integrating coaching & classroom learning · • a wine tasting metaphor: • reconceptualising...

Integrating Coaching & Classroom Learning

© Niche Thinking 2004

Integrating coaching with classroom learning, to improve managers’ performance in resolving complex & ambiguous business issues.

A Case StudyThe development program

• Management Thinking Tools

• For senior managers

Program implementation & evaluation:

• Late 2002- early 2003

Venues:

• Development: Many coffee shop visits

• Fairfax L&D centre, Fairfax offi ces Sydney & Melbourne

Presenters Craig Ashhurst - Niche Thinking

Ian Lees - Fairfax

Workshop material

These notes and the presentation slides can be downloaded from the Niche Thinking site. You will fi nd them in the ‘Resources’ section of the website at...

http://www.nichethinking.net.au/resources/index.htm

Information about Niche Thinking can be found in the ‘Services’ section of the site at...

http://www.nichethinking.net.au/services/index.htm

Niche Thinking Pty Ltd9 Pettifer PlaceFraser 2615(02) 6258 7665Fax: (02) 6259 0950Email: [email protected] 36 072 370 560

Workshop Notes

+

=

2

Integrating coaching & classroom learning

As we refl ected on the development of this program we identifi ed three main elements involved in the design that aided in the success of the fi nished program. Each of these elements were important through the whole development. All of the elements played off each other at different times, so that there was no linear fl ow from one to the other but a complex set of interactions.

The diagram below is our attempt to illustrate the relationship between these three elements.

Relationship:

• The provider - client collaboration. This was not a traditional supply to a client from specifi cations but a genuine collaboration at every stage of development. The relationship was critical to the success of the program.

Process:

• Design & development process. The design process was both collaborative and exploratory. We explored together and the fi nal product was very different from what we fi rst envisaged.

• Learning process. We discovered the importance of ‘situated learning’ for participants and they appreciated the approach.

Content:

• Management Thinking Tools. From discussion with managers at Fairfax we identifi ed the sorts of issues that were considered relevant and important. This set the agenda for the content of the program.

Development: Three Design Elements

��

��

3


The situation we both face provided a dilemma in design, although the issues for each of us were not the same. This page highlights the main factors we each faced.

The Design Dilemma

Design Dilemma: Provider perspective

The market context

• Traditional off the shelf products.

• Large consultancy fi rms providing standard programs.

• Niche strengths: Meta-thinking, fl exibility.

• Academic approach to serious knowledge rather than ‘refl ection on practice’ and business outcomes.

The client need

• Similar to other clients. Requests for training in consultant’s skills.

• Required different levels of access for a range of learners.

• Wanted standards but a unique application for each manager.

Limitations of traditional solutions

• Process oriented rather than meta-thinking.

• Academic and therefore abstracted and often perceived as irrelevant.

• Time. Attracting senior managers to an activity that could take days or weeks.

Economically viable solution

• The solution had to be economically viable for both the client and provider.

• Therefore the program had to be commercially attractive to other clients.

Design Dilemma: Client perspective

The organisational context

• Business produces products that require complex connections of different people in different parts of the organisation.

• Implementation of strategy, new products and product changes generate high levels of complexity and ambiguity.

• Senior managers, middle managers and professionals often had to manage dense and complex networks of relationships and processes.

Managerial context

• Managers needed to expand their span of thinking.

• Managers needed to be able to design unique models and approaches according to the business need.

• Management development in this context required more than training in using set models, skills and processes - they would not give managers what they needed to get the outcomes required .

• Need to somehow equip them with an approach that would enable them to quickly gain understanding of the management issues they are facing and move to action.

• Could not “Just do stuff ” - Moving to action without suffi cient understanding would generate potentially big problems in implementation and product quality and timeliness.

• Non- standard development requirements.

4


We solved our design dilemma by identifying our central underlying concern. We wanted the participants to apply program learnings directly to their work situation. Identifying ‘situated learning’ as the central design factor provided us with the direction for all the other pieces to fall into place. (The next page provides more information on situated learning theory.)

Using our three design elements the main points relating to our solution are outlined below.

Process:

• Situated learning approach to development

• An exploratory ‘pilot’ program, with an initial focus group during design

• a wine tasting metaphor:

• reconceptualising the role of the ‘workshop’.

Relationship:

• Provider - client Commonalities

• Open design approach

• Values

• Worldviews

Content:

• Relevant themes

• Meta-thinking & collaboration

• Complexity & ambiguity

• Modular

ImplementationOur fi rst step for implementing our solution was to hold a focus group to discuss our ideas. We combined the feedback from this group to settle on the fi nal structure for the pilot program.

