Anyone who has the task of selecting and developing leaders from within the organization will agree with the idea that promoting from the inside to fill existing positions can at times be risky politically, but will often result in a better outcomes. However, it doesn’t just start when a leadership position becomes available. It is responsibility of leaders at every level to be preparing the next generation of leaders to come.  The decisions and actions you make regarding talent identification and development will have a lasting impact on the business.  In addition, your involvement in this critical task will help exceptional team members maximize their full potential and be fully engaged.

If you recognize that identifying and developing future talent within the organization is something you need to start doing, or simply do more of, here are a few questions to consider.

1. What are the leadership qualities, competencies, and characteristics required for success in a current or future position of leadership at your organization?
2. Who do you think has leadership potential that you would like to consider for development?
3. What specific technical, managerial, and leadership behaviors and indicators have you observed in this person that indicates leadership potential?
4. How does your management team and/or others involved feel about the leadership potential of this person?  What strengths and weaknesses do they see in this person that you need to consider?
5. Do you know what this person’s career aspirations are?  If so, what are they and will he/she be interested in development activities?
6. How committed will this be person to working on developmental assignments?

Using these questions as a guide, you will be more successful in identifying talent to drive the organization forward and prepared to being the development process.

The reader stated, “I liked this book, but I didn’t like it. The actual message of the book to me was that a person needs to take charge of their life (or be bodacious, bold, brazen) in order to rise above the ordinary and become successful. . . But it was NOT a leadership book!” “There is often times a difference between taking action and leading. Taking action can be done alone by just one person for that one person. But a leader has to take action that moves others along. The star of the book merely took action – he didn’t lead.”

After reading the book, the answer to my question, whether the book is about leadership or motivation, was both.   Yes, the book tells you to get moving but I have to disagree with the Amazon reader’s interpretation of the message.  The message is if you want to be a successful leader, you have to get your hands dirty.  What Wood is telling the reader is that as a leader you just can’t “sit on the fence and watch the cattle graze.” You have to “spend time in the cow pen.” I feel this is probably the best advice Wood gives, “A good cowboy becomes familiar with the individual cows by spending time with the herd.  Cowboys do not spend time in meetings with other cowboys and the ranch foreman discussing the cows and their needs.  Cowboys go to where the cattle are and spend time among the herd.”  If you don’t know your team members how can you get them to move in a direction that will bring value to the organization?

Wood reminds you that you have to pay your dues.  That means learning the business inside and out.  You aren’t going to be given all the information you will need.  You have to dig for it, try ideas, and make mistakes.  You will want to know what your competitors are doing, what your team is thinking, what is your organization’s mission?  A leader is not always going to get the winning scenario.  One must gain experience and learn.   “To pursue your bodacious opportunities, you must be willing the pay the “entry fee” and accept the bodacious draws, which are opportunities.”

Wood states, “First, set aside an hour and a half for personal study time each day.”  Too many leaders today get so wrapped up in the tactical issues of the business they forget to strategize for the future.  That hour and a half gives you time to read, ask questions, and research to become familiar with changes in the industry, client needs, and/or competing products.  You cannot continue to operate tomorrow the same way you are today and expect to compete in the world market.

Yes, Wood does emphasize passion and persistence.  Passion comes from understanding and believing in the value of your actions.   Most people cannot perform with excellence if they don’t see the value in the work they are doing.  Without some passion, persistence will be twice as hard to maintain.  Have you ever wondered how many great ideas have died because the inventor gave up?  I image the results would be astounding.

Wood said more, but I’ll let you read the book.   It is an easy read, containing basic personal and leadership development principles.  In short, I would recommend Be Bodacious as a starting point for a new leader, or perhaps, as a refresher of leadership concepts to experienced leaders.

