youngs, H., & Grootenboer, P. (2003). Bureaucratic control or professional autonomy?: Performance management in New Zealand schools. School Leadership and Management, 23(1), 91-105. Forrester, G. (2011). Performance management in education: Milestone or millstone? Management in Education 25(1), 5–9. doi: 10.1177/0892020610383902 Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211.

Leadership Coaching, Mentoring, Counselling or Supervision? One Way Is Not Enough

125

Glamcevski, M. (2007). What the necessary and sufficient elements of the counselling supervision relationship? Counselling, Psychotherapy, and Health, 3(1), 104-114. Grant, A.M., Studholme, I., Verma, R., Kirkwood, L., Paton, B., & O’Connor, S. (2017). The impact of leadership coaching in an Australian healthcare setting. Journal of Health Organisation and Management 31(2), 237-252. Gratton, R. (2004). Teacher appraisal: A lesson on confusion over purpose. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(5), 292-296. Guskey, T.R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press Inc. Guthrie, S., Wamae, W., Diepeveen, S., Wooding, S., & Grant, J. (2013). Measuring research: A guide to research evaluation frameworks and tools. Report prepared for Rand Europe, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1217.html Hall, D.T., Otazo, K.L., & Hollenbeck, G.P. (1999). Behind closed doors: What really happens in executive coaching. Organizational Dynamics, 27(3), 39-53. Hawkins, P., & Shohet, R. (2000). Supervision in the helping professions: An individual, group and organizational approach. (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Hawkins, P., & Shohet, R. (2007). Supervision in the helping professions (3rd edit.) Maidenhead: Open University Press. Hawkins, P., & Smith, N. (2007). Coaching, mentoring and organizational consultancy. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Hewson, J. (1999). Training supervisors to contract in supervision. In E. Holloway & M. Carroll (Eds.), Training counsellor supervisors. London: Sage. Hirst, V. M. (2001). Professional supervision for managers: An effective organizational development intervention. University of Auckland. Hodge, A. (2016). The value of coaching supervision as a development process: Contribution to continued professional and personal wellbeing for executive coaches. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 14(2), 87-106. Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The manual of learning styles (3rd edit.). Maidenhead: Peter Honey Publications. Hudson, S. (2012). Number of voluntary sector workers falls by almost 9 per cent. Third Sector Online. Retrieved from http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Management/article/1110991/numbervoluntary-sector-workers-falls-almost-9-per-cent/

126

References

Inskipp, F., & Proctor, B. (2001). Making the most of supervision. Twickenham, Middlesex: Cascade. Johnson, M., McMillan, C., & Shergold, P. (2009). Managing in a downturn. The Centre for Social Impact (CSI), PricewaterhouseCoopers, Fundraising Institute Australia (FIA): Australia. Johnson, W.B., Skinner, C.J., & Kaslow, N.J. (2014). Relational mentoring in clinical supervision: The transformational supervisor. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 70(11), 1073–1081. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22128 Jones, R.J., Woods, S.A., & Guillaume, Y.R.F. (2016). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 249-277. Kadushin, A. (2002). Supervision in social work. New York: Columbia University Press. Kilburg, R.R. (2000). Executive coaching: Developing managerial wisdom in a world of chaos. Washington, DC: American Psychology Association. Kilminster, S. M., & Jolly, B. C. (2000). Effective supervision in clinical practice settings: A literature review. Medical Education, 34, 827-840. Kiresuk, T.J., & Sherman, R.E. (1968). Goal attainment scaling: A general method for evaluating community mental health programs. Community Mental Health Journal, 4, 443-453. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall. Kolb, D. A. (1999). The Kolb learning style inventory. Boston: Hay Resources Direct. Kwai, K. (2002). Clinical supervision: A literature review. Whitireia Nursing Journal, 9, 37-41. Landrum, T. J., & McDuffie, K. A. (2010). Learning styles in the age of differentiated instruction. Exceptionality, 18, 6–17. doi: 10.1080/09362830903462441 Lawrence, P., & Whyte, A. (2014). What is coaching supervision and is it important? Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 7(1), 39-55, doi: 10.1080/17521882.2013.878370 Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46. Mather, K., & Siefert, R. (2011). Teacher, lecturer or labourer? Performance management issues in education. Management in Education 25(1), 2631. doi: 0.1177/0892020610383902