• 2 x 1 day workshops

• 2-4hrs coaching on work based projects

• Community of practice fi nal half day

All of these types of learning interactions were designed from a situated learning perspective.

Our Solution & Its Implementation

Workshop Coaching Community of Practice

+ +

Situated Learning

5


Lave argues that learning as it normally occurs is a function of the activity, context and culture in which it occurs (i.e., it is situated). This contrasts with most classroom learning activities which involve knowledge which is abstract and out of context. Social interaction is a critical component of situated learning -- learners become involved in a “community of practice” which embodies certain beliefs and behaviors to be acquired. As the beginner or newcomer moves from the periphery of this community to its center, they become more active and engaged within the culture and hence assume the role of expert or old-timer. Furthermore, situated learning is usually unintentional rather than deliberate. These ideas are what Lave & Wenger (1991) call the process of “legitimate peripheral participation.”

Other researchers have further developed the theory of situated learning. Brown, Collins & Duguid (1989) emphasize the idea of cognitive apprenticeship: “Cognitive apprenticeship supports learning in a domain by enabling students to acquire, develop and use cognitive tools in authentic domain activity. Learning, both outside and inside school, advances through collaborative social interaction and the social construction of knowledge.” Brown et al. also emphasize the need for a new epistemology for learning -- one that emphasizes active perception over concepts and representation. Suchman (1988) explores the situated learning framework in the context of artifi cial intelligence.

Situated learning has antecedents in the work of Gibson (theory of affordances ) and Vygotsky (social learning). In addition, the theory of Schoenfeld on mathematical problem solving embodies some of the critical elements of situated learning framework.

Scope/Application :

Situated learning is a general theory of knowledge acquisition . It has been applied in the context of technology-based learning activities for schools that focus on problem-solving skills (Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1993). McLellan (1995) provides a collection of articles that describe various perspectives on the theory.

Example:

Lave & Wenger (1991) provide an analysis of situated learning in fi ve different settings: Yucatec midwives, native tailors, navy quartermasters, meat cutters and alcoholics. In all cases, there was a gradual acquisition of knowledge and skills as novices learned from experts in the context of everyday activities.

Principles :

1. Knowledge needs to be presented in an authentic context, i.e., settings and applications that would normally involve that knowledge.

2. Learning requires social interaction and collaboration.

Situated learning

6


After the two day workshop, participants were asked to design a project where they can utilise tools they have learnt from the program. A ‘project design’ form is used as a clarifi cation and communication tool, coaching is then provided to support the implementation of their design.

The diagram below is a useful way of describing how the program has been linked to the various projects. It provides a list of projects undertaken by participants. Projects tended to involve participants in one or more of three managerial processes.

1. Self-refl ection

2. Communication

3. Construction

Participant Projects

Idea presentationComplex situation representationSupport guide to product choiceDiscussion supportConfl ict clarifi cationRole clarifi cationIssue clarifi cationCommunication supportInformation brochureInduction information supportSurvey concept discussionSales team discussion toolPerception improvement & correctionIncentive scheme evaluation supportCurrent situation and future options communication

Communication

Construction

Self reflection

Exploring issuesClarifying concepts &/or issuesProcess clarifi cationMeeting preparationRole and career clarifi cationBusiness planningEvaluation of business strategyStrategy prioritisation

Sales team checklist toolCost benefi t discussion toolIssues discussion toolOn-line product guideMeeting discussion toolConfl ict resolution toolRelationship management toolCreative ideas generationBusiness plan documentation and planningProcess developmentIncentive scheme support toolCentralised creative space

7


The one-on-one element of the program was a crucial part of the design of the learning and proved to be the pivotal aspect of the program for many participants. ‘Coaching’ has become popular in recent management theory and now covers over a dozen different approaches for supporting managers. Therefore I will clarify what ‘coaching’ in this program involved and the outcomes that resulted from it.

In this program the workshops laid a foundation and introduced a variety of tools at a general level. The coaching was then an opportunity to apply what had been learnt at a deeper level in a very specifi c manner. It was explained to the participants in a simple way. The following excerpt is from the MTT manual.

After the 2 days of workshop the program contains three or so hours of ‘coaching’. This the best term I have come up with to describe this type of learning interaction. It is called coaching because

• it is one to one or one to only a few

• it is less formal than a workshop, much more relationally based

• it is structured around the individual needs of the person being coached

• it allows for the time to be spent on the issues considered the highest priority for the individual

The simplest analogy is that it is a bit like getting personalised coaching from a tennis instructor rather than just being part of a large group.

This relaxed and broad approach to ‘coaching’ allowed us to focus on the individual needs of each participant. Each coaching event was different.

• Some lasted only an hour; others for four hours.