This past week, there was an article in the Wall Street Journal by Joe Light titled: Leadership Training Gains Urgency Amid Stronger Economy. In the article, Mr. Light discusses how many organizations have cut spending on leadership development initiatives over the past two years during the economic downturn.  Now that the economy is starting to recover, these organizations are worried they will experience the exodus of baby boomers and retirees as their investment portfolios start to recover.  Many organizations are finding they simply don’t have the leadership pipeline within the organization to fill these leadership roles as companies shift towards a growth focus.  This scenario leaves any organization vulnerable to the competition.  Add to that the severity of the economic downfall and it only compounds the challenges further.

For individuals who work in the learning and development industry, this news and information is nothing new.  For many other individuals this may be a shocking surprise.  Organizations need to spend more money to develop talent to drive the business.  Remember, half of your assets do not show up on the balance sheet – your people.  Organizations spend thousands of dollars on computers, specialized software, mobile phones, and office space.  Why not spend a few hundred dollars developing your people to maximize performance and drive bottom line results.  If you have not already done so, think plan, and act to develop your high-potential leaders.

This same drama plays out on a much smaller scale with leaders and their individual team members.  Expectations play a big part of an effective relationship.  The only problem is that all too frequently expectations in the mind of the leader versus expectations in the mind of the follower are unclear, confusing, and ambiguous.  Yet, everyone wants to know what is expected of them.  We want to be clear about our obligations and duties.  We want to be able to anticipate the outcomes and requirements necessary to be a good performer and add value to an organization.

Expectations bind us together; they are the fabric that forms a relationship.  Expectations play a key role in building trust and confidence as we anticipate the probability of someone executing necessary duties.  When trust is high, we value and leverage our relationships more.  When expectations are not achieved our trust bank account is depleted.

Expectations are a key driver in the motivation and engagement levels of people.  When people understand expectations and buy in to them, they work harder to fulfill those expectations just like a company does in the financial market.  People want to know what is expected of them so they are then able to make decisions about the intensity and discretionary performance they are willing to give towards a task or job.  When coaches create a two-way agreement with their team members about expectations, they set the stage for the extraordinary performance necessary in a highly competitive world

CMOE is an advocate of a simple process that we call “the alignment meeting” as a tool to define and clarify expectations.  The alignment meeting or discussion should occur periodically with any team to maintain a clear picture of everyone’s expectations.  These alignment meetings only take one or two hours with a typical team.  They should occur more often for teams that are in a state of change or are in conflict, and less often for stable and harmonious teams.  Every time CMOE associates have facilitated an alignment meeting, the topic of feedback coaching and mentoring always surfaces.  People have a thirst to know how they are doing, where they stand, and where they are going.  They don’t want to be a non-performing asset in the enterprises portfolio of resources.  Most people want to be productive contributors, but in order to do that, they need information, feedback, and guidance from a coach.  This dynamic creates a “perfect storm” for the leader.  If the leader is able to capitalize on the need people have for feedback on their performance, and solidify an “expectation’s agreement,” the leader will then be in a position where people seek out and expect coaching and feedback.  This creates a legitimate reason to coach people on key factors that will drive performance for the team and the individual.  Coaching then becomes one of the central expectations of the team’s culture.  When a leader needs to courageously engage anyone on the team about an important topic or situation, they have an expectation platform or a “license” to operate from.  The leader has an understanding that it is their duty and obligation to share information, direction, and feedback.  It becomes the normal thing to do; no one feels singled out or targeted.  In turn, when feedback is lacking, people on the team are more likely to ask for it and hold the leader more accountable to perform coaching tasks.

The license to coach makes it easier to give and receive coaching.  It becomes a natural process.  Everyone buys into it because everyone understands that to run a business, you need to be able to talk to people about their performance.  When leaders create a license to coach by bringing sound skills to the process, people will excel and even exceed your wildest expectations.

All things done electronically

What an interesting concept—all things done electronically.  It has some truth to it.  Many things can be done electronically or will be in the future.  I mean, whoever thought text messaging would be a common norm for just about everyone.  However, it doesn’t mean messages can be received equally.  When getting a text from someone, you cannot distinguish the tone in which it was sent.  Facial expressions, tone of voice, and physical stance gives the intended receiver a clearer message.  The same can be said about teaching sessions.