Leadership Coaching, Mentoring, Counselling or Supervision? One Way Is Not Enough

127

McKay, J., & Kember, D. (1997). Spoon feeding leads to regurgitation: A better diet can result in more digestible learning outcomes. Higher Education Research & Development, 16(1), 55-67. McKenna, B., Thom, K., Howard, F. & Williams, V. (2008). Professional Supervision for Mental Health and Addiction Nurses: A review of current approaches to professional supervision internationally and in the New Zealand mental health and addiction sector. Auckland: Te Pou o Te Whakaaro Nui, the National Centre of Mental Health Research, Information and Workforce Development. McMorland, J., & Piggot-Irvine, E. (2000). Facilitation as midwifery: Facilitation and praxis in group learning. Systematic Practice and Action, 13(2), 121-127. McNiff, J. (1988). Action research: Principles and practice. Hampshire: McMillan Education. Middlewood, D., & Cardno, C. (2001). The significance of teacher performance and its appraisal. In D. Middlewood & C. Cardno (Eds.), Managing teacher appraisal and performance: A comparative approach (pp. 1-16). London: Routledge Falmer. Nagel, R. (2008). Coaching with a solutions focus – focusing on the solution not the problem. Development and Learning in Organisations, 22(4), 11-14. O’Connell, B., & Jones, C. (1997). Solution focused supervision. Counselling, 11, 289-292. O’Connor, S., & Cavenagh, M. (2013). The coaching ripple effect: The effects of developmental coaching on wellbeing across organisational network. Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice, 3(2), doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/2211-1522-3-2 Ogilvy, H., & Ellam-Dyson, V. (2012). Line management involvement in coaching: Help or hindrance? A content analysis study. International Coaching Psychology Review, 7(1), 39-54. Ollila, S. (2008). Strategic support for managers by management supervision. Leadership in Health Services, 21(1), 16-27. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), (2001). Public sector leadership for the 21stcentury. Paris: OECD. www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/34/2434104.pdf. Retrieved 28 December 2011. Page, S., & Wosket, V. (1994 & 2001). Supervising the counsellor: A cyclical model. London: Routledge.

128

References

Piggot-Irvine, E. (2002). Rhetoric and practice in action research. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association conference, September, Exeter. Piggot-Irvine, E. (2003). Key features of effective appraisal. The International Journal of Educational Management, 17(4), 170-178. Piggot-Irvine, E. (2005). Creating open, high trust, and low defensive teams. Seminar paper for workshop delivered to Ministry of Education managers. Auckland, New Zealand. Piggot-Irvine, E. (2012). Creating authentic collaboration: A central feature of effectiveness. In O. Zuber-Skerritt, Action research for sustainable development in a turbulent world (pp.89-107). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Piggot-Irvine, E. (2014). Critical reflection. In D. Coghlan, & M. BrydonMiller, Encyclopedia of Action Research, (225-231). London: SAGE. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446294406.n97 Piggot-Irvine, E. (2015). Goal pursuit in education using focused action research. New York: Palgrave McMillan. ISBN 9781137505125 Piggot-Irvine, E. (2015a). Reflecting on evidence: leaders use action research to improve their teacher performance reviews. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 16(3), 3-25. Piggot-Irvine, E., & Bartlett, B. (2008). Evaluating action research. Wellington: NZCER Press. Piggot-Irvine, E., & Cardno, C. (2005). Appraising performance productively: Integrating accountability and development. Auckland: Eversleigh Publishing. Piggot-Irvine, E., & Doyle, L. (2010). Organisational learning ‘in-use’. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 25(2), 55-72. Piggot-Irvine, E., Ferkins, L., & Cady, P. (2017). Goal attainment scaling in action research. Enhancing a systems thinking orientation. Systems Research and Behavioural Science. doi: 10.1002/sres.2459 Piggot-Irvine, E. & Zornes, D. (2016). Developing a framework for research evaluation in complex contexts such as action research. SAGE Open, July-September: 1– 15. doi: 10.1177/2158244016663800 Preskill, H., & Russ-Eft, D. (2005). Building evaluation capacity. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Proctor, B. (1986). Supervision: Co-operative exercise in accountability. In M. Marken & M. Payne (eds). Enabling and ensuring: supervision in practice (pp. 21-23). Leicester: National Youth Bureau for Education in Youth and Community Work. Proctor, B. (2000). Group supervision: A guide to creative practice. London: Sage.

