On Wednesday we had the second day of the Unpacking Your Chair programme for (relatively) new professors.
In advance of the day, participants had collected the expectations of others (within and beyond the University) of the role of the Professor. Sharing these expectations was a fascinating exercise, and quickly made us all realise that one individual could not possibly meet all these expectations. So we discussed and agreed that part of the role was to negotiate the role and the expectations others placed on it - and part was to discuss with the professoriate within one's discipline how, collectively, they could meet the expectations.
We were then joined by the Faculty PVC, Charles Harvey, who completely ratified that approach, and also shared his own experiences - and his values, approach etc in a very human way, which spoke to the participants.
We also discussed how to get things to happen in the University, with Gerry clarifying the importance of the informal relationships in making that easier; and then we spent some time thinking ahead to what we would like to have achieved as leaders over the next few years. Again, that provoked a very rich range of responses, which we shared and discussed in some depth.
As before, the attitude and commitment of the participants made this a very successful - and enjoyable - day, and I'm already looking forward to the next one!
Monday, 21 February 2011
Thursday, 3 February 2011
Walking writing...
I blogged a while back about walking coaching and how valuable that can be.
Yesterday I was stuck on a chapter on coaching in the book I'm writing, and instead of sitting industriously, virtuously, diligently at my Mac, I put on some waterproofs and took Lulu for a walk.
To assuage my (rather weak) pangs of guilt, I slipped my voice recorder in my pocket to record any inspirations.
By the end of plodding through muddy fields, doubled up against the gales and rain, I had recorded a few good insights and in particular had found a new way into the chapter: starting it from a quite different perspective than I had originally intended.
So the risk now is that I spend tons of time walking the dog in my carefully preserved 'writing' slots in the diary. Will have to monitor that, but if yesterday is anything to go by, that could be very productive.
Yesterday I was stuck on a chapter on coaching in the book I'm writing, and instead of sitting industriously, virtuously, diligently at my Mac, I put on some waterproofs and took Lulu for a walk.
To assuage my (rather weak) pangs of guilt, I slipped my voice recorder in my pocket to record any inspirations.
By the end of plodding through muddy fields, doubled up against the gales and rain, I had recorded a few good insights and in particular had found a new way into the chapter: starting it from a quite different perspective than I had originally intended.
So the risk now is that I spend tons of time walking the dog in my carefully preserved 'writing' slots in the diary. Will have to monitor that, but if yesterday is anything to go by, that could be very productive.
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
GROWing pains...
According to the Coaching Academy: 'The GROW (Goal, Reality, Options, Will) model is the most common and widely used coaching tool. It empowers the coach to structure a coaching conversation and deliver a meaningful result.'
I have a number of questions concerning it, at least as presented here and generally used and taught.
At one level it seems so obvious and helpful, but I think it implies a lot of things that are not helpful.
Consider, for example, the statement: It empowers the coach to structure a coaching conversation and deliver a meaningful result.
Is that necessarily a good thing? It implies:
a) that it is good for the coach to be empowered
b) that it is good for the coach to structure a coaching conversation
c) that the coach takes responsibility for delivering a meaningful result.
All of these, I think, are open to question.
And one good question is, what is it that we think we are doing when we are coaching?
And then the model itself:
Goal: how straightforward is that? It is all to easy to invite the person with whom one is working to 'set clear (achievable/relevant/challenging etc) goals'. But in my experience, people need time and space to discern what is truly important to them in the future, and it may not even fit the shape of a 'goal', or the very language of 'goals' may limit their thinking. From Peter Block, I have learned that the presenting problem is rarely the real problem (though that language also has implications one might wish to query.) And there is the whole question of being or doing....
Reality: this is another question-begging word. Given the multiple subjectivities of our experience, inviting people to articulate or even explore 'reality' may be less helpful than it sounds.
