The Peer Advisory Group (PAG): An Informational Overview

by

John N. Younker, PhD(revised/updated – December 2016)

Associates In Continuous ImprovementVistage International

The Silver Fox Advisors281-820-7877 Office713-254-0475 Mobile

john@johnyounker.com www.johnyounker.com

The Peer Advisory Group (PAG): An Informational Overview

Table of Contents

Reading Title Page

1. Peer Advisory Groups (PAGs): An Introductory Overview 2

2. The Origins of the Peer Advisory Group (PAG) 4

3. The Value of Peer-to-Peer Business Advisory Groups 6

4. The Learning Organization 9

5. Experiential Learning 10

6. The Learning Lab 11

7. The Essential Elements of an Effective Peer-to-Peer Advisory Group 12

8. The Vessel of Trust 13

9. Empathetic Listening 14

10. Seven Key Concepts to Remember from “The Humble Inquiry: 15The Gentle Art of Asking Instead of Telling”

11. The Performance Characteristics of a Trusted Advisor 16

12. Holding Fierce Conversations With Business Colleagues 17

13. The CE-99 Peer Advisory Group Charter Statement 18

14. The Peer Advisory Group Check-In Guide Sheet 20

15. The Peer Advisory Session Issue Organizer Sheet 21

16. An example of a completed Peer Advisory Session Issue Organizer Sheet 22

17. The Peer Advisory Issue Processing Model 23

18. The Peer Advisory Group Performance Action Plan 24

1

Peer Advisory Groups (PAGs): An Introductory Overview

The Harnessing of the Collective Wisdom, of the PAG Members, to Address & Resolve Strategic and Operational Business Issues.

Imagine, having a vehicle for working collaboratively with a select group of CEOs, Presidents, and COO/GMs, and other Key Executives from both publically owned and privately held business organizations, in a focused effort to address and resolve common strategic and operational issues and opportunities. These issues and opportunities typically include, but are not limited to, marketing & sales strategies, sourcing capital, seeking and acquiring the necessary key executives and/or other personnel assets, that will be required to take an emerging enterprise, to the next level, or, possibly, the need to define and implement an effective customer service strategy.

Such a vehicle is the professionally facilitated and coached Peer Advisory Group (PAG).

A PAG is many things; it is a Peer-to-Peer coaching, development and mentorship type process;

it is a Peer-to-Peer Board of Advisors;

it a place of safety and support; and

it is a Vessel of Trust.

The members of the Peer Advisory Group, under the guidance of a Facilitator, work to create a productive group dynamic in which business owners and leaders/key executives come together to collaboratively and creatively identify, address and overcome roadblocks … barriers … to the successful achievement of their strategic plans, of both a professional and/or personal nature. A high-performing PAG, provides its’ members, with a proven methodology, that will address and overcome, the tunnel vision syndrome (paradigm paralysis), that frequently plague business owners and leaders; being locked into a limited set of responses and/or solutions … unable to see the forest for all the trees.

A Structure Process leading to Beneficial Outcomes

The members of a Peer Advisory Group and the Facilitator-Coach work, in collaboration, to create an intimate setting in which 8 - 10 and, in some applications, up to 16 PAG members come together to collaboratively and creatively overcome roadblocks (barriers) to achieving success in their lives; both professionally and personally. The PAG meetings are facilitated discussions guided by a defined “set of norms” (Operating Principles/ Code of Conduct) that frequently include a rule of confidentiality … what is discussed within the confines of a PAG, stays within the PAG). The rule of confidentiality is essential to creating a “Vessel of Trust” which is required if the members of the PAG are to open up and be willing to expose their weaknesses and developmental needs. Participants formally define … create their PAG’s Charter Statement … the PAG’s Mission, Expected Outcomes/Results and the Operating Guidelines (Operating Norms/Code of Conduct). This is done for each individual PAG. The format and structure for

2

the Peer Advisory Group is based upon the results/data from field research studies and is modeled after other known, successful peer mentorship-advisory type programs. Each group establishes its’ own schedule (meeting dates & times) allowing maximum flexibility to best serve participants’ needs and requirements.