• Some people had specifi c requests and demands; others wanted a chance to ramble and wander through their thinking.

• Some wanted lots of support while others wanted to just bounce ideas off the coach.

In each case the coach’s goals were to

• answer questions and clarify concepts

• open up new avenues of thinking and managing

• deepen understanding and provide a framework for dealing with management issues

• focus and apply relevant tools to practical work situations

OutcomesThe outcomes generally matched the goals of the coaching but some things occurred that were unexpected. Quite a few times the coach was able to link people from different participant groups to each other. This networking role was signifi cant but not intended.

In a many cases the program came into focus or made sense through the coaching activity. Participants had a chance to see how the theory could apply to their specifi c work situation. This supported the view that this type of learning would ‘embed’ what was learnt in the workshops.

Coaching

This page is from the review of the program

8


Evaluation & Our LearningsSince the pilot program was an exploration it was important to gather data on both the content and style of the program. An evaluation report was compiled based on three sources;

1. Response sheets at the end of each session

2. Interviews with participants

3. Comments and anecdotal information

The next page provides an excerpt from that report but it is worth noting here that the program was rated extremely highly by the participants. We consider this a vindication of the solution we chose to our design dilemma. Participants considered the program relevant and useful. We believe that the ‘situated learning’ approach we designed was the main basis for this positive evaluation.

LearningsWe have mentioned a number of learnings throughout this presentation. It is not possible to convey the richness of what we learnt through this experience in just forty minutes. We have both shifted in our thinking and professional life because of what we learnt during the development and implementation of this program.

The following points provide a brief summary of the most signifi cant things we discovered from this experience.

Content:

• Relevance & immediacy. This was essential to motivating participants and embedding the learnings.

• Modular. The bits of content were constructed as discreet modules. This allowed us to quickly and easily change the program for each group.

• Range of depth. The content ranged from the superfi cial to the deep and this allowed participants to engage with the content at the depth they felt comfortable with.

Process:

• Situated learning & development. The core of the design solution, it found expression in every aspect of the program.

• Fluidity of organisational context. Fairfax was under constant change throughout the experience. This has to be considered a quite normal state for a large organisation.

Relationship:

• Trust & openness. This program would not have been possible without these two things.

• Common approach to design. If either of us had a signifi cantly different approach to exploring the possibilities of new ways to develop managers we would have stifl ed the design of the program.

• Broadly common values & worldview. We don’t know how similar people have to be for this sort of collaboration to work. We both collaborate successfully with other professionals that are quite different to this partnership but there was something that worked well in this case.

��

��

9


The participant surveys utilised a 1=poor to 5=excellent scale and were fi lled out at the end of each workshop. The fi nal workshop’s survey asked more general questions about the program as a whole.

The two graphs on this page relate to this fi nal survey.

• All the groups rated all of the workshops very highly, although there were some slight differences between groups and workshops that will be discussed later.

• Some general comments attached to the various surveys include the following...

“Excellent workshop. Defi nitely will be knowledge that I can take back to the workplace.”

“Thank you, a great workshop. I felt we did not go through the normal graveyard shift after lunch.”

“Different, philosophically enlightening & lots of additional knowledge gained which can be effectively used in the workplace”

“Interesting & relevant. Expands the mind with ideas which can be used in workplace for greater effectiveness of practices.”

“The program highlighted for me the value of new knowledge, much needed in an ever changing work environment. It also exposed me to other managers who I traditionally have little to do with. I gained/gleaned a greater insight into the minds of others and the issues we, in our individual and collective roles face. The emergence of the big picture, common goals and shared views was revealing. “

“The manual is on my desk and I refer to it all the time.”

“Excellent program. Good facilitator and probably one of the programs which I will continue to use as a resource in the future.

CoachingThe coaching was graded on

1. Relevance

2. Quality

3. Helpfulness

• The general score is 4 out of 5 or above with the Sydney #2 showing the highest score across all three elements. This shows the impact of the feedback from the earlier groups on the approach to the coaching.

• A number of people expressed the view that the coaching was ‘where it all came together’ for them. The following comment represents the thinking of many:

“I particularly liked the time spent alone with Craig to work through my project but was very interested in hearing about other projects too.”

Participant Responses

Sydney #1

Melbourne

Sydney #2

0

1

2

3

4

5

Workshops

1 2Workshop

Exce

llen

tPo

or

Workshop Workshop3

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

5

Coaching

Exce

llen

t

Rel

evan

ce

Qu

alit

y

Hel

pfu

lnes

s

Poo

r

Participant Groups

This page is from the review of the program

integrating coaching & classroom learning · • a wine tasting metaphor: • reconceptualising...

Documents