This assessment paper digs deep into the dynamics of peer coaching (PC) in developing leadership and managerial competency. It relates my experience and performance as a participant in the peer coaching scheme set up under the managerial effectiveness course unit of Curtain university school of business. In this PC process, I was a peer coach to Simpson and I acted both as a coach and coaches (Thorn; McLeod; Goldsmith 2007).
The overview of my experience, performance and learning points are succinctly unwrapped in this paper. Also unearthed, is how the process provided me with good structures to anchor my development plan of building competency in the proper employment of participative decision-making (PDP) skill, one of the prerequisite skills towards molding an altogether effective managerial and capable leadership skill sets which this course seeks to achieve for me.
Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!
Just as one cannot become an expert swimmer by jumping into the deep end of the pool (Quinn et al 2007), building managerial competency into perennial enviable one will require one to channel, over a long coverage of time, constant efforts into activities that can shore up one in learning and consolidating one’s managerial effectiveness. Peer coaching is one experiential learning method that can be explored as an effective way to develop or enhance managerial competency Ladyships 2007). This report seeks to encapsulate how my coaching experience with my peer coach, Simpson, supported my development plans and outcomes.
My quest to build core competency in using participative decision- making (PDP) skill discussed as my deficiency in the 360-degree feedback paper received a monumental boost by my peer coaching experience as bringing this shortcoming to the discussion burners with my peer coach gave me new insights into achieving great improvement in gaining and wielding this skill. This, believe, is the position Ladyships (2003) fleshes out that by working together, coaching ND discussing concepts and performance, opportunities for entering unknown domains become possible.
My” known unknowns” in my Shari window became “knows” as communication ensued between us because “Knows” quadrant became larger (Quinn et al 2007). The trust that I reposed in my 3 peer coach, compelled me to demonstrate unmitigated openness throughout the PC process and its benefits for my development plan were too numerous to mention. Apart from affording my peer coach greater insights into my plan, it also impacted greatly on his offered solution strategies. This equally brought or me, good reflective action plans.
Also of worth mentioning, is our closer comparative status. Greater equality between me and my peer coach fostered deeper and well connected conversation between us (Damon and Phelps 1 989), emboldened me to lay bare my burning desire to acquire the competency in the usage of participative decision making without any reservation. This gave me cogent and free will to think expansively on my development plan, this is lending credence to the lore that, open conversation increases innovation (SSL Teachers).
In this manner I was able to co-opt many feasible solutions to my need. By receiving non-evaluative feedback from my peer coach, self awareness was promoted and thinking on action learning was evoked. Finally, the use of probing yet manipulative questions elicited higher-order thinking skills and this way my knowledge gap on my need was bridged without ado. 4 PEER COACHING RELATIONSHIP MODEL Achieving the objectives of peer coaching system will rest on the type of relationship that exists between the participants of this scheme.
For instance, (Ladyships 2001 , Zeus & Ossification 2000) infer that for peer coaching to work, the partnership must be based on trust and respect. Furthermore, an effective peer coach should believe in helping, supporting, and guiding a peer and not appear as someone who has all the answers or is eager to tell others what to do (Toto 2006), this is also in fit with relational perspectives argument that we co-create our worlds and any learning techniques that favor individualism will inevitably lead to friction as every assertion provides the possibility of resistance (Ramsey 2005).
My high expectation in this partnership with Simpson was to appropriate the lessons gained during the experience to the benefits of not only my career’s advancement but beyond. The hitches that might stand in between me and my final objectives from the inception were not unambiguous to me. For instance, lack of enthusiasm, friendliness, availability, approachability, honesty and commitment to the PC process were all considered might asphyxiate PC gains from reaching me (Ladyships 2007).
In starting out our peer coaching relationship, assessment of how well we could cope with each other was the primacy. We sought to know about each other, our individual objectives, stage of development, and our dire needs just to be sure we have the core interests and emotions to help each other achieve our captive personal goals and objectives. This is in congruence with one of the eight models of Vary (2002) dissected 5 in Ladyships (2007)g’s peer coaching paper that peers should assess each other for compatibility, stage of development and needs.