Some of the more typical Professional Business related Peer Advisory Group outcomes (benefits) are the:

Improvement in the skills and abilities associated with effective communications and information flow,

Identification and more responsive and timely addressing of issues (barriers) that are adversely impacting the performance of the individual PAG members’ and/or their companies’ performance,

Increased sharing of business knowledge, wisdom and acumen … “Best Practices” … as well as the tools and techniques in addressing day-to-day issues and opportunities impacting the PAG members and their business enterprises through “Team Learning”,

A Two-to-three times greater rate of growth in the participating PAG members’ business enterprises, when compared to their non-PAG member competitors,

An increased sense of teamwork ( a reduction in the sense /feeling of isolation) and a greater sense of interpersonal connection ( a sense of community),

Improved performance management of organizational processes and systems, and

A rate-of-enterprise-growth, in the participating PAG members’ business enterprises that is often two-to-three times the rate of growth of a company, whose leadership do not participate in a PAG situation.

3

The Origins of the Peer Advisory Group (PAG): An Evolutional Outcome of Experiential Learning and Group Dynamics

The Socratic Method

“Tell me and I will forget,

Show me and I will remember,

Involve me and I will understand.”

- Socrates (470 – 399 BC)

The modern day Peer Advisory Group concept actually originated in ancient Greece, with Socrates, and its’ current methodology is based upon the work and findings of several key Field/Action Researchers. Some of the more notable contributors to our present day understanding of how we learn and the factors which enable us to most effectively apply and integrate our newly acquired knowledge, skills and abilities to perform, and learning phenomenon that is known today as the “experiential learning model,” include Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippitt, W.R. Bion, Carl Rogers, Michael Murphy and Peter Senge.

Kurt Lewin’s work, in 1944 - 46, with the Center for Group Dynamics, in the area of Experiential Learning, led to his formulation of the Training Group concept or, more widely known as the T-Group. He began his work at The University of Iowa’s Child Research Center, and continued on at The Research Center for Group Dynamics at MIT, in 1946, and ending, with his death in 1947, as he was co-founding and establishing the National Training Lab (NTL), in Bethel, Maine.

Another key contributor was Ronald Lippitt, who, in the summer of 1946, along with Kurt Lewin, among others, became involved in Leadership and Group Dynamics training. They designed and implemented, what was at that time, a leading edge two-week program, in experiential learning that fostered and encourage group discussion and decision-making, and where all of the participants (including the staff researchers) could treat each other as peers. The facilitator-trainers and staff researchers collected detailed observations and recordings of group activities. In the evenings, after the “experiential learning sets” for that day were over, follow-up meetings were held to review and discuss the data … the detailed observations and recordings of group activities by the facilitator-trainers and the staff researchers … and then they were to “determine the findings.” Initially, it was intended that these follow-up meetings were to include only the facilitator-trainers and the staff researchers, but some of the actual participants (the persons whose behaviors were the source of the research data) also wanted to be involved. Much to the encouragement and delight of the facilitator-trainers and to the very great chagrin of the staff researchers,

4

primarily professors and graduate students (doctoral candidates) from MIT and the University of Michigan), Lewin agreed to this unorthodox request. As the observers/data collectors, the facilitator-trainers and the staff researchers, reported to the group, one of the participants – a woman – disagreed with the observer on the interpretation of her behavior that day. One other participant agreed with her assertion and a lively discussion (debate) between the participants and the staff researchers ensued about behaviors and their interpretations. Word of the session spread, and by the next night, more than half of the sixty participants (non-staff researchers) were attending the feedback sessions which, indeed became the focus of the conference. Near the conference’s end, the vast majority of participants were attending these sessions, which lasted well into the night.

Lippitt, in his 1949 publication, Training in Community Relations, described how Lewin responded to this dynamic learning experience and how he joined with participants in “active dialogue about differences of interpretation and observation of the events by those who had participated in them.” A significant innovation in training practice was established. As Kolb in his 1984 publication, Experiential Learning, has commented:

Thus, the discovery was made that learning is best facilitated in an environment where there is dialectic tension and conflict between immediate, concrete experience and analytic detachment. By bringing together the immediate experiences of the trainees and the conceptual models of the staff in an open and trusting atmosphere where inputs from each perspective could challenge and stimulate the other, a learning environment occurred with remarkable vitality and creativity.

