What Defines Us?

A little over 90 days ago the recruitment and selection process for the University of Oregon football team didn't look very good. The brand new coach started his season with a loss and one of his top players punched out a member of the opposing team on national television.
The press of course made sure that the "punch" got plenty of airtime.

Many begin denouncing the selection of the new coach. Over the next two weeks he lost two more starters to injuries. The season looked pretty grim. Then something interesting began to happen. The coach talked to the players about the incident and whether or not they wanted to let it define them. He made a decision to suspend the player from participating in the game, but not from being on the team. The player was told he would remain on scholarship and be allowed to practice, but not allowed to play. Several weeks later the coach indicated that if the player met certain academic and behavioral conditions he could be reinstated; which he was later in the season. The critics of course labeled this as the plan all along and denounced the coach and the program. Of course they have chosen to overlook the fact that the reinstated player saw his first playing time last night in the final regular game of his season. Some claim it was what the team needed to win so the coach sacrificed his integrity for the sake of the win.

I say really? The young man who stepped up and took his place set a national record for rushing yards as a freshman. There were two games; one we lost and one we won in overtime where the reinstated player didn't play. I think perhaps instead a coach made a decision to give a young man an opportunity to play for the last time in front of his home crowd.

The team is headed for the Rose Bowl for the first time in fifteen years. They are the undisputed champions of the PAC 10. The coach makes no apologies for his decisions.

A number of players stepped up to make this season happen. When I see how the team reacted to the opening loss, the loss of starters, the ability to play through the distractions, and the joy and appreciation from a young man whose coach decided to invest in him rather than throw him away I think that says much more about this team and this coach. Detractors will say we needed him to win- a record of 9-2 going into the game says otherwise.

The press will relish this opportunity to play the "punch" video over and over, just as they will torture Tiger Woods for the next few weeks. I think what defines you is not whether or not you make mistakes or errors in judgement, but where you go from there.

So I guess I would leave you with this question- what defines you? Is it your successes, your failures, or your "whole person"?

Whole People

I am a big believer in the concept of whole people. On Thursday evening a football player from the University of Oregon in a state of high emotion made a terrible decision and struck a player from the opposing team. He also had to be restrained from striking others.
The player in question is 22 years old and had up to that point had a promising career even to the point of being mentioned as a potential Heisman candidate.

Within 24 hours his coach announced that his collegiate football career, at least at Oregon, was essentially over. The coach did also announce that the young man would be allowed to remain on scholarship with the team to continue to provide him with the structure he needs to fully develop as a person. Sounds like pretty good thinking to me.

In the heat of emotion a young man made a terrible judgement. His coach decided not to let that singular act define him. In the last 48 hours I have seen the young man and the program vilified. People have screamed for his prosecution and used it as an attack on collegiate athletics. Really? Is this what we have come to? Is it really unreasonable that the program took 12 hours to decide an appropriate course of action?

I have been a practicing human resources executive for over thirty years. In a number of times during the course of my career I have participated in deciding the appropriate corrective action to take when an employee has made a bad decision. I say corrective action, because that is my philosophy. The intent is to correct and to create a learning and a different outcome for the future not to punish.

I have seen occasions in college football and in professional sports where athletes were arrested and then allowed to play. That in my mind is inappropriate. We literally have a situation in my home town where the commissioner of a local utility was arrested on felony drug and weapons charges and is claiming harassment. She has indicated (and her supporters agree) that this should not be cause to request her resignation. I wonder how many of her supporters are baying for the young football players blood?

I applaud the decision on the part of the coach. He took in my mind appropriate action. The behavior was unequivocably unacceptable. He also took into the context the whole person who is this young man and said to throw him away and remove the structure of the team represented actions that were too harsh. College isn't about sports it is about education, educating the whole person. An important statement was made, we look at you in totality. If you make a poor decision you will be sanctioned, you will not be thrown away.

I also hope the media will get bored with replaying the incident over and over again. They aren't playing it as a learning experience, but capitalizing on a tragedy. Shame on them, shame on us.