Options: I believe in these, I really do! But sometimes they are best generated as a by-product, almost, of other processes, not least profound listening, curious exploration, fantasising about the (seemingly) impossible, surfacing of deep values, and so on. Maybe it is the context that makes it sound so clinical and sterile, but something about the sequence Goal, reality, options... just does not resonate, neither with my philosophy of coaching nor my experience of what people with whom I work find helpful.
Will: again I understand what they are getting at, and maybe have fewer concerns about this word than the others - except it is the last word, and that I do find problematic. There is so much more that a rich coaching conversation could explore than is, seemingly, allowed by these four words.
Having said all of which, GROW may be useful as a primer for the busy work-based coach (say a supervisor) just wanting to break the habit of telling people how to do it... But as 'the most widely-used coaching tool' (and that word too is loaded!) I do have real concerns about it.
I have a number of questions concerning it, at least as presented here and generally used and taught.
At one level it seems so obvious and helpful, but I think it implies a lot of things that are not helpful.
Consider, for example, the statement: It empowers the coach to structure a coaching conversation and deliver a meaningful result.
Is that necessarily a good thing? It implies:
a) that it is good for the coach to be empowered
b) that it is good for the coach to structure a coaching conversation
c) that the coach takes responsibility for delivering a meaningful result.
All of these, I think, are open to question.
And one good question is, what is it that we think we are doing when we are coaching?
And then the model itself:
Goal: how straightforward is that? It is all to easy to invite the person with whom one is working to 'set clear (achievable/relevant/challenging etc) goals'. But in my experience, people need time and space to discern what is truly important to them in the future, and it may not even fit the shape of a 'goal', or the very language of 'goals' may limit their thinking. From Peter Block, I have learned that the presenting problem is rarely the real problem (though that language also has implications one might wish to query.) And there is the whole question of being or doing....
Reality: this is another question-begging word. Given the multiple subjectivities of our experience, inviting people to articulate or even explore 'reality' may be less helpful than it sounds.
Options: I believe in these, I really do! But sometimes they are best generated as a by-product, almost, of other processes, not least profound listening, curious exploration, fantasising about the (seemingly) impossible, surfacing of deep values, and so on. Maybe it is the context that makes it sound so clinical and sterile, but something about the sequence Goal, reality, options... just does not resonate, neither with my philosophy of coaching nor my experience of what people with whom I work find helpful.
Will: again I understand what they are getting at, and maybe have fewer concerns about this word than the others - except it is the last word, and that I do find problematic. There is so much more that a rich coaching conversation could explore than is, seemingly, allowed by these four words.
Having said all of which, GROW may be useful as a primer for the busy work-based coach (say a supervisor) just wanting to break the habit of telling people how to do it... But as 'the most widely-used coaching tool' (and that word too is loaded!) I do have real concerns about it.
Saturday, 29 January 2011
Ethics and narrative
I mentioned that I've been reading a fascinating book: Ethicability by Roger Steare.
He talks about three kinds of ethical approach:
1) Rule-based (eg deontology)
2) Social agreement based (eg utitilatarianism)
3) Values or principles based.
He points out that all three have their use, and also suggests that the first tends to make us behave as children, the second as adolescents and the third as adults.
This made me wonder if there might be a parallel with modernism and post-modernism and... whatever comes next.
Modernism could be seen as rule-based; and when people object to my claims for the possibility of absolute truth, I think they may be objecting to this: rules laid down to be applied to all people in all places and at all times.
Post-modernism, social constructionism (the position of many in the narrative world) etc might be regarded as a reaction against that, and an attempt to replace rules with agreed interpretations that are necessarily variable depending on who agrees them. This interpretation resonates with me as some of the academics in particular with whom I have debated this seem to be reacting against precisely that rule-bound notion of truth that 1) would suggest - and one or two also seem to me to have something of the adolescent's idealism, pride in rebellion, and impatience with other perspectives...
I (naturally!) think I am in the more mature position of 3) I make truth claims for values, such as the intrinsic goodness of love rather than hate, of hope rather than despair and of faith rather than nihilism.