Peers can help themselves identify the changes they need to make and also develop together the approaches to record growth and the desired development (Peters 1996). While Simpson was committed to making a change in his ability to measure performance and quality of his leadership and managerial effectiveness, my own holy grail during the sessions was to build the competency in the usage of eradicative decision-making skill. Lack of proper evaluation among peers can militate against the success of the program (Wong and Nicotine 2003). Having confirmed our compatibility, we moved for decision to plan our coaching sessions.
We both came to terms with the incontrovertible fact that, if we are to record success in the program, then our faithfulness to coaching schedules should be kept sacrosanct. The four coaching sessions agreed upon were appropriately timed to suit our predilection and my apartment at Lakeside was the chosen meetings venue because of its serene ambiance. We never skipped NY session throughout and this promoted productivity of our coaching sessions, being canvassed for in Vary (2002)g’s model. Our learning needs and scope of sessions were determined by our priorities and available time.
We agreed mutually and fairly on these , in a way that appeased each other’s objectives as discussed by Vary (essays model because if for example, coach drives this, actions will not be relevant to the learner and motivation will lapse (Vary 2002). We both established the purpose for our desired change by asking ourselves to redefine our key learning goals and objectives as we were fascinated in getting ell solutions, a position also propped up by Varies relationship model. For any meaningful 6 change to evolve, we must establish goals for our new craved behavior (Zeus and Ossification 2002).
Our discussions were never masked by assumptions but rooted in facts, this we encouraged ourselves to do to inhibit concerns be misconceived, and easily resolved and also self awareness of unknown areas for improvement is not mired in difficulty to unravel as explained by Vary. Furthermore, we were always reflecting on what we have learnt and its relevance to our set goals. Moving on, we created range of solutions for our deeds individually so that we have the sense of owning those solutions; this empowered us and gave us carte balance as learners.
We also made verbal commitments and identified actions with clear outcomes as we were conscious of the fact that if limitations were explored, actions will be frustrated, trust and follow up of accountability of learners would all implode being the position of Varies model. Finally, we structured follow up accountability to help in motivation, recognition, trust building and easy assessment, the essential ingredients for the trust and continuous follow up actions to thrive as Vary intended. PEER COACHING PERFORMANCE My performance in PC process was mind- blowing and well received by my peer coach.
Being an ESP. in AMBIT must have induced my propensity, and then ability to cut to the heart of the process without ever looking at the hidden implications or past traditions and finally demonstrate an economy of effort in the process (Queen 2000). My performance as a coach tickles my fancy more than my role as a coaches; it was stellar and an exciting experience for ESP. like me who has less fear of possibilities, 7 appreciates the unknown. I was more riveted to meeting my peer coach need n creative ways than anything else.
Possessing certain attributes like ability to inspire others, recognize winning performance, set high standards and help others set clear goals, objectives and priorities, commit willingly to coaching others by being accessible and approachable, help others learn, grow and perform, and finally to empathic and demonstrate, have all goaded me on in the coach task (Ladyships 2003). Engaging as a coach was very convenient for me, asking open-ended questions, probing, and paraphrasing, and encouraging reflection, asking for clarification, summarizing and providing acknowledgement Ladyships 2003) . Was able to put my coaches at ease as he poured out himself to me freely and we well able to develop good structure to base his development plan on. .My coach considered me initially as being inattentive, restless but my performance as a coaches during the sessions assisted me to learn the skill of active listening which is very important in PC process and pivotal for my development plan. PC INFLUENCE ON MY DEVELOPMENT AND MATERIAL’S TRANSFER INTO PRACTICE Peer coaching scheme has influenced my development as a prospective manager in enormous ways.