The Best Leadership Training

While teaching concepts and content can be done on the Internet, it doesn’t mean we can guarantee the same results as we would get with traditional classroom training.  For example, I saw an advertisement for a self-study leadership program.  It “GUARANTEES” that the person will become a “PHENOMENALLY SUCCESSFUL” leader after viewing four 60 minute programs and reading a participant guide which was all on 1 DVD.  I am very curious as to how many successful leaders would agree that a 4-hour self-study program would translate into a successful leader?  Leadership is about what you help others achieve, not about where you take yourself.  It is about interaction.

Electronic Teaching has a place

This group agreed that e-learning, web based learning, and computer based training does have a place.  CMOE’s Applied Strategic Thinking does not give the same return on investment in an electronic format.  The same is true for our Coaching Skills workshop and several of our leadership development programs.  The human element that exists in developing these types of skills simply can’t be fully replicated on-line.  On the flip side, you could see great results using an online training program for product information or employee orientation.  It certainly would save time.  What we have found is that a blended learning approach can work well.  Combining traditional classroom training with e-learning tools to prepare and then sustain what is done in the classroom can be a powerful combination for long term success.

In the end, it’s isn’t a matter of one training method being better than the other. What it really boils down to is selecting the best training method that will get the results you want.  While you can attempt to teach human interaction skills through a computer, it won’t be truly effective without human interaction.  Regardless of your choice, remember that in general, you get what you pay for.

We have to admit that in the business world today there are still a few managers who are less receptive to coaching and it may seem like the smart thing to throw in the towel and focus your efforts in other places. These few managers have narrow vision and see just one way to accomplish anything; their way. However, there are many bosses and leaders out there that are very receptive to coaching, feedback, and are willing to listen to other ideas that improve workplace performance. Great leaders recognize that someone else may know something they don’t, or something they could benefit from, and are more willing and open to suggestions from people who are willing to take a risk to coach their boss.

Coaching a boss or leader might not be so different from when you coach a direct report, but how can you effectively and transparently send your message up the chain of command? Carefully, and in a professional and tactful way is a simple answer. Also, it may take a little more effort to get the point across. The key here is to be sure you deliver the message in a way that your manager will be open to. When done successfully, it can really open up future dialogue and improve coaching conversations between you and your manager.

Here are a few tips in delivering the message: Plan your conversation. Decide what your topic is and walk through the key points of the conversation. You may actually want to practice it in your mind and when available find someone to rehearse the conversation with you before you go in to the meeting. If your manager agrees with you on many of your ideas, you can present the framework of how you see the future unfolding if no change takes place. Here is a great place to let your manager reflect on the future and how they see it unfolding under current circumstances. You may not have a grasp of the whole picture, so your leader’s ideas and thoughts might be very informative. The great thing about this is that your ideas might be very informative to your boss as well, making it a win-win conversation

After you have discussed what the future might look like (without any changes), let the impact of that statement sit with your boss for a while. Then, propose a plan or a solution to the problem you have brought to your leader’s attention. You may want to have more than one idea to propose and you should solicit ideas from your leader for the solution. By getting input from your boss you actually transfer ownership of the solution from just you to the two of you, creating collaboration, partnering, and synergy in creating solutions to business problems.

After some details to the plan have surfaced it may be time to identify obstacles that would hinder the success of any proposed solutions. This is a great opportunity again to gain some insight and perspective from your manager on what might trip up the plan in the future. Remember, your boss may have a more intimate knowledge of future business goals, plans, and objectives. Listen for those carefully as you may need to re-visit your plans based on your leader’s feedback.

When a solution is agreed upon, this is a perfect opportunity to clearly define what you are willing to do to implement the solution. By showing your commitment to the solution and asking for your leader’s commitment you are cementing the plan and creating the proper action steps for the future. The key here is to show that you are going to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. In addition, it might be helpful to state or recap your point of view and highlight some best probable scenarios for the future if the new plan is implemented? Employees that are willing to bring opportunities to the manager’s attention, collaborate on solutions, and provide a vision of the future are going to be seen as top performers.