Leadership Coaching, Mentoring, Counselling or Supervision? One Way Is Not Enough

129

Rafferty, M., Llewellyn-Davies, B., & Hewitt, J. (2007). Setting standards for the practice of clinical supervision – a Welsh perspective. In J. Driscoll, Practising clinical supervision: A reflective approach for healthcare professionals (2nd edit.), (pp. 217-241). Philadelphia: Elsevier. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2000, 2008). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage. Riener, C., & Willingham, D. (2010). The myth of learning styles. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 4(5), 32-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2010.503139 Riley, P. (2017). New Zealand primary school principals’ occupational health and wellbeing survey, 2016 data. Institute for Positive Psychology and Education Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia, 3605. Risley, K., & Cooper, H. (2011). Professional coaching: An innovative and promising leadership development and career enhancement approach for public health professionals. Health Promotion Practice, 12, 497-501, doi: 10.1177/1524839911413127 Roach, A.T., & Elliot, S.N. (2005). Goal attainment scaling: An efficient and effective approach to monitoring student progress. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(4), 8-17. Robertson. J. (2016). Coaching leadership. Building educational leadership capacity through partnership. (2nd Edit). Wellington: NZCER Press. Robinson, V. M. J. (1993). Current controversies in action research. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(3), 263–290. Robinson, V., Absolum, M., Cardno, C., & Steele, T. (1990). The leadership of Tomorrow’s Schools. Report to the Ministry of Education on a collaborative action research project. Auckland University, New Zealand. Robinson, V., & Lai, M. K. (2006). Practitioner research for educators: A guide to improving classrooms and schools. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Rosenblatt, S. (2011). Why education is not like business. Education Today, 1, 26-29. Sambunjak, D., Straus, S., & Marusic, A. (2009). A systematic review of qualitative research on the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25(1), 72-8. Sandow, D., & Allen, A. M. (2005). The nature of social collaboration: How work really gets done. Society for Organization Learning, 6(2-3), 1–13. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

130

References

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Currency/Doubleday. Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2012). Schools that learn. New York: Doubleday. Snyder, G. (2009). Nonprofits: On the brink. How nonprofits have lost their way and some essentials to bring them back. iUniverse: Lincoln. Sun, P. Y. T., & Scott, J. L. (2003). Exploring the divide – organizational learning and learning organization. The Learning Organisation, 10(4), 202-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696470310476972 The Council of Social Service of New South Wales (NCOSS) Management Support Unit (2006). Information Sheet 10. Professional coaching. Retrieved from http://ncoss.org.au/projects/msu/downloads/resources/information%20 sheets/10_profcoaching_MSU Thornton, G. (2011). Survival: The ongoing challenge of having to deliver more with less. Retrieved from: http://www.grantthornton.co.nz/Assets/documents/home/NFP-report2011-2012.pdf. Tudor, K. (2002). Transactional analysis supervision or supervision analysed transactionally. Transactional Analysis Journal, 32(1), 39-55. Turner, E., & Hawkins, P. (2016). Multi-stakeholder contracting in excutive/business coaching: An analysis of practice and recommendations for gaining maximum value. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 14(2), 48-65. Van Ooijen, E. (2003). Clinical supervision made easy: The 3-step method. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. Wepa, D. (Ed). (2005). Cultural safety in Aotearoa New Zealand. New Zealand: Pearson. Wheeler, S., & King, D. (2000). Do counselling supervisors want or need to have their supervision supervised? An exploratory study. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 28(2), 279-290. Willingham, D.T., Hughes, E.M., & Dobolyi, D.G. (2015). The scientific status of learning theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 266-271. Zalcman, M. J., & Cornell, W. F. (1983). A bilateral model for clinical supervision. Transactional Analysis Journal, 13, 112-123. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Action research in higher education: A theoretical framework for action research. London: Kogan Page.