Wilfred Bion studied group dynamics in the late 50’s and into the 60’s from a psychoanalytic perspective. He discovered several mass group processes which involved the group as a whole adopting an orientation which, in his opinion, interfered with the ability of a group to accomplish the work it was nominally engaged in. His research into group dynamics in reported in his published books, especially so in, Experiences in Groups, which The Tavistock Institute has further developed and applied the theory and practices developed by Bion.

Carl Rogers, at the Western Behavioral Studies Institute (WBSI) in La Jolla, California, and Michael Murphy, a co-founder of the Esalen Institute, both made significant contributions to the fields of group dynamics and peer-to-peer interactive learning. These two concepts became key factors in adult learning in the organization/corporate settings. Murphy was most noted for his research and application of the concept he call, the Encounter Groups. Fritz Perl also made a significant contribution in this area and these learning groups were later to be known as sensitivity (or sensory) awareness groups and training groups (or T-groups). The encounter groups were an outgrowth of studies conducted by Kurt Lewin and Ron Lippitt. The use of continual feedback, participation, and observation by the group encouraged the analysis and interpretation of their issues and problems. Bob Nourse, the founder of TEC (The Executive Community), that is now known, today, as Vistage, employed many of the principles and concepts of Lewin, Lippet, Bion and Rogers, when he formed the first business leader roundtable, peer advisory group, in Milwaukee, WI, in 1957.

In respect to the more recent contributors to the learning theory and concepts which are at the foundation of the Peer Advisory Group, I need to acknowledge Peter’s Senge’s work with his Learning Organization Model (The Fifth Discipline) and its; significant impact on the use of groups as a vehicle for promoting learning and human growth. I also want to recognize and acknowledge the ongoing research work, currently being done at academic centers, such as

5

Northern Illinois University’s Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center, George Mason University’s Center for Teaching Excellence, as well other contributing entities, such as the Association for Experiential Education, to name but a few.

6

The Value of Peer-to-Peer Business Advisory Groups

By Josh Patrick, May 8, 2014

I’m a big fan of peer-to-peer business advisory groups. They take many forms, and I’ve been involved in more than my share over the last 35 years.

My first experience with such a group was in 1982, when three young entrepreneurs got together and acknowledged that we really had no idea what we were doing. We thought that if we met every once in a while to talk about our businesses, we might help each other figure things out. Each of us invited two other people to join, and that began my first and most valuable peer-to-peer experience.

We called it the Mountain Group. Twenty-eight years later, we decided we had probably learned as much as we could from each other. During that time, some of us had sold our businesses, some had started new businesses and some had built brand names that you might recognize today.

This is called a moderated group, meaning the members moderate meetings themselves. The best known organization of this type is the Young Presidents’ Organization. While it’s almost always lonely being the chief executive of a company, it can be especially lonely when you’re young and you know you don’t have all of the answers. Many Y.P.O. members, myself included, will tell you that the Y.P.O. Forum experience — meetings at which members use each other as sounding boards — is the most valuable part of membership.

In a well-run Y.P.O. Forum, you get unvarnished advice from your peers. It’s one of the few ways to get a group of people to tell you what they really think of your ideas and plans. Let’s face it: Your employees and suppliers are always going to guard what they say. There’s a lot for them to lose if they give you feedback you don’t want to hear.

The second type of peer-to-peer group is called a facilitated group, where a trained facilitator runs the meetings. Vistage is probably the best known organization running facilitated meetings. The group has helped many of my friends and clients make decisions about issues like adding new lines of business and hiring or firing employees.

I recently had a conversation with Bruce Peters, who runs facilitated sessions for Renaissance in the Rochester, N.Y., area.  He started his career in peer groups by training Vistage facilitators, and over the years he has developed a set of guiding principles for what makes groups successful.

I think his principles apply to both moderated groups and facilitated groups. Here is a look at some of them:

7

Members and facilitators should ask open-ended questions. 

A peer-to-peer group needs to understand an issue before anyone starts to give advice.