When you are coaching up, you are taking a proactive approach to point out opportunities to improve the organization. Coach up when it’s appropriate.

A senior leadership team that is in sync can and will adjust to changing market conditions, competition threats and can navigate the organization through a sea of uncertainty. In fact, effective strategy execution requires active and courageous leadership at many levels (they instill a “can do” spirit through courageous coaching, feedback and accountability). Talented leaders will create an environment that makes it easier to achieve innovations, improve productivity, and fuel superior value proposition for customers. The key to this is:

• information flow

• information about customers

• opportunities

• innovative ideas

• competitor moves

• operational problems

The leadership team has to sponsor vertical and horizontal information flow across functional silos. A successful vertical information flow allows everyone in the organization to understand, contribute, and hold each other accountable for completing tasks required to accomplishing the strategy. Leading horizontal collaboration and connectivity unleashes motivation and growth ideas as well as cost, quality, and process concepts to truly keep your organization on top of the heap and differentiate you from your competitors.

The senior leadership team has to work in unison to have successful strategy formulation and execution. Unfortunately, many senior groups are made up of high-performing individuals who haven’t learned how to be a high-performing team.

In order to add value to the organization and create long-term sustained growth, senior teams must have the following:

1. A deep level of trust and openness when ideas and data are being exchanged.

2. Willingness to collaborate and network within the team.

3. A seniorlead group who is willing to examine how it solves problems and makes decisions.

4. A group who supports the organization’s core rules and procedures.

5. Members who actively support the team consensus on key issues and do not undermine the group’s decisions.

6. Members who are comfortable with conflict and differences.

7. A willingness to give and receive feedback from each other.

8. Flexibility and sensitivity around the needs, personalities and thinking styles of the various members; members must understand and appreciate the unique nature of each member.

Achieving success with any strategy is a significant achievement.

This book definitely belongs in any office. It is a great resource for inspiration as well as a review on the elements of leadership. The only problem with this book is the dimension and size. It is such a rich resource that I would have preferred it in a shelf friendly size rather than for a table. However, it has found a place in my office.

This book has three major parts. The first two parts are so different from each other and complete, there is enough information for there to have been two books. However, together the parts offer the reader a more rounded and better understanding of the leadership virtues Mr. Sheehan chose to explore.

The first part of the book focuses on 64 virtues of leadership. The author has divided the virtues into segments of three. In each segment, the author gives a brief overview and three personalities of each of the virtues. This is followed by a brief article about a leader the author has chosen to represent that particular virtue. Did you get all that? He follows each segment with an in-depth definition of the three virtues.

The second part is a collection of photographs and quotes that define the characters of the presented leaders. Some leaders chosen may be a surprise, but they are leaders worth remembering and worth noting.

The third part is a very brief summary of what it means to be a leader. It is a nice conclusion to the book. Many leadership books end with a type of lecture about leadership. The author did not incorporate this type of ending – and it is refreshing.

The book is an easy read, artfully compiled, and spotlights lesser known figures as well as the most loved leaders of the twentieth century. The author chose leaders from many fields; musicians, activists, presidents, and ball players. I was especially impressed that he also included the unknown student at Tiananmen Square, Ruby Bridges, and Georgia O’Keefe. If you have forgotten who these people are and their importance, this book would be your best resource. The book is well worth buying, not only to get a complete understanding of what it means to be a leader, but to remember those leaders and the virtues they demonstrated.

Summary:
A well done book that is better than most others. If you’re looking for a gift, something for the office foyer, or want to read more about virtues of great leaders, this is for you.

In a previous organization, I worked for a manager who embraced new styles of leadership. Each time he attended a training workshop, he arrived at work the next day claiming it was a life changing event. Each time he would instruct his management team to immediately change their leadership style to incorporate his new learnings. While most of his initiatives were good and became part of our culture, unconsciously he created confusion, frustration, and finally he destroyed any trust his employees had in him as a leader.

