Whenever I watch a business show on television, I am amazed at the number of times the word “expectation” is used to describe the performance of a company’s perceived value and stock price. It seems that investor “expectations” often drive stock prices in the market. When a company exceeds expectations, the stock price skyrockets and when a company does not meet or is below investor expectations, then prices plummet reflecting the dissatisfaction of investors in the performance of a company.
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.
In Part 1 and Part 2 of “Which Comes First, Coaching or the Need for Coaching?” it was discussed that most coaches wait for the need for coaching, rather than proactively coaching, which in turn reduces the actual need for coaching. From these two posts, new questions may have surfaced. Some of you may be asking, “If there aren’t any problems or issues, then what would I coach about or coach to?”
CMOE has identified four type of coaching opportunities, listed below in no particular order.
1. Improvement
2. Development
3. Reinforcement
4. Alignment
As you may have guessed, CMOE categorizes “the need for coaching,” under Improvement (1). Coaching of this type targets elevating performance and overcoming setbacks, shortcomings, issues, concerns, and problems. However, CMOE has identified three other types of coaching opportunities that will serve as a preemptive strike to such issues. Coaching for Development (2) is focused on enhancing potential, teaching skills, and clarifying expectations – your’s, the coachee’s, and the organization’s. Coaching for Reinforcement (3) involves helping the coachee sustain and expand strengths, successes, and achievements. Coaching for Alignment (4) deals with helping the coachee change and build commitment to new strategies, goals, and processes. After you have finished reading about CMOE’s four types of coaching opportunities, you may yourself realize that problems and issues aren’t the only reason leaders need to coach.
Despite the various opportunities, managers typically only coach for Improvement, or “the need for coaching.” I challenge all readers to make an effort to get out of this coaching rut and start coaching to the other three types of opportunities listed above. Managers will likely find that “the need for coaching” will actually diminish because the causes to such problems will be addressed early on, before a problem fully develops. Please keep your thoughts and comments coming and I welcome any follow-up questions.
We can all understand that it is important to help employees to improve their performance and increase in their skills, but sometimes it just takes too much time. There are too many employees and too much work to get done to be able to have a solid coaching session. Wrong! Take a look at the following video which demonstrates how an employee’s performance can be evaluated and his strengths encouraged in a natural setting. This method is so obvious and natural. Watch this demonstration of a One Minute Employee Coaching Session.
Motivation is an internal desire and force that drives us to accomplish tasks and goals. In the ideal situation, we learn, develop skills, and grow as individuals as we move towards these goals. So, as leaders, the growth and development of employees should be a major part of the planning process as we set goals with team members. But to do it effectively a leader needs to understand what motivates each team member. When a leader is able to motivate a team member and help them feel involved, positive results will begin to unfold.
Motivation Theories
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs categorizes some of the motivating factors in people’s lives as: Psychological Needs, Safety (Security) Needs, Social Needs, Esteem Needs, and Self-Actualization. The Hygiene Motivation theory by Herzberg continues with this idea with Maslow’s first three and a half being the hygiene.
A leader should keep in mind that motivating factors will change. If leaders are in tune with the current needs of their team members, they can more effectively motivate others. It becomes a win-win relationship when the organization can meet its own goals and tasks and the motivating needs of employee.
A Motivation Study
The Hawthorne Studies conducted by Elton Mayo is an example of how a change in the environment increased productivity. The scientists were studying the effect of light on production in a factory. They thought that light was a contributing factor to productivity levels but later realized, employees were producing more results because they felt needed, not they were a part of something, and were receiving attention. What these people wanted was social need and esteem rather than light. They needed to be involved and associate with others. Isn’t it extraordinary how powerful the need for social affiliation was in this situation.
When our own team members feel motivated, encouraged and cared about by their leaders, they will feel as though they can make a difference. The results will follow.
An Eyewitness Report
As part of my work with CMOE, I was involved in a training initiative for FedEx. There was one station in particular which experienced tremendous results year after year. We spent the day diagnosing why this station was so effective. We found that its success was directly tied to the leader’s ability to motivate the team. This stations manager would arrive daily at 8:00 a.m. But before going to his office and attacking his “in-basket” he would walk through the station and talk with his team members. It wasn’t necessarily about business issues. He would ask about their family, or joke about a recent sporting event. This leader was developing his team and motivating them through regular interaction. In turn, because they were involved and felt a part of a team, they produced extraordinary results. Basic human interaction and a sincere concern from leaders can motivate and develop followers. It is simple things that lead to tremendous results.
In 