This was a challenge in the Mountain Group.  In our own companies we were used to telling people what to do. More than once I was told that I wasn’t being asked for my advice, I was being asked to understand. A good facilitator or a well-trained moderator can help with this issue.

If you’re not competent, you’re not allowed to give advice.

Too often we think that if we have an opinion, we should share it. If group members learn to ask insightful questions, the person wrestling with a problem often will come up with his or her own answers.

One peer advisory group, I was in, disbanded because incompetent people kept giving advice. Instead of confronting the offenders, it was easier for us to stop meeting. Had we been blunt with the two offending members, our three years of getting to know each other might not have been wasted.

The best peer groups don’t try to give you the answers. 

Peer groups give you a process to help you find your own answers. They allow you to hear the methods other people have used to solve problems and to learn from what they have done. They give you permission to pivot and try a different path. They allow you to hear questions that you’re not asking and consider how those questions might be valuable for you and your business.

The main reason I decided to sell my vending machine company was because of questions and prodding from my Mountain Group colleagues. For years they kept asking why I kept the business. It didn’t perform well, and it was in a terrible industry. Finally, their questions sunk in, and I started the process of selling the business.

Members must create a learning plan. 

A good plan maps out the roles group members play in their companies today and what roles they will play in the future. It sets performance goals and metrics to measure them. A peer group is probably the only place where other people hold chief executives accountable for what they say they will do.

Confidentiality is essential. 

This is the most important rule. If members can’t leave what’s talked about in the room, the group is doomed to fail.

8

I was recently involved in a group in which the confidentiality was broken. At one meeting, I spoke about a problem I was having. Later, I got a call from the person I had been talking about — someone who was not in the meeting. And yet, he knew the details of what I had said. I lost faith and left the group. I will not try to re-establish trust with anyone who was in that group.

The first cousin of a peer group is a customer-advisory board. I’ll talk about how they work in my next post.

___________

Josh Patrick is a founder and principal at Stage 2 Planning Partners, where he works with private business owners to create personal and business value.

9

The Learning Organization(Adapted from Peter Senge’s Fifth Disciple)

Continually expanding its capacity to (re)create its future

An Organizational Environment …

Where its’ members continually expand their capacities to create the results they truly desire,

Where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured,

Where collective aspirations are set free, and

Where its’ members continually learn how to learn together

The Five Learning Disciplines of the Learning Organization

Systems Thinking - Having the ability to see the whole picture within a framework (paradigm) while also being able to see the interrelationships of the parts of the whole … to distinguish changing patterns rather than static snapshots … to describe and understand the forces and relationships that shape and influence the behavior of organizations and its members.

Personal Mastery - Learning to expand our personal capacity to create the results we most desire, and to create an organizational environment which encourages its members to fully develop themselves.

Mental Models - Reflecting upon, continually clarifying, and improving upon our internal pictures of the world, and seeing how our perceptions (paradigms) shape our actions and decisions.

Shared Vision - Building a sense of commitment in a group, by developing shared images of the future we seek to create, and the principles to guide us in getting there.

Team Learning - Transforming our skills and abilities to converse and think as a team … to develop team intelligence and ability greater than the sum of the individual members.

10

Experiential Learning

Excerpted from Janet Giesen’s Northern Illinois University White Paper - 2011

“Experiential [learning] is a philosophy and methodology in which educators purposefully engage with students in direct experience and focused reflection in order to increase knowledge, develop skills, and clarify values” (Association for Experiential Education, para. 2).

Experiential learning is also referred to as learning through action, learning by doing, learning through experience, and learning through discovery and exploration, all which are clearly defined by these well-known maxims:

I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand.~ Confucius, 450 BC

Tell me and I forget, Teach me and I remember, Involve me and I will learn.~ Benjamin Franklin, 1750

There is an intimate and necessary relation between the process of actual experience and education. ~ John Dewey, 1938

In their book, Teaching for Experiential Learning, Wurdinger and Carlson (2010) found that most college faculty teach by lecturing because few of them learned how to teach otherwise. Although good lecturing should be part of an educator’s teaching repertoire, faculty should also actively involve their students “in the learning process through discussion, group work, hands-on participation, and applying information outside the classroom” (p. 2). This process defines experiential learning where students are involved in learning content in which they have a personal interest, need, or want.