This man’s intentions were true and good natured. He really wanted to be a great coach and for each member of his management team to be good coaches as well. So why did a man so intent to make the business better for all employees, through coaching, fail? Ultimately, he thought he had proved himself through physical and structural changes. However, it takes much more than just surface changes and training classes to make a good coach; it requires changes to the internal management style. Because he thought himself an expert and his role complete, he had become un-coachable.

A Look At Effective Coaching Behaviors

Dr. Steven J. Stowell and CMOE (Center for Management and Organization Effectiveness) through extensive research have identified 47 “Differentiating Behaviors that Distinguish Successful from Unsuccessful Performance Leaders.” Dr. Stowell then condensed these behaviors into eight categories that are taught in CMOE’s Coaching Skills Program.

Some of these significant behaviors that world-class coaches exhibit include:

• Gives recognition of employees worth
• Listens carefully, using reflective listening
• Provides positive feedback – gives credit
• Respects confidentiality
• Owns some responsibility
• Doesn’t point blame
• Asks questions to gather information, asks others to share their views
• Is collaborative and open to other methods to completion of tasks

As I reflect on these differentiating behaviors, I can identify that while my previous supervisor claimed to understand the importance of trust in a coaching relationship, his undermining behaviors with the other managers indicated it was not so. The following examples show his lack of trust.

The Wrong Methods

My supervisor had been told that employees need to take responsibility to grow both professionally and personally. His role was simply to “empower” his team and let them “figure out the rest.” Unfortunately when an employee failed in some capacity, the employee would be reprimanded by this supervisor. In some cases, the person would be ridiculed (he called it joking around) in front of the other team members, simply because he was left to guess his way to success, with no “true” coach helping him find the way.

Additionally, this manager seldom listened to his team. He made “snap” judgments without getting all of the facts or perceptions of anyone or everyone involved. He often cut into the explanations because he felt he had the answer even though he had heard only half the issue.

Finally, the most damaging trait was his inability to keep confidential remarks confidential. He often discussed his meetings with individual team members with other members, especially if some disagreement of thought was explored. With this type of feedback, it didn’t take long for communication from and within his team to cease.

The Making of a Disgruntled Team Member

If people within an organization are reprimanded, ridiculed, and have their confidentiality breached, it makes for a destructive environment. When managers “empower” others, it is critical to allot enough authority, support, and resources so that the employee can complete the task successfully. When a subordinate is asked to be a leader and then fails because they were not setup for success, that person begins to question his/her own judgment. That self-doubt can seriously inhibit their effectiveness to be resourceful or creative for the business.

Build a Positive Culture

To build and maintain a culture of trust, an effective coach must listen. A coach must hear out their employees so that conflicts, problems, and misunderstandings can be rectified. Further, a good listener must be calm and confidential. When there is a disagreement, personal beliefs need to be put aside so the beliefs of each party can be understood. A coach who doesn’t listen, doesn’t know what the real issues are and employees will not only distrust the supervisor, but each other.

In the case of my supervisor, his management team tried talking with him about his coaching and leadership style. Each time he explained that since he had the training, he understood the situation better than they did. Finally a Vice President called for a 360° survey assessment, and as a result, he left the company.

Does this mean all coaching training workshops will have the same results? No, not at all. What it does mean is that coaches need proven methods and processes in their training and education to become effective leaders. This man had many good traits; nevertheless they were overlooked because of his few bad ones. Had this man been given the right training he might have been able to develop his leadership approach that would create a strong personal leadership approach and team that would have taken the business to higher levels. Instead, the business faltered for two years before the team was able to rebuild itself.

Sixteen blind people entered the classroom. The trainers had great expectations. The managers had no idea what to expect.

Imagine yourself one of sixteen managers starting the second day of a week-long senior-management development program. As you walk into the classroom you note a curious change: all the tables and chairs are gone. You mill around hesitantly with other participants. No one knows what is going on.