INDEX

Absolum, M. 64 Accountability 26, 30, 33-36, 44, 48, 50, 53, 72, 80, 82, 84, 89, 91, 93-95, 106-110, 113, 115, 120 Ackerman, R. 32 Action research (AR) 1-2, 25-28 90 Action learning (AL) 27, 90 Adams, J. 51 Appraisal 87 89-90, 98, 107 Argyris, C. 29, 36, 58-60, 65-66, 119 Baron, L. 51, 53, 54 Bartlett, B. 36, 43, 46 Beddoe, L. 8, 51, 84 Bernard, J. 30 Blackman, A. 100 Bond, M. 28-29 Boreham, N. 36 Bostock, L. 52 54 Botell, R. 118 Boyce, L. 14 Bovend’Eerdt, T. 118 Bradbury, H. 28 Bryman, A. 110, 115 Burnard, P. 51 Butwell, J. 84 Cady, P. 115 Calhoun, E. 26 Cambron-McCabe, N. 36 Cardno, C. 36, 59-60, 64, 88-89, 105-106 Carpenter, J. 52, 54 Carroll, M. 20, 84 Cavenagh, M. 97 Chadbourne, R. 90 Chai, C. 88 Clarkson, P. 16, 40

Coaching 1-10, 26, 50-51, 69-71, 77, 84, 87-88, 91, 97-105, 120 Cognitive Behavioural Therapy 16 Cohen, L. 115 Cohen, S. 41 Collaboration 4-5, 27, 36, 47-48, 55-68 Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management (CAPAM) 93 Coomber, C. 52 Cooper, H. 98 Cooper, L. 51 Copeland, S. 36, 70-71 Cornell, W. 29 Counselling 1, 4-9, 34, 39, 40, 4951, 77, 80, 90, 109, 112 Coyle, D. 51 Cultural 5, 69-85, 86, 112 Dagley, G. 24, 99-101, 104, 120 Davidson, E. 106 Deep learning 34, 59 Defensive 3, 10-11, 40-44, 46, 4849, 68 Development 2, 7, 11-15, 27-29, 3236, 42-46, 53, 59, 74, 78, 92102, 105-108, 110, 117 De Shazer, S. 22 Diepeveen, S. 108 Dixon-Krause, L. 42, 49 Dobolyi, D. 46 Double-loop learning 55, 59, 65-67, 112 Down, B. 89 Doyle, L. 28, 33, 47, 64-65 Driscoll, J. 34 Dunn, K. & R 43-45 Dutton, J. 36

132 Eakin, L. 94 Eddy, D. 88-90 Education sector 5, 86-88, 94, 98, 101-102 Edwards, D. 53 Edwards, M. 91 Ellam-Dyson, V. 69 Elliot, S. 115 Ely, K. 14, 25, 39, 101, 104, 108109 Evaluation 5, 30, 44-45, 64, 73, 75, 89, 90-91, 98, 101-121 Experiential learning 21, 43, 45 Falender, C. 104, 108 Feedback 8, 17, 29, 39, 44, 51-53 59, 61, 64, 73, 79, 104-120 Ferkins, L. 115 Fitzgerald, T. 89 Forrester, G. 89 Fothergill, A. 51 Gist, M. E. 54 Glamcevski, M. 14 Goodyear, R. 30 Graham, H. 94 Grant, A. 97-98 Grant, J. 108 Gratton, R. 89 Grootenboer, P. 89 Guillaume, Y. 51 Guskey, T. 107, 114 Guthrie, S. 108 Hanningan, B. 51 Hawkins, P. 18-24, 28, 37, 46, 7071, 77-78, 105, 110 Hernez-Broome, G. 15 Hewitt, J. 30 Hewson, J. 72 Hirst, V. 51, 53, 96 Hodge, A. 84 Hogan, C. 89 Holland, S. 28 Hollenbeck, G. 101 Honey, P. 44-45 Howard, F. 18 Hudson, S. 95 Hughes, E. 46