Firstly, it has bumped my level of self awareness up, impacted for good, my ability to assess others’ values and procure required support for them as one sure way to gain their confidence and trust. Being coached by Simpson, has now made me to be wholly aware that as a manager, I must help my direct reports see what they do not want to see and hear what they do not want to hear by suspending judgment style and 8 take on a Nan-fault-finding style (Antonio 2000) in pushing out the desired performance in them.
My coaching skill has been further honed through this scheme and I am better conversant with how I can make my subordinates cacheable towards gaining the level of commitment I need from them to achieve my organizational and personal values. It has in general enacted in me new behavior to function as a competent manager and leader. MY INFLUENCE ON MY PEER’S DEVELOPMENT AND MATERIAL’S TRANSFER INTO PRACTICE Simpson felt I was able to influence him to walk-around self-limiting beliefs, explore glassblowing behaviors, assess old style of doing things and establish goals for new behaviors (Zeus and Ossification 2000).
My efforts, by helping my peer coach to focus on the solutions, do his best which are good heartsickness of a good coach (Hanna 2004) have succeeded in getting my peer to start demanding from the executive members of the association he leads the status reports of the assignments delegated to them for performance measurement. Lodgers (2003) also put forward that a coach should be an uncompromising trusted tough-minded advocate of greater focus and balanced assertiveness on the part of the coaches. THE BENEFITS AND THE CHALLENGES FACED WITH PC AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR ITS TRANSFER INTO MY MANAGERIAL AND LEADERSHIP PRACTICE. One of the numerous benefits derived from PC process is that being an active listener ill aid me in great deal, the usage of participative decision making skill ditto, the power of intuition. Power of intuition together with active listening would help me in assessing a particular situation that it should be employed and when its usage should be restricted.
Managers according to Quinn et al (2007) must carefully examine the advantages and disadvantages associated with involving employees in the decision making process as well as analyses the particular situation before making a choice as to its permissibility or otherwise. PC has also assisted me to develop tactics that could be employed to get total ointment of my direct reports while seeking for their suggestion on decision to be made.
The major challenges was confronted with during the scheme was that at times during the coaching sessions, became exasperated with my peer coach’s apparent Achilles’ heel to paraphrase and summaries questions properly, this had a negative influence on our flow of communication since he was not checking to insure communication, running in sharp contrary to the suggestion of Zeus and Ossification (2000) that good communication requires that coaches should be good at paraphrasing and summarizing.
This might obfuscate y comprehension of how to transfer tips he was offering me into practice. Sometimes, may be inadvertently, he was evaluative and this did not put me at ease. I was getting jaded easily during coaching sessions; this feeling, if not rectified, might prove problematic for me in transmitting the process into my managerial and 10 leadership practice. Apparent Simpson lack of time control could not be sidestepped too, it infuriated me many times until I learnt to caution him that he adjusted. 1 SECTION TWO CRITIQUE ON MY PEER COACHING EXPERIENCE Coaching of any form according to Griffith (2005) does not only enhance life experience UT also open doors for personal development. I can convincingly aver that my PC experience widened my self-awareness, improved my deeper perception of my development need, grew my problems-solving skills and broadened my perspectives on how I can go on developing my managerial and leadership capabilities on better pedestal. The coaching method adopted was reciprocal (Auckland 1991), a two way street (Peters 1996).
In electing to pitch my tent with Simpson as my peer coach, certain attributes influenced my choice. Trustworthiness was one criterion I factored in. Ladyships (2003) admonishes hat the best coach is someone you can trust, this opinion also synchronized with Peter (1996)g’s earlier discovery that in peer coaching, people need someone they can communicate with openly, and in a fashion bereft of defense. The existing trust between us facilitated my genuineness in the program as a gateway to building my PDP skill thus evinced in the manner in which I completely let out myself during the process.