Learning through experience is not a new concept for the college classroom. Notable educational psychologists such as John Dewey (1859-1952), Carl Rogers (1902-1987), and David Kolb (b. 1939) have provided the groundwork of learning theories that focus on “learning through experience or “learning by doing.” Dewey popularized the concept of Experiential Education which focuses on problem solving and critical thinking rather than memorization and rote learning. Rogers considered experiential learning “significant” as compared to what he called “meaningless” cognitive learning. Kolb also noted that concrete learning experiences are critical to meaningful learning and is well known for his Learning Style Inventory (LSI) which is widely used in many disciplines today to help identify preferred ways of learning. A key element of experiential learning, therefore, is the student, and that learning takes place (the knowledge gained) as a result of being personally involved in this pedagogical approach.

11

The Learning Lab

A learning lab has two elements: time to practice, and a safe place devoted to learning through action. In a learning lab, you explore real-life issues and develop solutions for these issues. And you test the solutions to find out whether or not they work — all in the safety of a learning lab. There are others in the learning lab, who support you, by asking fresh questions that bring your assumptions to the surface. Once you've tested your solutions, you can find out which ones work better, and why. This is the way that high-performing individuals mine their experiences for outstanding results.

We're always interested in testing new theories, research, and ideas about thinking and learning in the workplace. Our best way of learning is to try out new approaches in the real world by conducting MHA Learning Labs. People who are involved in these sessions are open to the emerging qualities of these learning experiences. These people are expert learners, open to the surprises that may emerge as everyone is learning.

Because we're testing new approaches, your level of involvement in the design is very high. Everyone involved in the learning lab works closely with MHA consultants to design, test, evaluate, re-design, re-test, and re-evaluate all aspects of the learning lab process. We also gather research information for publication, as well as for the organization and people involved.

"In sports and in the performing arts, two settings where teams consistently enhance their capabilities, players move regularly between a practice field and the real game, between rehearsal and performance. It is impossible to imagine a basketball team learning without rehearsal and performance. Yet, that is exactly what we expect to occur in our organizations. We expect people to learn when the costs of failure are high, when personal threat is great, when there is no opportunity to replay an important decision, and when there is no way to simplify complexity and shorten time delays so as to better understand the consequences of actions. Is it any wonder that learning in organizations is rare?"

Peter Senge et al., The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, 1994

12

The Essential Elements of an Effective Peer-to-Peer Advisory Group

TRUST – A VESSEL OF TRUST

RESPECT – EMPATHETIC LISTENING

THE SOCRATIC METHOD – THE HUMBLE INQUIRY

TRUSTED ADVISORS – CARING COUNSEL

FIERCE CONVERSATIONS – CARING CONFRONTATION

GROUP CHARTER STATEMENT – MISSION-CODE OF CONDUCT-STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

13

The Vessel of Trust

Two essential elements, for creating a Vessel of Trust.

14

Character:

Integrity

Honesty

Candid/Candor

Empathetic

Direct/Straight Forward

Loyal

Purposeful

Competency:

Does WHAT they say they will do, WHEN they said that they would get it done

Is Technically Knowledgeable/ Capable

Consistently Delivers High-Quality Performance

Note: Both sets of elements are necessary, for the creation of a Vessel of Trust, in a Peer-to-Peer business advisory relationship.

0

EMPATHETIC LISTENINGBy John N. Younker, PhD

The Practice Of Empathetic Listening

The process of letting the other person know that you are listening and empathize with their situation ... their position ... their feelings. Some key empathetic behaviors are:

• Feeding back to them what you heard them say or what you have seen them do.

• Asking them open-ended questions in order to learn more about what they really feel or believe.

• Repeating (reflecting) back their comments as you have heard them, without adding in your own interpretations (biases).

• Demonstrating an understanding of their point of view, as though it was your own.

It is important to note that Empathetic Listening does not require the listener to accept (own) the speaker’s point-of-view, only to actively listen with respect for clarity as to the speaker’s point-of-view.