Index Inskipp, F. 7, 29 Jack, S. 108 Johnson, M. 94 Johnson, W. 8, 68 Jolly, B. 15, 50 Jones, C. 21, 39, 44 Jones, R. 51 Kadushin, A. 20 Kaslow, N. 8 Kember, D. 34, 59 Kilburg, R. 98 Kilminster, S. M. 15, 50 Kiresuk, T. 115 Kirkwood, L. 97 Kleiner, A. 36 Kolb, D. 43, 45 Kwai, K. 51 Lai, M. 64 Landrum, T. 43, 46 Lawrence, P. 84 Leadership support 2, 97-98, 103104 Learning style 43-46 Lewin, K. 26, 28 Llewellyn-Davies, B. 30 Lucas, T. 36 Manion, L. 114 Marusic, A. 97 Maslin-Ostrowski, P. 32 Mather, K. 91 McDuffie, K. 43, 46 McKay, J. 33, 59 McKenna, B. 18 McMillan, C. 95 McMorland 56 McNiff, J. 49 Mentor 1, 11, 103 Mentoring 1-14, 35, 50, 88, 92, 97, 103 Meta-support 5, 69, 119 Middlewood, D. 89 Mitchell, T. 54 Modalities 4-8, 20, 26-29, 50 Models of reflection 15 Morgan, C. 36 Morin, L. 51-54

Leadership Coaching, Mentoring, Counselling or Supervision? One Way Is Not Enough Morrison, K. 115 Mumford, A. 44-45 Nagel, R. 21, 39 Narrative Therapy 16 Nelson, J. 14 Nicoll, G. 91 Non-defensive 4-5, 17, 29, 36, 49, 55-68, 79, 93, 111, 119 O’Connell, B. 43 O’Connor, S. 97 Ogilvy, H. 69 Ollila, S. 30, 51 Organisational learning 27, 58, 96 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 92 Otazo, K. 101 Page, S. 22-23, 71,105 Paton, B. 97 Piggot-Irvine, E. 27, 29,33, 36, 38, 43, 47, 56, 59-66, 89, 105, 108, 115, 119 Preskill, H. 106-107 Proctor, B. 7, 13, 20, 29- 31 Productive 5, 17, 28, 55, 59-64, 6768, 82, 108, 109 Rafferty, M. 30 Reason, P. 26-28 Reflection 3, 5, 9, 15, 21, 24, 27, 30-36, 43-49, 55, 65-66, 84, 90, 96, 110, 112, 116, 118, 120 Reynolds, B 59 Riener, C. 43, 46 Riley, P. 88 Risley, K. 97 Roach, A. 115 Robertson. J. 54 Robinson, V. 47, 64 Rosenblatt, S. 87, 88 Russ-Eft, D. 106, 107 Safe practice 5, 69, 85 Sandow, D. 41 Sambunjak, D. 97 Scott, J. L. 36, 58, 90 Schön, D. A. 33, 46-48, 66 Senge, P. M. 36, 41, 43, 60, 65

133

Seth-Purdie, R. 67 Shergold, P. 93 Sherman, R. 115 Shohet, R. 18-24, 37, 46, 110 Siefert, R. 91 Skinner, C. 8 Snyder, G. 95 Steele, T. 64 Straus, S. 97 Studholme, I. 97 Sun, P. 36, 58, 90 Supervision 1-24, 26, 28, 34, 37, 40, 46, 50-54, 68, 84, 88-91, 95-98, 104 Supervisor 1-2, 6, 9, 15-26, 40, 5152, 63, 68, 70, 82, 84, 103, 106108, 119 T.A.P.E.S 16-18, 40 Thom, K. 18 Thornton, G. 94 Tudor, K. 15-16, 24 Turner, E. 70-71 Values 30, 36, 39, 43, 47, 49, 55-60, 64, 67, 71, 76-79, 82-84, 92, 108-112 Van Ooijen, E. 15-20, 24, 36, 45 Verma, R. 97 Wade, D. 118-119 Wamae, W. 108 Webb, C. 52, 54 Wepa, D. 83 Wheeler, S. 84 Williams, V. 18 Willingham, D. 43-46 Whyman, W. 14 Whyte, A. 84 Wooding, S. 108 Woods, S. 51 Wosket, V. 22-23, 71, 106 Youngs, H. 89 Zalcman, M. 29 Zornes, D. 108 Zuber-Skerritt, O. 47 Zaccaro, S. 14