Duff (2002) defined coaching contexts as a “unique learning sanctuary” characterized by a convergence of mutual trust. Respect and commitment are other chief qualities that came to the fore. This position is s well concurrent with the submission of Peters (1996) that coaching peers are disposed favorably to someone they can respect personally and professionally, someone who possesses the time and energy to engage in meaningful coaching, as finding the time according to 12 Skinner and Welch (1996) remains one of the challenging aspects of peer coaching.
Because the two attributes (Respect and commitment) were hallmark in our PC process, it impacted positively on my PC experience as it egged me on in my engagement during the process by erasing any form of non committal attitude; we were both committed to time. I was passionate about the carrot the process would earn me because of Simpson commitment and the respect we share. The fact that Simpson and I are almost of equal status ignited brainstorming sessions, animated participation without let or hindrance, the situation that might not have occurred if we were not of the same status.
Showers (1985) avers that leaving the onus for coaching with peers will unavoidably minimize status and power differentials. This indeed rubbed off positively on my PC experience as was able to express myself without any vestige of fear or restriction thereby giving my peer coach the greater insights into my development need and it reflected on the quality of feedback received from him. The kind of conversation that occurred during the process also influenced my experience and subsequently how I was able to file for behavioral change.
Auckland, 1991, Showers, 1984, Skinner & Welch, 1996 submit that keeping the conversation non-evaluative will promote a successful partnership during PC. This was attested to by my experience in PC process as I realized that each time Simpson seemed to be deviating from being non- evaluative, hot argument was usually quick in rearing its ugly head and thing objectives-edifying would be achieved at the moment.
In a nutshell, my PC experience has convinced me those elements such as power, trust, confidentiality and communication within a coaching partnership, the development of 13 problem-solving techniques, the provision of a support system for concrete action, resistance and emotions, accountability and responsibility, ability to generate manipulative and powerful questions, the quality of feedback generated (Bono et al 2004; Crane 2002; Gale et al 2002; Grant 2001 b; Hurt 2002; Joy 2001; Quick and Magic-Frey 2004; Wilkins 2000) are prominent features n peer coaching system and they will determine its level of success. 4 SECTION THREE EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING REPORT As a manager in a family bottled-water production company, all the important decisions rest solely on my shoulders. I called the shots and was basking in the euphoria of being at the driver’s seat of deciding the fate of about 12 employees at my beck and calls.
I was firmly of opinion that was paddling the canoe of the company’s ship in the right way (Quinn et al 2007), never brought into perspectives that my beliefs and assumptions could sometimes make me ineffective (House and Foodstuff 1 994) UT it required a crisis situation to stimulate the notion that my supposed right way might not obligatorily be the right way of doing things sometimes. Few days to Christmas, I was faced with reality that we might not be able to satisfy our customers’ demands for that yuletide season. With two years in the company; was not oblivious of this situation.
I should have planned ahead for this almost certain-to-occur scenario but like Seeps would always withhold judgment and delay important decisions, preferring to “keep their options open” should circumstances change (Briggs and Briggs 1998), I was unperturbed. Now I have en caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, we might scupper to match our supply with our customers’ demand and this would foretell dangers in our relationship with them and the company might just be in trouble waters that it may never swim out of forever.
December 25 was expected to be workfare day but the manager was about to change the rule. So, divulged what has been ruminating in my minds to my subordinates, “You guys must come to work on December 25 if just for half day because it is crystal clear to us now that we may lose all 15 our reliable customers if we fail to satisfy their demand during this season of amazing market”. Expectedly, the uproar ensued as all my subordinates voiced out their displeasure over my ambitious demand.