The Stages Of The Empathetic Listening Process

1. Setting the Stage ... Preparing for the Empathetic Listening Process.

2. Listening Empathically to the Speaker’s Issue/Concern … suspending judgment.

3. Providing, to the Speaker, Empathic Remarks.

4. Giving Empathic Feedback.

5. Soliciting the Speaker’s Reactions.

6. Eliciting, from the Speaker, their Specific Needs for Change.

7. Developing a Plan of Action.

8. Acknowledging and affirming the Speaker’s Openness & Effort.

Seven Key Concepts to Remember from “The Humble Inquiry – The Gentle Art of Asking Instead of Telling”Edgar H. Schein offers the following advice to help leaders overcome the barriers that keep them from practicing humble inquiry:

1. Do less telling. This is difficult in a culture that expects leaders to order versus ask, but askinghelps build relationships by implying that others’ input is valuable.

2. Ask the right questions. Leaders must learn how to choose questions that will help them build trusting relationships and how to avoid questions that tend to put others down, such as leading, rhetorical, or embarrassing questions.

3. Emphasize humble inquiry questions. This form of inquiry allows leaders to “access their ignorance” and ask for more information in the least biased and threatening way. Sample questions include: What is happening? What is going on? Can you give me an example?

4. Determine the correct level of personalization in relationships. Leaders can employ humble inquiry to show interest in others while simultaneously deciding which situations call for more task-oriented versus personal questions.

5. Minimize miscommunication. Individuals must be aware that their minds can produce biases, perceptual distortions, and inappropriate impulses. The genuine curiosity involved in humbleinquiry helps leaders minimize the likelihood of misperception, bad judgment, and inappropriatebehavior.

6. Create “cultural islands.” In certain situations, leaders can suspend some of the cultural rulesgoverning authority and trust in order to build stronger team relationships.

7. Do more self-reflection. Leaders can ask themselves humble inquiry questions in order to be sure they understand a situation. They can also become more mindful, making sure to reflect on data before jumping to conclusions.

__________Excerpted from Edgar Schein’s “Humble Inquiry: The Gentle Art of Asking Instead of Telling,”Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2014

15

Performance Characteristics of a Trusted Advisor

“I don’t care how much you know, until I first know how much you care.”

Theodore Roosevelt

Is consistently able to effortlessly understand others … their needs and

requirements … to see things from their point-of-view.

Is able to encourage and assist others to see their issues and opportunities

from a different perspective.

Does not force the issue … but, rather, relies upon the Socratic approach.

Remains calm under stress … doesn't panic or become overly emotional.

Provides critical feedback in a positive manner … criticizes and corrects,

with a concern for others.

Values relationships more than being the expert.

Respectfully challenges assumptions and perceptions … seeks to uncover

the facts.

Acts like real people … is very approachable.

Are always honorable … acts with the highest integrity.

Is able to recall everything others say without having to take copious notes.

Derived/adapted from the book, The Trusted Advisor, by David Maister, Charles H. Green, and Robert M. Galford; Free Press; 2001

16

HOLDING FIERCE CONVERSATIONS WITH BUSINESS COLLEAGUES … BUILDING SUSTAINING DEEP RELATIONSHIPS

Organizational Leaders & Members must face three realities at once and engage in three Fierce Conversations:

1. What values do we stand for, are there gaps between these values, how we actually behave, and do we hold one another accountable?

2. What are the skills and talents of our company and are there gaps between those resources and what the market demands?

3. What opportunities does the future hold, and are there gaps between those opportunities and our ability to capitalize on them?

Three additional questions most people rarely ask one another, that will invariably provide invaluable and often unsettling insight.

1. What are you pretending not to know … what are you sticking your head in the sand about?

2. Why do you behave in ways guaranteed to produce results you say that you don’t want … what are you doing that is not in alignment with our stated direction?

3. What are you allowing to be more important right now than coming out from behind yourself and fully into this conversation and making it real … what are you not being totally open and candid about?

