My blog hasn’t become a high-traffic site yet, but that hasn’t stopped some interesting exchanges anyway.

I put this post and comments about coaching highly intelligent people on two of my blogs – I felt there was a poignant quality to the exchange.

 Now I’ve received a very harsh, angry comment from someone who, I first thought,  may know the writer and her family directly, and who apparently became incensed by what he read here.

The gist of his angry comment is that the mother was being blatantly self-serving and self-justifying, not really doing right by her son.  He does make specific criticisms – putting kids with problems on psychiatric meds for one - but his tone is excessively harsh.  (That harshness means I won’t “approve” his comment, but I’d like to respond to some of it anyway.)

My first instinct is to be protective of the mother who commented on my post and shared some of her concerns about her son.  I appreciate that she was looking for something, clicked around, found my blog, and shared her situation with heart.

It’s virtually impossible to be brutally honest about ourselves and our families – either to ourselves or others.  That’s not really news, and I’m very used to starting out with a more or less distorted, one-sided, very human narrative whenever I start listening and trying to be helpful.

Having a child who struggles causes anguish in any parent, but, yes, it’s also true that some parents don’t respond as effectively as they otherwise might, and it’s usually because they’re invested in seeing reality through “lenses” that are more about the person doing the looking than the person or situation being looked at.

But, again…most of us know that.

Since my work is usually with people already up to their necks in very ripe problems, with no chance of backtracking to square one for a “do over,” my focus is always on how we can best move forward from here, starting now. 

My angry commenter apparently saw my exchange with “Alpha”  as the Mom sanitizing her own part, avoiding responsibility - and me providing her with the cover to do it.

I truly don’t see it that way, but in my next post I do want to take up some of what got touched upon in his comment: specifically,  giving too much credibility to professional expertise, and – even more specifically – diagnosing children, then putting them on psychiatric meds.

To be continued …..

A supervisor who had recently become the Office Manager of a very busy State bureau came to see me – supposedly – about a personal problem at home. Truth was, she was checking me out because she’d been “nudged,” and told I might be helpful with her true problem  – managing people at work.

 For many years, she’d been the “trusty right arm” to her boss, a remarkable woman who’d been in her job fourteen years, and then abruptly had to leave due to Breast Cancer.  My client was the obvious choice for the battlefield promotion, but the truth was she wasn’t prepared for what the job really was: lion tamer.

Replacing that boss would have been hard under any circumstances, but my client somehow hadn’t been paying attention – while still, actually helping her boss succeed.  She tended to react off the top of her head, had trouble owning mistakes and apologizing, and some of the people she was alienating were not just the obvious, “usual suspects,” but were some of her most ardent early supporters and natural allies.

It turned out there were some problems at home. Her essentially good marriage was being strained by disagreements with her husband about handling their youngest daughter, who’d just bombed out of her Freshman year at college (costing a lot of un-refundable money) was now unemployed, and sleeping-in most mornings.

From the EAP standpoint, taking up the “home front” part was fairly straightforward – a meeting with my client and her husband, focusing on the need for both of them to stay on the same page, be both understanding AND jointly focused with their daughter, stay concrete, create strategies with timelines, but – above all – to commit to consistent follow-through.

Meanwhile back at the workplace, as so often happens, events were racing ahead.  A mini-delegation had already gone over my client’s head, to her boss – essentially conveying unhappiness and anger at what it was like to deal with her.  To my client’s eternal credit, her reaction was more hurt than anger, defiance, or disdain – the far more common reactions I see from others in roughly similar situations.

With that as our point of departure she was able to fess up to how “anxious” she’s been - ”not just recently” - but nearly all of her life.  She realized that watching her boss had been like being front row center for a virtuoso performance she took for granted . She admired it, and was gratified to be associated with her boss’s “success,” but in hindsight now realized she had “no clue” how her boss had pulled it all off.  My client was wired differently, and just couldn’t “ever put up with so much nonsense” without getting judgmental, upset, and unable to hold it all “in my anxiety-laden head.”

To make a long story short, our coaching focused on listening skills – especially including listening to herself – managing feelings, learning to not be afraid to not know something, and developing a slightly more collaborative approach.Simply having someone – not her direct supervisor – with whom she could speak from the heart about situations she hadn’t prepared for, but were now “on top of me,” made a huge difference.

