The letter featured in this weeks newsletter, although anti-deluvian as Jonathan commented, I suspect is still repesentative of some lawyers who influence the decisions of law firms. I can sympathise to some extent, as I have in the past, been part of the points machine he mentions and have heard at first hand the sarcasm he alludes to. Had participants been making the link between the learning and their practice, they wouldn't have been so uncomplementary.
In my exerience as an executive coach and programme designer working with law firms, any development work has to begin where people are. Making the link between their current challenges and how the work we are doing addresses these, is essential. There must be a contract for the the learning relationship, not so much a legal one as an understanding, acceptable to all parties, that acts as a vehicle for the work done.
One to one, I must establsh motivation and commitment to the outcome the coachee expects and if there is a line manager involved who has perhaps suggested the coaching in the first place, they must also be included. Learning only happens when there is clarity and safety. And if/when circumstances change, the contract may also need to be adjusted.
The same applies to a group. That is why I only work with small groups and include at least two, one to one coaching sessions to ensure they are receiving the expected value they contracted for initially. In reviewing our work together they can compare what they thought they were getting with what they actually got, something for which we share responsibility. Even sitting beside Nellie requires a desire to learn something.
As a result, outcomes are more likley to meet with satisfaction, an increase in confidence and a recognition that personal development is never ending. There is always more to learn when it comes to managing yourself and others.
The letter featured in this weeks newsletter, although anti-deluvian as Jonathan commented, I suspect is still repesentative of some lawyers who influence the decisions of law firms. I can sympathise to some extent, as I have in the past, been part of the points machine he mentions and have heard at first hand the sarcasm he alludes to. Had participants been making the link between the learning and their practice, they wouldn't have been so uncomplementary.
In my exerience as an executive coach and programme designer working with law firms, any development work has to begin where people are. Making the link between their current challenges and how the work we are doing addresses these, is essential. There must be a contract for the the learning relationship, not so much a legal one as an understanding, acceptable to all parties, that acts as a vehicle for the work done.
One to one, I must establsh motivation and commitment to the outcome the coachee expects and if there is a line manager involved who has perhaps suggested the coaching in the first place, they must also be included. Learning only happens when there is clarity and safety. And if/when circumstances change, the contract may also need to be adjusted.
The same applies to a group. That is why I only work with small groups and include at least two, one to one coaching sessions to ensure they are receiving the expected value they contracted for initially. In reviewing our work together they can compare what they thought they were getting with what they actually got, something for which we share responsibility. Even sitting beside Nellie requires a desire to learn something.
As a result, outcomes are more likley to meet with satisfaction, an increase in confidence and a recognition that personal development is never ending. There is always more to learn when it comes to managing yourself and others.