From the work and writings of Susan Scott … Fierce Conversations

17

CE 99’s Charter Statement

OUR MISSION – OUR REASON FOR EXISTENCE

OUR VISION FOR OUR IDEAL FUTURE STATE

We, the members of CE 99, envision this group as a forum for honest and candid exchange in a climate of trust and security. This sense of trust and security will be the result of all of the members of this group demonstrating unwavering support and commitment to one another, to the TEC/Vistage rule of confidentiality, and to our Code of Conduct.

As members of CE 99, we fully realize that if we are to grow and develop, both as a group and as individuals, we must experience the pain of change ─ “If there is No Pain, there will be No Gain.” We will strive to be open to and accepting of candid feedback from one another, even when the comments and/or criticisms are tough to listen to. We will work to keep our egos in check, recognize that our natural tendency is to try to “look good,” and strive to avoid denying the truth.

We will seek to address and resolve the issues and challenges brought before us by our fellow members, as well as assisting one another in recognizing and maximizing the opportunities we are presented with. We will demonstrate this resolve by effective problem solving and by resolving to take appropriate action. Simultaneously, we will avoid the tendency to bitch and complain, without coming to a resolution, nor taking any action.

As a member of CE 99, we commit to doing what it takes to get to know and trust in one another. We recognize that this requires a commitment to spending quality time with one another, both professionally and personally. Our membership in this groups means that we will be there for one another in both the good and fun times, as well in times of stress and sorrow.

We will live our vision for CE 99 by walking our talk; The CE 99 Code of Conduct.

18

Being ThereCE-99

For One Another

CE 99

OUR CODE OF CONDUCT

1. CANDOR - We will be open and candid with one another; we will say what we are thinking.

2. CARE - We have permission to caringly confront another member, even when doing so makes that member feel uncomfortable.

3. OPENINESS - If we feel a member is holding back and/or not being totally open and candid with us, we will confront that member.

4. TRUST - We trust that we can trust in one another; we can count on each other to honor the confidentiality agreement that we all made when we joined TEC/Vistage.

5. CONFIDENTIALITY - We will alert/inform the whole group whenever we feel there has been a violation of rule of confidentiality; it will be a group issue to address and resolve.

6. SUPPORTIVE - It is encouraged to ask for support and assistance when we feel we need it at any time, even between the times of our monthly meetings.

7. RESPECT – We will show respect to one another and to our commitment to being present and on time at our meetings.

NOTE:

No member will solicit another member for business. In the situation where a member requests another member to give him a quote for his product/service, that member must make this known to the Chair and the rest of the group. If a business relationship is subsequently formed, it will be closely monitored to ensure that there is no resulting adverse impact to the group’s integrity and trust.

ALL CE-99 MEMBERS COMMIT TO ATTENDING A MINIMUM OF EIGHT (8) MEETINGS, EACH YEAR.

19

PEER ADVISORY GROUP CHECK-IN GUIDE SHEET_________________________________ _____________

(Name) (Date)______________________________________________________________________________________

This guide sheet is to assist you to more efficiently and effectively Check-In with the Peer Advisory Group. In recognition of the meeting time limitation, please restrict your Check-In to 2-to-3 minutes. If you have an item that will require more time for you to adequately address, please request that this item is placed on the Peer Advisory Session's docket.

I. MONTHLY BUSINESS/INDUSTRY SUBJECTIVE RATING - Please respond to each of the following four items by selecting and circling the most appropriate response:

How do you feel about the recent trends in business climate? Extremely Concerned/ (OK) Extremely Pleased/

Anxious Happy (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

How are you currently feeling about your business/professional life? Extremely Concerned/ (OK) Extremely Pleased/

Anxious Happy (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

How are you currently feeling about your personal/family life? Extremely Concerned/ (OK) Extremely Pleased/

Anxious Happy (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

How are you currently feeling about the Peer Advisory Group and your experience in it? Extremely Dissatisfied OK Extremely Satisfied

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

II. What was the MOST SIGNIFICANT EVENT (Business/Professional) that has occurred since our last meeting?

III. What is the MOST SIGNIFICANT ISSUE/OPPORTUNITY (Business/Professional) that you need to address during the next thirty days?

