There is a saying in executive coaching that prescription before diagnosis is malpractice. In other words, it would be a breach of duty to treat the symptoms without doing tests to understand the root cause of the troubles.
There has been a great deal of media coverage in the last few years about the subject of malpractice. The most publicized forms of malpractice are medical malpractice by physicians and legal malpractice by attorneys, although malpractice suits against accountants (Arthur Andersen) and investment advisors (Merrill Lynch) have also been featured in the news.
How does this apply to coaching derailed life sciences executives? Without a clear idea of the person’s strengths and weaknesses, you are only guessing what is needed. This is no time to guess. Take the time to assess the true situation before you recommend a fix.
In my book The Prodigal Executive I included a lesson I learned from a derailed executive named John (real case, but not his real name). The telephone call from John’s manager was intense and anxious. The manager described John’s behavior as being hostile.
John would speak to people in critical ways. He would call people “stupid” and raise his voice when speaking with a peer on the phone in another part of the country. When I met John, he was somewhat distant, intense, and had that “big city” pushiness. John could not understand why he was being asked to work with a coach.
Furthermore, John could not understand why the others had so much of a problem with him. After a few coaching sessions, John seemed to become more positive. Suddenly he refused to have me interview his peers. John could not handle the truth. He did not want to know what others really thought of him and it was in fact difficult to make a diagnosis and develop a coaching plan.
His opposition regarding the 360 degree feedback assessment continued. This passive aggressive style defended against truly making a diagnosis and engaging him to make meaningful change. Not only was John derailing, he made sure he derailed the coaching during the assessment phase.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Should Joe Go? Toxic Life Sciences Executive Syndrome
Have you ever had a life sciences executive like Joe working for you?
Joe (not his real name) was a big guy, and very, very smart. He was a lawyer who was extremely valuable to the company and exquisitely arrogant. Joe thought he was the smartest one in the room at all times, and probably was right. On top of all that, he was extremely inappropriate to some of the female coworkers. Joe was too valuable to let go and too painful to keep.
Joe was ordered to my office for a company-mandated coaching session. He was extremely angry about that. Joe didn't like the idea of having to speak to somebody else like a consultant or a coach because he always knew more than they did.
"You know what? I'm really not going to change,” Joe bellowed at me in the first session. “I don’t want to change. I want to keep doing what I'm doing, and I will let the chips fall where they may. And, you know, if I get fired, I get fired."
My response to Joe surprised him. “Congratulations, because at least you are clear about what you want.”
The pleasure he got from his inappropriate interactions was stronger than the fear of getting fired. Really there was nothing an executive coach could do. So for me to continue with Joe really would not make sense. So I just wished him all the best.
Joe wanted to be fired. My opinion is that Joe was so narcissistic, and had such a sense of grandiosity, that he thought the rules didn't apply to him. So he felt that what he did was not inappropriate and didn’t see his behavior as harmful to others.
The second possibility is that Joe wasn’t happy in his job in the first place. So for him to continue to be inappropriate meant that he was going to lose his job. My guess is that was his underlying motivation.
Finally, Joe was the type that didn’t like dealing with authority figures, and didn’t want anybody to teach him now. In his case, old dogs didn’t want to learn new tricks. Joe was not coachable and therefore had to go.
How to Determine if a Derailed Executive is Coachable
Every poker player knows it doesn’t pay to play out every hand to the bitter end. After you ante and see the cards you are dealt, sometimes it is best to fold and minimize your losses.
Ah, but when? Knowing when to walk away from a valuable employee is one of the more complex and controversial areas of my practice because we are dealing with careers, not cards.
The first question that always comes up from a company leader with a derailed executives is, "Can this person change?"
My position with company leaders is always the same: “We never know.”
Because we never know what combination of events is going to help this person get motivated. Like the saying goes, don’t leave five minutes before the miracle.
Of course, there is always a healthy sense of skepticism that a derailed executive can change. The hiring manager or HR person has attempted many different fixes. Doubtless they have given the derailed executive feedback sessions, sent them to expensive classes, maybe even a 360 degree peer review. All this, and the person still has not changed for an extended period of time.
As one president who has dealt with his share of egomaniac employees cracks, “Let’s talk about world peace or something we can solve.”
The concern from a business standpoint is this: “Why should we invest all this money and time if the person is not going to change. Why take the risk?"
That's always the best place to start. Typically if the company really feels the derailed executive is uncoachable and they've already made the decision that the situation cannot be resurrected, then they don't call me. Instead, the company calls an outplacement consultant to help them fire the executive.
Sometimes the company leader says "We want to try one more thing before we pull the plug. We don't think the person is coachable, but we willing to give it at least one more shot."
This is what is called the “get fixed” ultimatum. Either this derailed executive gets fixed, or they get gone.
Determine If Coaching Is the Right Approach
What is the first test for a derailed executive to determine if they can be saved? Whether or not that are willing to go through assessment testing. If they are willing to go through the assessment phase then the next question becomes: "Is coaching the right program for them?"
There are many ways of determining this. As an executive coach, here are some aspects I consider:
1. Do they understand the feedback they've been given previously?
2. Have they ever had any coaching in the past?
3. Were they in competitive sports, and understand the concept of coaching?
4. Are they able to understand that the best get better through coaching and that the best sometimes go through a small derail?
5. How much arrogance do they really have?
If the derailed executive thinks they know everything and can do everything before I even talk to them, then this person is probably not going to get much out of the coaching.