Enter the instructor with an explanation:

Today you will work with someone you have not yet met. A group of people will enter the room in a moment and pick partners. You will assist in the selection process by talking about yourself, stating your name, then your interests, hobbies, or anything else you think would help a person decide about wanting to work with you. You will continue until you are chosen. Then you will be given a packet of information explaining the activities planned, and shown to a private work area where you and your partner can prepare for the day.

Feeling a little foolish, you begin talking about yourself. The instructor leads 16 blind people into the room, and they mingle among you and the other managers. Each blind person listens to each manager and finally selects a partner. You are chosen by a 55-year old woman who shyly says, you sound like the kind of person I would enjoy working with.

At your work area you open the information packet and read your instructions for the day. You and your partner will begin a series of activities in 90 minutes. You will have until then to get acquainted, review the activities materials, and practice with a roll of twine, tennis ball, and two cardboard mailing tubes that are in your work area. A facilitator will come around occasionally to observe.

Looking through the packet, you note that you will perform two mental and three physical activities. In each activity you and your partner will be scored on your level of accomplishment. These scores will be tallied on a scoreboard so that all participants can monitor each other’s performance.

How do you think you would react to this imaginary situation? If you are like the 16 senior managers at FedEx who actually went through this challenging ordeal, you would experience an emotional rainbow – initially anxious, and ultimately elated. By the end of the day you would feel a deep sense of accomplishment and respect for others, and you would see clearly how you manage and interact with people.

How would your partner react? He or she would gain a greater sense of self-awareness and confidence, plus skill in functioning in a business environment.

The positive results seen by FedEx in this unique training approach far outweighed the risks involved. Yet, their risks were great. Teaming their managers with physically impaired people was not only an unproven technique, but possibly a never-tried technique for management development.

The idea for this technique sprang from FedEx’s desire for a creative training program with impact. Training designers spoke with Oklahoma Special Olympics and watched a film entitled Survival Run. The film, which chronicles a blind person and a sighted partner running an obstacle-filled marathon, convinced the designers that the concept of matching physically impaired people with those not impaired would work in training. What struck the designers most about the film were the interpersonal skills needed to make the experience rewarding for both teammates. The partner who works with a physically impaired person cannot ignore the inherent responsibilities.

Confronting the unavoidable

The training designers experimented with an approach that reached deeper than experimental simulation. They referred to the approach as unavoidable recognition. Having developed management training from three other approaches – the cognitive/conceptual/theorizing approach, the instrument feedback approach, and the experiential simulation approach – the designers believed a combination of all three was most successful. Still, the trainers had a problem. Even with the most successful approach, the level of participant involvement was left to the participants’ discretion. Participants could choose either to get involved or to remain passive and suffer no consequences other than unsuccessful task accomplishment. The training designers believed that participant involvement would be unavoidable if the consequences of noninvolvement affected a physically impaired person. And with participant involvement would come unavoidable recognition of personal behavior. The designers created a program based on these and the following assumptions. (It’s important to note that the program specified working with blind people as opposed to people with blindfolds or other restrictions. These options were ruled out as lacking the realism and unavoidable involvement sought.)

• When normal roles and management approaches are removed, the true skills a person relies on will emerge.
• Having blind partners will force the managers to look at how they interact with people and hoe they deal with differences.
• A combination of physical and mental challenges will show managers and partners how they deal with needs for dependency, interdependency, and independency.
• Perceived competition in each event will motivate both manager partner, and will illustrate how the manager balances concern for task accomplishment with concern for people needs.
• The blind participants will gain as much from the experience as the managers and will not feel used or exploited.

The designers listed program objectives for both groups of participants. For the managers the objectives were:

• To understand the basic style and approaches individuals use when faced with a stressful and unique situation. The managers would be forced to depend on their own resourcefulness, because no guidelines existed for the program events. They would have to reach inside themselves and pull out core strategies they use when interacting in everyday settings. This would focus managers unavoidably on how they manage people.
• To learn how to deal with people who are different from themselves, and to learn how valid their assumptions about different people are. The lessons managers learned from working with blind people could be transferred to managing any differences – gender, age race, and mental and physical differences – between themselves and others.
• To assess which skills they tend to over and underuse in giving directions, coaching, providing reinforcement, and structuring a task, managers would be able to measure their ability to adapt appropriate skills to particular situations.
• To assess their ability to structure effective working relationships, solicit feedback, and learn from work partners.