She became more relaxed, which was sensed in the workplace almost immediately. I actually got a grateful, handwritten note from one of my client’s co-workers saying that the atmosphere was 100% better since my client had come to see me, and that others in the office were also very appreciative of the changes, and wanted her to tell me so.

Post script:

It turns out that the person who wrote the note had also been an EAP client, and was the one who’d lobbied heavily that her colleague make an appointment to see me. Behind the scenes at work she’d also been a voice of moderation and patience, which had helped steer things away from a total wreck.

I wish I could say they all lived happily ever after, but it seldom quite works that way. Things were better, and the entire office undoubtedly benefited from the small but real changes my client achieved. But it wasn’t a total metamorphosis, and the truth was she never really got comfortable managing such a busy, relentlessly boisterous operation.  And by the way, her own direct supervisor watched it all happen without saying a thing, or being any help at all. 

She weathered the storm with dignity, picked her moment, and then slid sideways into a smaller, quieter department just shy of the second anniversary of her promotion. Of course, part of what makes it memorable was the “thank you” note – they obviously don’t come very often.

 But that case highlights how helping a supervisor has a direct impact on the people affected by that supervisor. Many good, competent people need a safe place where they can talk and think about their real problems supervising live people.

Coaching works.

The thing I like best about coaching is how straightforward it is: either our sessions are useful in a tangible way, or they’re not. If they’re not, the sessions should stop.

Sometimes it’s crystal clear why the sessions are helping. The interactions are stimulating, validating, liberating, or something that feels right. Sometimes it’s less obvious, but it’s usually about external structure and accountability.

Either way, positive actions follow from the sessions – and that’s positive as defined by the client.

Even people who do pretty well working alone can find that having someone to brainstorm with, someone to run things past, someone to think out loud with in a risk-free situation – above all, someone to help move things forward is an invaluable asset.

No longer is it only the rich and famous who have personal assistants, advisors, and personal trainers. Now anyone trying to get from Point A to Point B can hire a trained, credentialed, insured professional.

Study after study keeps showing that people like coaching and their coaches. It’s the complete opposite of being sold a bill of goods, or getting into a dependent relationship with a guru.

Coaches are allies, but not sycophants. They support, but also reflect back honestly how what they’re hearing seems to fit with where things are supposed to be going.

Above all, the process is “positive” not painful, and clients should be looking forward to the meetings.

Most of us have heard, at least vaguely, of the Hawthorne Effect: behavior is modified when people know they’re being observed. Even though the Hawthorne Effect may ultimately turn out to be unscientific folklore, it still has that ring of truth that also seems to square with common sense.

The principles behind the Hawthorne Effect are definitely part of how and why coaching works, and it’s embedded in a lot of management ideas that have fancy names and big time gurus. Management by Walking Around – one of my all-time favorites – is an obvious example.

What happens when people know they’re being observed? Mostly good things, actually – more honesty, more productivity, more accountability. Sure, some people in some situations may feel put upon – intimidated even. But that’s not really where most of the difficulties come from.

So what’s the problem? In a celebrated business article written in 1974, the authors (Oncken & Wass) entertainingly posed the question, “whose monkeys are on whose back?” – very cleverly highlighting time management as a key managerial skill. More precisely, it’s about managing management time. So, from the other direction, managers are urged – not just to delegate – but to actively rebuff attempts by employees to put “monkeys” on their backs.

I can see how managers can come to resent, or at least view negatively, an employee’s need to be reassured, reinforced, praised, validated, or ”checked-in” with and communicated with, so constantly. Since managers are usually squeezed for time themselves, their ideal employee is a self-starter who takes initiative, works fast and efficiently, doesn’t make mistakes, doesn’t need hand-holding and – above all – doesn’t take up managerial time.

There are workplaces where that’s what happens, but not many. Human nature is ubiquitous and relentless. Plus, the self-starters move up (or move on) quickly, usually replaced by an employee closer to the norm – someone wired to abhor isolation, and to at least minimally need basic reinforcement, and regular communication with the supervisor, to stay on track.

Two plus two equals four, the sun rises in the East, and – like it or not – employees need to know the manager is coming, intends to check in, and that he or she will figure out what’s going on by observing and asking questions. Managers who keep wishing it wasn’t the case are in for a rocky career.