IV. Do you have an issue that you wish to bring to the Peer Advisory Session today? Y / N

20

PEER ADVISORY SESSION ISSUE ORGANIZER SHEET

_________________________________ _____________

(Name) (Date)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________Issue Definition -A brief, but clear definition of theissue you wish to presentand discuss during thePeer Advisory Session.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________Strategic Impact – A briefexplanation of this issue andimpact on me and/or my team.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________Background Information

_____________________________________________________________________________________________Options Being Considered

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

My Ideal Outcomewould be …

_____________________________________________________________________________________________The input, suggestions,and assistance I desire.

21

Peer Advisory GroupIssue Opportunity

John SmithJanuary 10, 2014

Issue: Managing fractious relationships between departments.

Issue Definition:

- The Customer Service Manager is creating a rift between her department and operations due to the way she handles her interactions with personnel from operations.

Strategic Impact/Concerns:

- The ongoing continuation of this issue may lead to customers not receiving pertinent information, in a timely manner.

Ideal Outcome:

- The inter-departmental communication improves and everyone feels respected and they behave, like they are a member of the same team.

Background Information:

- Operations fell behind in shipments due to facility changes. Customer service claims they were never notified of potential delays. The level of frustration resulting from these issues has led to unnecessary statements on peoples abilities to handle their responsibilities.

Options being considered:

- Having operations personnel leave area where customer service manager is, when deprecating comments start being used.

Desired Input/Suggestions:

– How to manage this situation, and possible resolution techniques.

22

PEER ADVISORY ISSUE PROCESSING MODEL

23

PEER ADVISORY GROUP PERFORMANCE ACTION PLAN

Action Item - _______________________________________________________

What Is To Be Accomplished By When Who is Responsible

Interim Measurable Outcome/Results: (Milestones)

Milestone Date to Be Completed

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

24

John N. Younker, Ph.D.

Associates in Continuous Improvement

John is a co-founder and the President of Associates In Continuous Improvement (ACI), a Houston based, management consulting firm. His professional focus at ACI is the provision of services to CEO’s and executive managers that include:

Leadership & Executive Management Coaching & Development, Key Executive Selection, Integration, Performance Management and Development, Organizational Performance Assessments, Strategic Direction Setting & Performance Planning, Organizational Transition and Change, and High Performing Executive Management Team Building.

John has served, since November 1992, as a Chair for Vistage (formerly The Executive Committee - TEC), an international organization dedicated to increasing the effectiveness and enhancing the lives of CEO's and their Key Executives. John was recognized in 2000 as a “High Performing Chair,” in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015 with the “Chair Excellence” award and in 2006 and 2015 with the “Master Chair” award. In his Chair role, John serves as a facilitator, coach and trusted advisors to the members of his CEO and Key Executive Vistage groups.

During his professional career, John has served as an Executive Professor and Advisor at the University of Houston, Bauer School of Business, Wolff Center of Entrepreneurship and as the Director of the MBA Program at Our Lady of the Lake University – Houston campus. John is a former senior vice-president at The Institute, Inc. and was a Vice-President and Senior Field Researcher at the American Productivity & Quality Center (APQC). At the Center, he was extensively involved in field research and advisory initiatives that focused on employee involvement and empowerment, the development of high performing work teams, organization assessment and planning, and service quality improvement. Other organizational associations include the Shell Mining Company, the Geisinger Medical Center, and the U.S. Navy, where John was actively involved in the U.S. Navy’s efforts leadership and organization development, race relations education, and drug and alcohol abuse education and rehabilitation.

John is a member of several professional organizations including the Silver Fox Advisors, the Texas Psychological Association (TPA), The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), the Texas Industrial/Organizational Psychologists (TIOP), the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), the Houston Area Industrial-Organizational Psychologists (HAIOP), and The Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership. Additionally, John has served as a Guest Lecturer for the Eisenhower Leadership Series, George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. John is currently an active executive volunteer, in the Prison Entrepreneurship Program (PEP).

John holds a doctorate in industrial-organizational psychology from The University of Memphis. He is a guest speaker and lecturer and his writings are published in several professional journals and textbooks.

363 N Sam Houston Parkway East, Suite 1100, Houston, TX 77060john@johnyounker.com … 281-820-7877 (O) … 713-254-0475 (M) …. www.johnyounker.com

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-younker/1/112/1ab

25