For the blind participants, the objectives were

• To learn about the business world. This would be excellent training in working for a middle manager.
• To develop a sense of accomplishment in achieving specific goals and to promote self-images.
• To assess skill in functioning in a strange environment with little information about the situation. Together with their counselor they could determine improvement needs.
• To enjoy what promised to be an interesting experience.

Design for the day

The blind participants for this training program were chosen by the Memphis Alliance for the blind. The only criteria were that the participants be blind, willing to take some risks, and willing to talk about their impressions of the day. Ten women and six men decided to participate. Their ages ranged from 25 to 65. Thirteen were employed, and three were college students. After each of these participants chose a manager for a partner, the teams prepared for the activities. During the 90-minute preparation, the facilitators observed each managers use of time, creativity, and empathy for his or her partner. In the packets of information the teams received were diagramed of six activities and a description of how each would be scored. At no time would any team be idle. All activities were timed to last 30 minutes each, and each team would follow a different sequence in performing the activities.

One activity was the trial preparation for mental activity #1. A box of Tinkertoys^TM and two diagrams of practice structures to build were given to the team. Each structure required more than 28 individual connections to duplicate the diagram for a successful score. The manager could not touch the Tinkertoys^TM, he or she could only provide verbal instructions. The purpose of the activity was to establish the team’s communication and feedback style.

Mental activity #1 followed. The team was given a new diagram with 39 individual connections to duplicate. All teams had the same structure to build. Each team was scored on the correctness of its model plus the number of successful connections that were made using the right colors in the constructions.

Mental activity #2 required the manager to coach his or her partner in building a structure using building blocks of various shapes and sizes. The only regulations were that prior to beginning, the team had to establish a goal height, or “contracted” height, they thought they could attain; at some point in the structure they had to have two towers rising from a common base – the base could not rest directly on the building surface; and the manager could not touch the building blocks at any time. In scoring this activity, the contracted height in inches was multiplied by 10, and bonus or penalty points were added or subtracted for every half inch over or under the contracted height.

The purpose of the contracting process was to reveal management style. Would the managers set the goal height authoritatively, collaborate on the decision, or totally delegate the decision?

In physical activity #1, floor hockey, the team had to use brooms to move a soccer ball through designated alleys (marked with colored tape) and obstacles, into the scoring net. The playing field was 6 feet wide by 20 feet long. A partner played on only one side of the field and could not cross over the line into the playing field. The blind partner had to make three passing shots from his or her side of the field and get the ball into the net. The object was to score as many goals as possible in the allotted time. Five points were awarded for each goal, and one point was deducted each time either team member stepped over the line into the playing field.

In physical activity #2, an obstacle course, 20 automobile tires were numbered on the side and arranged in sequence. The manager led his or her partner to a starting area, then returned to a coaching box, from which the tire numbers could be seen. The manager had to talk his or her partner through the course. The blind partner had to step in each tire in the correct numerical sequence. Two points were awarded each time a tire was stepped in correctly, and one point was deducted each time a tire was stepped in out of sequence. A maximum time was allotted for the activity, and each team’s actual time was recorded.

Physical activity #3, a balance beam and tent course, required several steps by the blind partner. He or she had to mount and walk the length of a low but slightly inclined regulation balance beam, turn left, step onto another beam, walk its length, dismount the beam, walk to and enter a geodesic-domed tent, find a hanging flag, return across the two balance beams, dismount, walk to a flag pole, and hang the flag. The manager could only give verbal instructions from behind a coaching line. Five points were awarded each time a step was completed successfully.