Joe (not his real name) was a big guy, and very, very smart. He was a lawyer who was extremely valuable to the company and exquisitely arrogant. Joe thought he was the smartest one in the room at all times, and probably was right. On top of all that, he was extremely inappropriate to some of the female coworkers. Joe was too valuable to let go and too painful to keep.
Joe was ordered to my office for a company-mandated coaching session. He was extremely angry about that. Joe didn't like the idea of having to speak to somebody else like a consultant or a coach because he always knew more than they did.
"You know what? I'm really not going to change,” Joe bellowed at me in the first session. “I don’t want to change. I want to keep doing what I'm doing, and I will let the chips fall where they may. And, you know, if I get fired, I get fired."
My response to Joe surprised him. “Congratulations, because at least you are clear about what you want.”
The pleasure he got from his inappropriate interactions was stronger than the fear of getting fired. Really there was nothing an executive coach could do. So for me to continue with Joe really would not make sense. So I just wished him all the best.
Joe wanted to be fired. My opinion is that Joe was so narcissistic, and had such a sense of grandiosity, that he thought the rules didn't apply to him. So he felt that what he did was not inappropriate and didn’t see his behavior as harmful to others.
The second possibility is that Joe wasn’t happy in his job in the first place. So for him to continue to be inappropriate meant that he was going to lose his job. My guess is that was his underlying motivation.
Finally, Joe was the type that didn’t like dealing with authority figures, and didn’t want anybody to teach him now. In his case, old dogs didn’t want to learn new tricks. Joe was not coachable and therefore had to go.
How to Determine if a Derailed Executive is Coachable
Every poker player knows it doesn’t pay to play out every hand to the bitter end. After you ante and see the cards you are dealt, sometimes it is best to fold and minimize your losses.
Ah, but when? Knowing when to walk away from a valuable employee is one of the more complex and controversial areas of my practice because we are dealing with careers, not cards.
The first question that always comes up from a company leader with a derailed executives is, "Can this person change?"
My position with company leaders is always the same: “We never know.”
Because we never know what combination of events is going to help this person get motivated. Like the saying goes, don’t leave five minutes before the miracle.
Of course, there is always a healthy sense of skepticism that a derailed executive can change. The hiring manager or HR person has attempted many different fixes. Doubtless they have given the derailed executive feedback sessions, sent them to expensive classes, maybe even a 360 degree peer review. All this, and the person still has not changed for an extended period of time.
As one president who has dealt with his share of egomaniac employees cracks, “Let’s talk about world peace or something we can solve.”
The concern from a business standpoint is this: “Why should we invest all this money and time if the person is not going to change. Why take the risk?"
That's always the best place to start. Typically if the company really feels the derailed executive is uncoachable and they've already made the decision that the situation cannot be resurrected, then they don't call me. Instead, the company calls an outplacement consultant to help them fire the executive.
Sometimes the company leader says "We want to try one more thing before we pull the plug. We don't think the person is coachable, but we willing to give it at least one more shot."
This is what is called the “get fixed” ultimatum. Either this derailed executive gets fixed, or they get gone.
Determine If Coaching Is the Right Approach
What is the first test for a derailed executive to determine if they can be saved? Whether or not that are willing to go through assessment testing. If they are willing to go through the assessment phase then the next question becomes: "Is coaching the right program for them?"
There are many ways of determining this. As an executive coach, here are some aspects I consider:
1. Do they understand the feedback they've been given previously?
2. Have they ever had any coaching in the past?
3. Were they in competitive sports, and understand the concept of coaching?
4. Are they able to understand that the best get better through coaching and that the best sometimes go through a small derail?
5. How much arrogance do they really have?
If the derailed executive thinks they know everything and can do everything before I even talk to them, then this person is probably not going to get much out of the coaching.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Debunking the Myth About Omelets, Eggs and Derailed Life Sciences Executives
A popular myth is that executive turnover is inevitable in life sciences. To make a great biotech company you need to weed out the executive troublemakers, regardless of the value they bring to the company.
There is an old proverb that says you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. This means that in order to achieve something it is inevitable and necessary that something should be destroyed. Some credit New York Times Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter Walter Duranty with popularizing the phrase in describing Joseph Stalin’s rule in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. For the record, in Russian, the proverb is “when the wood is cut, the chips fly.”
So let the chips fly where they may. You can nickname this management style as churn, baby, churn. If the scientist or executive derails, then just get rid of them before it turns into a full blown train wreck.
This just doesn’t make economic sense, because life sciences companies today must compete to find, develop and retain top talent. Given the estimates that the costs of replacement of highly skilled workers and those in leadership roles can run up to 200 percent of the employees salary, the incentive for retaining talent is enourmous (Nowack, Envisa Learning White Paper, “Coaching Competent Jerks: Can Zebras Change Their Stripes?” 2006).
There is an old proverb that says you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. This means that in order to achieve something it is inevitable and necessary that something should be destroyed. Some credit New York Times Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter Walter Duranty with popularizing the phrase in describing Joseph Stalin’s rule in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. For the record, in Russian, the proverb is “when the wood is cut, the chips fly.”
So let the chips fly where they may. You can nickname this management style as churn, baby, churn. If the scientist or executive derails, then just get rid of them before it turns into a full blown train wreck.
This just doesn’t make economic sense, because life sciences companies today must compete to find, develop and retain top talent. Given the estimates that the costs of replacement of highly skilled workers and those in leadership roles can run up to 200 percent of the employees salary, the incentive for retaining talent is enourmous (Nowack, Envisa Learning White Paper, “Coaching Competent Jerks: Can Zebras Change Their Stripes?” 2006).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
