 ‘Capabilities are freedoms conceived as real opportunities.’ (Amartya Sen) I keep coming back to this question: what is it that makes the difference? I’ve been drawn recently to reflections on this theme by Indian economist and philosopher, Amartya Sen. He distinguishes between capabilities, which are our resources (including our abilities and our potential), and conversion factors, which are influences on the real opportunities we have to use and fulfil them. Sen focuses his work on wellbeing and on the kinds of lives people and groups are effectively able to lead. He moves on to questions of what people, groups and societies need. Sen offers some interesting illustrations. Two people have the same resources. One is able-bodied and the other has physical disabilities that confine them to a wheelchair. All else being equal, the able-bodied person has more net resources because the person with disabilities has more related expenses. The former may also have greater net opportunities in society because the latter may be limited to places that are wheelchair-accessible. This could lead us to the conclusion that the person with disabilities should be given more resources to ensure equity. Sen then asks, what if the able-bodied person is hard to please and needs more resources to achieve a sense of wellbeing? What if the person with disabilities is content with their life and needs fewer resources to achieve wellbeing? If the goal is wellbeing, should we therefore provide more resources for the able-bodied person? Sen poses two challenges before we leap to this conclusion: sometimes disadvantaged people lower their expectations as a coping mechanism; and society has a moral imperative to support the disadvantaged and vulnerable. Sen provides another example of a person who owns a bicycle. The bike is a means to an end, to ensure mobility rather than an end in itself. Yet to convert the potential of bike ownership to greater mobility, certain conditions need to be in place. These could include, for instance, the physical ability to ride a bike; a social-cultural context that allows the person to ride a bike; and environmental conditions such as safe roads or suitable bike paths that make using a bike feasible. It’s a combination of capabilities and conversion factors that make this difference. So, what does this look like real situations? As far back as 2003, I wrote a research paper as part of an organisation development (OD) masters’ degree that aimed to identify and address common factors that influence engagement and effectiveness in organisations. I proposed that culture, complexity, capability and climate were critical variables. It’s about releasing and harnessing individual potential on the one hand, whilst creating the conditions in which people thrive on the other. This is, in my view, where coaching, action learning and OD intersect. What do you think?
14 Comments
 ‘Extraordinary people are ordinary people making extraordinary decisions.’ (Sharon Pearson) Who’s in the driving seat? It’s an important question in coaching and action learning. After all, the client or presenter chooses the direction, speed, route and destination, even though we travel together. As a coach, if I find myself taking the wheel consciously or inadvertently, I would need to pause, take a breath and rethink or recontract our roles. Too much control risks distracting or disturbing the client’s own insight, potential and agency; a loss that would outweigh a gain. So, what does this look like? The client decides their own starting point, their desired goal and how they’d like to get there. I help facilitate the journey insofar as the client finds this beneficial, and offer silence, questions or reflections, or signal signposts in the road, as minimal prompts. The client navigates their own way, discovering or creating solutions to any challenges they encounter on route. I travel alongside to offer support and challenge, to sharpen awareness and skill. What have been your experiences of working with a coach? What made the difference for you?  ‘Don't be too quick to offer unsolicited advice. It certainly will not endear you to people.’ (Harvey Mackay) In Germany today a friend, Margitta, and I shared experiences of giving well-meaning advice to others when it hasn’t landed well with those we’d hoped to help. The push-back has sometimes taken us by surprise, leaving the relationship bruised by what happened and what lay behind it. Margitta went on to explain that a German word for advice, Ratschlag, means quite literally to ‘hit with counsel’. Being ‘struck’ unexpectedly could understandably provoke a defensive response. Sometimes it’s about giving advice that someone didn’t invite; or at the wrong time when, say, empathy would have been more appropriate; or that it simply didn’t fit with them or the complex and felt realities of a situation they were dealing with. On occasion, it could have been a result of mansplaining – a man telling a woman something she already knows – which can be and feel patronising. (I may have just done that inadvertently by explaining what mansplaining means). Remember: ‘I’m not in X’s situation’ and, even more importantly, ‘I’m not X in X’s situation’. This is a useful word of caution to speak to ourselves. It’s also a main reason why developmental practices such as coaching and action learning focus on offering open questions rather than posing suggestions or solutions. Advice has its place, but: Is a person asking for it? Is this the best time for it? Is it appropriate? Am I the right person to give it? Can the relationship bear it?  ‘Hope reflects a psychological state in which we perceive the way-power and the willpower to get to our destination.’ (Charles Snyder) I’ve spent much of the past 18 years working with leaders in beyond-profit organisations, enabling them to lead and influence transitions in the midst of dynamically-complex change. This often involves helping them to develop the qualities and relationships they need to support themselves and others to survive, thrive and perform well in the face of an uncertain and, at times, anxiety-provoking future. A recurring challenge that such leaders encounter is how to instil and sustain hope within themselves as well as within and between others. Putting on a brave face my inspire confidence in the short-term but can feel inauthentic if their foundations are wobbling – and authenticity is a critical condition for building and sustaining trust. New leadership calls for resilience, resourcefulness and faith. Hope Theory offers some useful insights and ideas here. If we (a) have a desired future in mind (vision), (b) can see a way by which it can be achieved (way-power) and (c) are motivated to take action to do it (willpower), we are more likely to experience genuine hope. It’s very different to abstract idealism or naïve optimism, which may engender a good feeling but lack any grounding in reality. Yet what to do if someone is stuck: devoid of vision, unable to see a way forward or lacking in any sense of agency to do anything about it? This is where co-active leadership, coaching and action learning can really help; offering practical means by which people and groups can discover or create fresh goals, find or devise innovative solutions, and gain the traction they need to move things forward. Do you need help with hope? Get in touch!  ‘What happens is what happens. The beauty is in the imperfection.’ (Will Moule) I can already hear those with a perfectionist streak raising shrill voices of protest. ‘Surely we should be aiming for the ideal?’ I ran an Institute of Leadership and Management recognition workshop for Action Learning Associates-trained Action Learning (AL) facilitators yesterday. One of themes we discussed is how to work with emergence in an AL set (a group of peers doing AL together). This is core to AL facilitation and often quite different to, say, managing training. How is that? What does that mean? Firstly, the agenda for an AL set lays in the hands of set members; the process in the hands of the facilitator. More often than not, the facilitator won’t know in advance what challenges set members will choose to address in a specific AL round (session) when they select and work on issues to reach a solution. Peers are unlikely to know, too, what questions they will pose and how an exploration will unfold organically during that round. Those presenting (that is, thinking through an issue with support and challenge from peers) sometimes don’t know at the outset what the crux of an issue is for them; and won’t know until the round progresses what direction an exploration may take, what discoveries may surface and what the resulting outcomes may be. AL therefore involves inviting and staying with, as far as we can, a state of curiosity – an openness in the moment to whatever of significance may arise. A paradox for the facilitators lays is that, insofar they may try to control what happens in a set to achieve an ‘ideal’ process or outcome, that same effort to control may inhibit or even prevent optimal results – a bit like how grasping a beautiful flower too tightly may squeeze the life out of it. An effective AL facilitation style entails adopting an open, agile presence and stance, trusting that what needs to be said will come up naturally. Hold the process and release the group. (See also: Emergence in coaching; Test and learn; Plan vs prepare)  ‘Trust that what needs to be said will come up naturally, either from you or the other person.’ (Liz Dunphy) A commonly-held belief is that the power and potential of coaching resides in asking great questions. It is after all true that a well-worded, placed and timed question can shift our entire perspective, open up fresh possibilities and create a seismic shift in our sense of agency. I’ve experienced that personally and have seen and felt its impact. What else makes the difference? ‘We learn from an early age what the ‘correct’ answers are – those that will win us approval.’ (Rudi Weinzierl) For coaching questions to land well and to do their work without being deflected by defences, there’s something about being in a receptive state of curiosity, of invitation, of a desire and willingness to learn. Yet, deeper still, I notice the mysterious power of presence. Here I am grappling with a complex issue and struggling to find or create a way forward. Somebody I trust comes alongside me, is really present to me, listens actively and intently without even saying a word…and something shifts inside me. It’s like the presence of God – transformational. A new insight surfaces into awareness as if it were released, catalysed by the quality of contact between us. It was already there, perhaps, but hidden from sight or out of reach. In the moment, it can feel like a realisation, a revelation. Questions stimulate and crystallise our thoughts and galvanise our responses. Emergence arises through presence. (See also: Emergence in action learning; Test and learn; Plan vs prepare)  'There is frequently more to be learned from the unexpected questions of a child than the discourses of adults.' (John Locke) My 5 year-old daughter asked me, ‘Dad, why is it cold downstairs but hot upstairs?’ ‘Because warm air rises’ I replied, gesturing a floating-upwards movement with my hands. ‘But why does it rise?’ That’s a great example of a 2nd question. A 2nd question takes us closer to critical reflection. It’s useful in disciplines like coaching and action learning because it challenges a person to think more deeply, pushing beyond surface-level responses to what lays behind, beneath or beyond. Here’s why it matters, with some examples: 1. Uncovering underlying motives Q1: ‘What are your goals for this project?’ Q2: ‘Why are these goals important to you?’ The 1st question may reveal what someone wants, but the 2nd question uncovers why they want it. It reveals a person’s values and motivations, helping to align efforts and understand the true significance of success. 2. Moving beyond assumptions Q1: ‘Why do you believe this solution will work?’ Q2: ‘What evidence have you found that supports this belief?’ The 1st question asks for an opinion, but the 2nd question invites critical examination of that opinion. It challenges the person to consider facts, research or data to foster a more informed and reflective response. 3. Challenging initial reactions Q1: ‘Do you think the new policy is fair?’ Q2: ‘Who benefits the most from this policy, and who might be disadvantaged?’ The 1st question elicits a gut reaction, often based on personal experience or bias. The 2nd question invites a deeper analysis by examining the broader implications, encouraging critical thinking about fairness for all parties involved. 4. Exploring various alternatives Q1: ‘Why did you choose this option?’ Q2: ‘What other options did you consider, and why did you reject them?’ While the 1st question focuses on decision-making, the 2nd question helps a person consider whether alternative solutions were fully explored and whether biases or incomplete information influenced their choice. Would you like support with developing your second question skills? Get in touch!  ‘The will to win, the desire to succeed, the urge to reach your full potential... these are the keys that will unlock the door to personal excellence.’ (Confucius) We may, at times, find ourselves stuck, unable to see a way forward, confined by the walls of the ways in which we are construing a situation – and very often completely unaware that that’s what’s happening. This is where various reflective disciplines such as coaching, action learning, spiritual direction and supervision can help. They can enable us to find or create a key that releases us to explore new perspectives, ideas, options and actions for change. Gareth Morgan observed astutely that ‘People have a knack for getting trapped in webs of their own creation.’ It’s a paradox. The mental models we hold of reality and truth can provide us with a subjective and cultural sense of clarity and coherence – things that enable us to function in our day-to-day lives without getting overwhelmed by the complexities of life in this world and at work – yet often they hide as much as they reveal. The map is not the territory. A first step can be, therefore, to enable critical reflexivity – to notice that we’re applying filters and, furthermore, what may lay behind that for us. It’s a bit like looking in a mirror: ‘What does the way in which I’m thinking, feeling about and responding to this person, relationship or situation say about me?’ This could be broadened to ‘…and about my cultural background and context?’ Then, as a consequence, ‘What’s (therefore) my own part in what I’m experiencing?’ A next step can be to shift towards vision and options, thinking the unthinkable and snapping mental chains. It inspires and draws on the power of imagination, for instance: ‘What would be a great outcome for me (or, by extension, my team, organisation, beneficiaries or clients)?’ ‘What would it take to get there?’ ‘What would I be willing to do to achieve this?’ This is where we may encounter resistance, a push-back that surfaces and exposes what lays beneath. A third step could be, therefore, to explore the foundations and edges – to touch and feel the walls, if you like. Questions at this stage could include, for instance: ‘What assumptions am I making?’ ‘Where am I drawing the lines on what I believe is possible?’ ‘What are my greatest hopes and fears in this?’ ‘What values is this triggering for me’ ‘It can feel like stretching the boundaries of our current realities, testing the limits, opening cracks wider to let light in. A final stage is to move towards solutions and actions. It enables a sense of agency, of traction, and taps deeply into motivation and determination. It’s where the focus shifts from reflection on a situation to a choice to do something to address it. Questions here could be, for instance: ‘What would make the cost-investment worthwhile?’ ‘Who and what resources can I draw on to help me achieve this?’ ‘How will I follow through on this?’ ‘What’s my next step?’   ‘In Africa there is a concept known as 'ubuntu' - the profound sense that we are human only through the humanity of others; that if we are to accomplish anything in this world it will in equal measure be due to the work and achievement of others.’ (Nelson Mandela) I ran a professional development seminar for ALA-trained and ILM-recognised Action Learning (AL) facilitators last week. Participants work for an international NGO and are from, and based in, Rwanda, South Africa and the UK. One dimension to our conversation was to explore the potential meaning, value and adaptation-application of AL in different cultural contexts. A South African participant reflected on the value of AL against the backdrop of that country’s history, particularly where black people and communities were often deprived of opportunity to exert influence over their own lives and society. AL’s focus on developing personal-group agency would align with the NGO’s philosophy and approach to empowerment in that context. A Rwandan participant, working at a refugee camp with people who speak Congolese and Burundian languages, found it tricky initially to explain AL in her cultural context; firstly because participants were more familiar with traditional didactic training, and secondly because some of the concepts and language used in classic AL were quite difficult to translate directly. A UK participant offered the African cultural concept or ubuntu, one familiar in many African contexts, as a potential model to convey the spirit of AL. The South African and Rwandan participants agreed. Ubuntu views the individual in the context of a wider group and network of interdependent relationships: ‘My life, wellbeing and success are intertwined with yours.’  ‘We serve the client best by breaking out of the medical model we have come to expect. We are not an organisational doctor who describes their symptoms, who looks them over, prescribes a solution and sends them on their way. Better to define our task as a process of dialogue and discovery.’ (Peter Block) I first encountered this approach when I read Edgar Schein’s now-classic text, Process Consultation. It frames the consultant role as a co-actor alongside the client and the consultancy itself as a co-creative process. The consultant holds a metaphorical mirror up to the client, or to the client team or organisation, and thereby creates opportunity for them to notice what they had not noticed or make fresh sense of what they are seeing. In the language of coaching and supervision, it enables critical reflexivity and critical reflective practice. To do this well, to support a client’s willingness to look at themselves and a wider system and culture through critically-constructive eyes, the consultant must work from the outset to build relationship, dialogue and trust. After all, if trust is low, an unexpected or deeply-challenging revelation could evoke a defensive response and, thereby, close down possibilities for learning and change. Often, the consultant’s role may call for trust-building across a wider team, group or organisation too. The key lays in doing-with, not doing-for or doing-to. |
Nick WrightI'm a psychological coach, trainer and OD consultant. Curious to discover how can I help you? Get in touch! 
Like what you read? Simply enter your email address below to receive regular blog updates!
|
RSS Feed