The managers were unaware of the next activity. The blind person had to lead his or her partner, who would wear a blindfold, on a 20-minute course outside. The course was set up to create a wide variety of environmental changes. It included steps, curbs traffic, running water, shrubs, and low hanging trees. The only help the blind person had were people approximately every 100 yards along the course, who would respond with the code word “express” every time the blind person called out “federal”. The amount of voice direction the team received on the course was controlled totally by the blind partner.

After completing these activities the participants gave feedback on what they learned. The blind participants spent one hour as a group without the managers, sharing their reactions about how they were managed. This segment was videotaped. During this hour the managers scored and discussed a management style instrument. The two groups were reassembled for awards. Then the managers discussed their learning, viewed the videotaped comments of the blind participants, and received feedback from the facilitators who observed the managers during the activities.

Reactions:

This experience had dramatic and divergent effects on the participants. A sampling of their reactions indicates that the objectives of the training session were met.

The insight managers gained about their management style, their ability to structure the working relationship, and the skills they tend to over – and underuse is evident from these comments.

“It was easy to see how I make bad assumptions about the people I work with and I grossly underestimate their abilities.”

“I have learned that I tend to be overly protective- that I mother hen people way too much.”

“I now realize how impatient I can be with others and how that affects our ability to cooperate with each other.”

“I thought I was pretty competitive and aggressive. I feel bad now that it was me who kept my team from achieving greater results.”

“I really wanted to take over and get my hands on the construction task. I had to force myself to back off and let my partner do her job.”

The blind partners confirmed these insights with the following feedback to their managers:

“My manager needed to spend more time just getting to know me; instead she wanted to jump right into the technical parts of our assignments.”

“It made me mad when my manager didn’t confer with me before turning in our goal on how high we planned to build the tower.”

“I felt over supervised . . . . . I didn’t have enough space.”

“My manager wasn’t clear on what she wanted and expected of me.”

“At times I felt abandoned by my manager; he would leave our work area and never tell me when he would be back.”

“My manager never asked for my feedback; he just charged on ahead.”

“I don’t think my manager really challenged me enough.”

“My manager wasn’t sensitive to me.”

“When I took my manager on the blindfold walk, I could tell he still didn’t trust my abilities. He nearly broke my arm.”

Some of the lessons learned by managers by the end of training:

“I learned how to be more creative in my communications.”

“I have learned to be more participative and collaborative in making decisions when more than one person is involved in a task.”

“I can sure see a need for extensive trust in my partner to get a difficult job accomplished.”

The feedback of blind participants relays managerial behavior they found effective.

“My manager was patient, sensitive, and sincere.”

“My manager gave me clear directions.”

“My manager provided lots of credit, recognition, and reinforcement. He made me feel that I did it all . . . . . . I could tell he was proud of what we did.”

“I received clear, specific feedback.”

What did managers learn about how they deal with people who are different from themselves? These two comments tell:

“At the beginning I felt uncomfortable and arrogant. I was soon humbled. I really underestimated my partner’s talents.”

“At first I was afraid to get close to my blind partner. I soon realized that if I was going to get through the day, we had to build a relationship.”

The following comment from one of the blind participants illustrates barriers put in place by the managers when faced with people who were different.

“My manager seemed uptight. I could tell he was having a hard time relaxing around me. I finally just had to ask him if he had ever been around a blind person.”

As the following comments by blind participants illustrate, the objectives for their group were met.

“My manager was enthusiastic. He hugged me, touched me, and shook my hand . . . . He made me feel good.”

“We worked well together. I felt we were a team.”

Future considerations:

The program designers too learned from this day of training. They mainly learned that creativity can pay off in management development. If the objective was to create a truly significant training experience, they had to take risks to go beyond traditional methods and theories.

Based on their new knowledge, the designers planned specific program changes for future sessions. Even with thoughts on improving the program, the designers judged their first effort successful. The program showed managers the profound effect their degree of sensitivity, compassion, tolerance, and patience can have on their work teams. By demonstrating the strong connection between management skills and productivity, and by challenging the managers with unusual circumstances, the program prepared the managers to perform more effectively in their everyday situations.