Immediately, told them grimly that they must come or risk being kicked out as I stood up to make way out of the meeting fit to be tied. “l have my decision and it is binding” was re-echoing in my mind. I thought in my mind “Yes! I must know how to trot out my managerial capabilities. I am very sure none of them would spurn my decision or else that person has found for himself another job. ” I shrugged off their threat, never brought up that discussion again until the charisma day when nobody showed p. As in a fit of hysteria, boiling with great anger, “l will give all of them the boot”. The outcome of their absence on December 25 as anticipated drew bad blood in the company’s relationship with her important customers for making them lose large bucks. What I learnt was that my inexperience on how to secure the commitment, bland support of my team members and give them great sense of belonging as contented by (Kirkland and Rosen 1999) was a blunder on my part. Id not manage my emotions well and never won the sympathy of my team members by exploring participative decision making option to achieve y objectives. This terrible situation could have been foreclosed if I have not imposed my decision on them but rather sought for their cooperation and not stifled their voices. The company could have had a competitive advantage (Lawyer 1992), as workers make decisions based not only on an understanding of how different jobs work but also on an understanding of the welfare of the whole organization (Fisherman 1999).
For instance 16 they might have opted to work overtime to make more production which would have been cost effective but did not permit their thinking minds to function. Honesty, if I find myself in this situation again, I will never occlude the voices of my team members from being heard especially knowing that I would be; withholding their fundamental rights to enjoy public holiday with their families, and able to win their greater commitment to implement a decision they are involved since they understand the reason behind the decision (Quinn et al 2007).
Simpson asked me non-evaluative questions on my experience, my actions, what I learnt, my self-talk, my conclusion on the outcomes, how will I handle similar experience next time and how I intend to put my emotions at bay o as not to interfere with my logical thinking. I was extremely delighted with Simpson strategy because it provoked great thinking. 17 LEARNING JOURNAL My learning in peer coaching experience measures up as experiential experience because it is “education that occurs as a direct participation in the events of life” (Smith 2001).
Also, it was “learning” gained by reflecting on my experience during this scheme in this order, what was the learning experience? What were the learning points? What conclusions did I draw from the experience? And how will or will not react to such similar experience if t presents itself again. This experience occurred during our second peer coaching session; I actually wanted to join for shopping, my friend who drives a car around the same time we have fixed for the coaching session.
The fact that I need to do shopping that day being Saturday and the opportunity of free and more comfortable ride than city bus that will still attract cost was all that mattered to me but intriguingly I have a date to keep with Simpson, my peer coach and now temptation of free, cozy ride for shopping with Chum, my friend was not something am prepared to resist in my wildest imagination.
This was a retreat dilemma for me especially for an ESP. like me that will seldom permit rules butt in with his life (Briggs and Briggs 1998), I was inclined to call bluff of Simpson appointment and let the tide of pleasurable ride to shopping mall carried me away but again my interest in how Simpson would feel by the action I was about to take handicapped me on the other hand. Eventually, I was successful in persuading my friend, Chum to delay his shopping for another errs so that could fulfill all righteousness with peer coaching session involving Simpson.
The coaching session as agreed from onset was suppose to gulp only Air but Simpson displayed EST. in him that day by being too logical, analytical , 18 he completely lacked control over time(Queen 2000) during his acting as a coach, this left me serious perplexed and disgruntled. The fact that Simpson was indifferent to my body language got on my nerves the more but could not muster required guts to voice out my gusto as well as my aggravation. The outcome of lack of time control led to Chum leaving me behind when he could no longer wait for me.
The learning point here is that I did not display required assertiveness to overturn the situation in my favor; I lacked control over how to express my feelings because of fear of offending Simpson, I was under intense pressure to conform even to my detriment. The outcome inflicted excruciating injuries on my emotions. Upon reflection on the experience, I deduced that by politely asking Simpson for errs shift in the time could have salted me away from the emotional trauma thereby empowering my commitment to the coaching session of that day, an attribute of successful peer coaching buttressed by Peters (1996) and Ladyships (2007).
I could have attempted to share my concern with him when he was lost in control of time too. In this similar situation next time, ill keep my mind open as to my concerns; I will explain the implications of my non-committal to the coaching session, which would likely be the behavior of a man who has his mind somewhere else. I will call Simpson attention to apparent lack of control over his time and the importance of keeping to time for the objectives of peer coaching system to be gained.