For those of us that are parents I wonder how we will react when it is our child that makes an error in judgement, and trust me they will. Will we scream for their arrest and banishment, or will we we plead for their whole person to be taken into context? I think in our hearts we know the answer.

I am going to try and keep dealing with whole people, how about you?

Are You Building Your Lighthouse?

In my mind a lighthouse is a guide or a reference point that allows people to find their direction while reducing their "danger". It is not a map, or a set of instructions, it is a guide. So I ask the question are you building a lighthouse for those you care about to guide their way?

I look at it from several levels. I recently posted a question on LinkedIn on where are we are teaching the important skills people need to live and work in our complicated society. Interpersonal and communication skills, teamwork and "playing well" with others, leadership, and followership. In many cases people told those skills need to be developed in the home or on the playground, that waiting till someone enters the workforce is too late.

I also heard from graduates and employers that we are not teaching skills like giving feedback, setting expectations, taking corrective action, and similar skills in our top management skills with any consistency. And what about coaching, which is different from these others skills?
I asked another question about whether or not these skills are "universal" as applicable in all cultures as in the West. Most agreed that these along with a series of "attributes" that we call leadership are desirable even if in some cultures they would be more aspirational than immediately transferable. How about building and giving trust, where do we teach that?

I don't know about others who have had the opportunity to hire and train employees and "emerging" managers, but I have encountered a few who didn't come to the job with this "toolkit" in hand.
A colleague recently said in discussion that he found the Gen Xer's and Millenials to be unreceptive to mentoring. I mused that maybe they had never experienced it and didn't know how to accept it or ask for it rather than rejected it.

I am pondering a theory that we need a three level approach to "Coaching":

• The most currently applied model is "executive coaching", which as it implies is working with someone at a senior level to prepare them or "rehabilitate" them and increase their effectiveness in a management or leadership role. This is generally one on one, expensive, and limited to a select population. Enlightened entrepreneurs are embracing this technique as well as they move from "founder/owner" to CEO.
• Some organizations have "leadership" academies or programs for mid level managers who have been identified for potential advancement. I have participated in developing and implementing these programs with a degree of success, especially when you combine "training" with ongoing reinforcement from their immediate supervisor and management chain of command.
• The last level is aspirational. It is what I call a true coaching culture. The skills sets of front line management: setting expectations, giving and receiving feedback constructively, taking appropriate corrective action, recognizing positive results, and generally "blocking and tackling" for your team are foundation skills for everyone in the organization. Additionally, senior managers including the C level are spending time coaching and interacting with "emerging" leaders as mentors and coaches. It is embedded in the culture.

I think if you create this culture you have created the essential foundation for engagement. It doesn't remove the need for vision, strategy and leadership; but it provides one Hell of a foundation to build on.

I like to think I began building my "lighthouse" with my children years ago and I have built a few others I hope, only time will tell.

If you are ready to build your lighthouse, we would like to assist you. The Business Case for Engagement says it all, commitment is simply better than compliance.

Certification- Is it Really Value Added?

It seems certification of one kind of another has become a growth industry. My question and thought; is it really improving the quality of practitioner and services to clients? I look at it particularly in two arenas I feel somewhat comfortable in talking about- Coaching and Human Resources.
Both of these fields have much to do with interpersonal interactions and effectiveness. In particular the human resources field has disciplines and dimensions that are quite technical and compliance oriented. These areas require training and skills development.
I look at other areas and say that the ability to pass an examination does not guarantee the ability to communicate and build effective relationships.
I would say the same for "coaching". I think there are tools and processes and techniques to identify certain styles and development needs of people and organizations, but is that the complete picture?
Does a law degree and being admitted to the bar make you an effective counselor or litigator? Does an MBA really prepare you to lead an organization?
We write and study and discuss effective management and "leadership" ad nauseum. Does certification teach those skills or attributes?
I believe you can certify "competency" the achievement of completing a course of study, but that is not the same as effectiveness. What do you think? Should we use "certification" as a screen in non licensed professions?