THese may need to be interpreted and mediated through social discourse (at level 2) and may on occasion need to be translated to rules (as at level 1 - for example, I would hate to meet a driver who thought the rule that we drive on the left side of the road [in the uk] was not in any sense true and therefore not binding on him or her...)
So I think some of the conversations I have been in have been based on a series of false assumptions - both ways: I think people were assuming I was wanting to make truth-claims of type 1) and have reacted against them; and I was assuming they were reacting against what I really think and believe and reacted against that!
He talks about three kinds of ethical approach:
1) Rule-based (eg deontology)
2) Social agreement based (eg utitilatarianism)
3) Values or principles based.
He points out that all three have their use, and also suggests that the first tends to make us behave as children, the second as adolescents and the third as adults.
This made me wonder if there might be a parallel with modernism and post-modernism and... whatever comes next.
Modernism could be seen as rule-based; and when people object to my claims for the possibility of absolute truth, I think they may be objecting to this: rules laid down to be applied to all people in all places and at all times.
Post-modernism, social constructionism (the position of many in the narrative world) etc might be regarded as a reaction against that, and an attempt to replace rules with agreed interpretations that are necessarily variable depending on who agrees them. This interpretation resonates with me as some of the academics in particular with whom I have debated this seem to be reacting against precisely that rule-bound notion of truth that 1) would suggest - and one or two also seem to me to have something of the adolescent's idealism, pride in rebellion, and impatience with other perspectives...
I (naturally!) think I am in the more mature position of 3) I make truth claims for values, such as the intrinsic goodness of love rather than hate, of hope rather than despair and of faith rather than nihilism.
THese may need to be interpreted and mediated through social discourse (at level 2) and may on occasion need to be translated to rules (as at level 1 - for example, I would hate to meet a driver who thought the rule that we drive on the left side of the road [in the uk] was not in any sense true and therefore not binding on him or her...)
So I think some of the conversations I have been in have been based on a series of false assumptions - both ways: I think people were assuming I was wanting to make truth-claims of type 1) and have reacted against them; and I was assuming they were reacting against what I really think and believe and reacted against that!
Thursday, 27 January 2011
Narrative Training
Excited at the prospect of attending a five day training programme on Narrative with Liz Todd et al at Newcastle University.
Sure it will be excellent and it will be lovely to be on the receiving end for a change, and not be responsible for the success of the event (or at least, only a little bit: I'll try to be a 'good' participant!)
Sure it will be excellent and it will be lovely to be on the receiving end for a change, and not be responsible for the success of the event (or at least, only a little bit: I'll try to be a 'good' participant!)
Academic Leadership Programme
Busy working on the design of an Academic Leadership Programme; this is a successor to the successful Research Leadership Programme I've been running for the last few years at Northumbria, and aims to encompass leadership in Learning and Teaching as well.
Always an interesting tension between my desire to encourage self-directed learning, exploration of themes participants are interested in, responsiveness to emerging learning agendas with participants etc and the institutional need to outline clear learning objectives, plan all the sessions well in advance and so on.
And somehow from this creative tension something wonderful will emerge... I'm reminded of the leitmotif of Shakespeare in Love: 'It's a mystery..'
Always an interesting tension between my desire to encourage self-directed learning, exploration of themes participants are interested in, responsiveness to emerging learning agendas with participants etc and the institutional need to outline clear learning objectives, plan all the sessions well in advance and so on.
And somehow from this creative tension something wonderful will emerge... I'm reminded of the leitmotif of Shakespeare in Love: 'It's a mystery..'
Ethics
Reading Ethicability by Roger Steare: very interesting. Styles himself as a 'corporate philosopher;' seems to have done significant work with serious organisations, and certainly puts his material across well on paper.
Not sure I agree (of course) with all of it, but it is very thought-provoking and I am broadly in sympathy with his approach and insights.
Not sure I agree (of course) with all of it, but it is very thought-provoking and I am broadly in sympathy with his approach and insights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
