astra domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/studyfoxx/public_html/proactivetraining.com.au/news/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131\n\tRecently, a coaching colleague of mine who had never held a leadership position in business confessed to me that she didn’t believe it was necessary for her to understand the business setting in which her coaching clients operated in order for her to perform successfully as a coach. “The same basic principles of coaching apply, regardless of the organizational setting,” she argued, “so why do I need to understand organizational context?” Why, indeed? <\/p>\n
\n\tThe answer is that all too often coaching engagements aren’t successful because coaches don’t fully understand how sudden changes in organizational context can radically impact a leader’s ability to succeed under a very different set of work conditions. In other words, changes in business context place different adaptive demands<\/em> on organizational leaders, which, in turn, require leaders to make use of different types of leadership skills and expertise. <\/p>\n \n\tTo illustrate, allow me to share with you three examples from my own coaching experience:<\/p>\n \n\tTransitional Coaching<\/strong><\/p>\n \n\tThe issue of organizational context in coaching is particularly critical when we are engaged in transitional coaching,<\/em> in which we are being asked to help newly hired leaders make a “soft landing” into a new work environment. Ten years ago, author and consultant Michael Watkins wrote a great article for Harvard Business Review<\/em>, entitled “Picking the Right Transition Strategy” (January, 2009 issue). The major theme of the article was that in order make a successful transition into a new organization, leaders first needed to understand the stage of business development<\/em> in which their new employer was operating. Watkins coined the acronym, STARS, to identify five alternative organizational stages of development; e.g., Start-Up, Turnaround, Accelerated Growth, Realignment, <\/em>and Sustaining Success<\/em>. <\/p>\n \n\tDepending upon the stage in which a company is operating, different business and leadership demands take precedence, requiring leaders to adapt their leadership behaviors according. Some leaders successfully make these transitions, while others require coaching to help them understand that their old tools need to be discarded or adapted to meet the demands of the new environment. <\/p>\n \n\tFor example, leaders who are moving into organizational start-ups are tasked with building new processes and systems, and creating entirely new work teams and functions. This often happens within a sea of chaos, in which leaders can’t rely on ready-made “paint-by-the-numbers” solutions. This contextual setting can pose serious leadership challenges to any executive who has spent the last several years performing within a stable, well-organized “sustaining success” company. Coaches who understand the concept of organizational context will be sensitive to how they need to adapt their coaching strategies to help such leaders succeed.<\/p>\n \n\tI could go on, but I think you see my point. When we view the coaching process strictly in terms of helping leaders to learn new behaviors, or identify some critical aspects of their personalities, then we fall into the mistake of trying to adopt an ineffective “one- size-fits-all” approach to coaching. Simply put, if good leadership is about being able to successfully adapt to changing conditions, then context becomes critical to coaching success. Give it some thought. <\/p>\n\n