A634.4.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Affirmative Action

          In the case of racism, how do people live, behave, react, look at the world, endure, work, and share in a world where their entire race has been discriminated against, emotionally abused, physically tortured and cast out of society? Why does the oppression of people continue in any fashion or form decades after laws have been put in place to forbid it? There is a deeply-rooted attitude that is transferred from generation to generation; individual to individual. People typically inherit the beliefs that there are folks of another race that are inferior and thus does not deserve the same opportunities, benefits, and rights as other races. In fact, they ought to be treated as less; and they have been for hundreds of years, and still are to varying degrees. "The purpose of Affirmative Action is to promote social equality through the preferential treatment of socioeconomically disadvantaged people"(HG.org, n.d.).

          I believe Affirmative Action is ethically right. Affirmative Action is not intended to present a reverse discrimination program or law, but to provide opportunities that were at one time for hundreds of years not available. However, the fact that the black race has been beaten, lynched, burned, and tortured is not even the issue at hand. If all blacks were looked at and in fact treated as other races are, I do not feel there would be a desire for Affirmative Action laws. But how can that ever be the case when such things took place merely 50 years ago? The effects of an entire race over generations does not just 'go away' overnight. There are resentments, a sense of unfair treatment and downright anger that it ever happened in the first place, never mind the fact that it continues today. LaFollette (2007) states, " It (racism) does not wear a sheet or burn crosses. Now it lurks in the boardroom, the courtroom, and the classroom, embodied in our habits and enforced by our institutions. Since it is veiled, today's racist would never acknowledge that she is a racist." This is how racism endures.

          If children and students are not learning about discrimination in school from elementary through college, then the sins of the father may very well continue to promulgate through the generations. It is through Affirmative Action that we as a people can acknowledge our past and own it as a country. As citizens of a 'free' nation, we ought to be able to not only stand up for our own rights but for others as well. While Affirmative Action may not unroot racism or sexism, it can offer those whose race was grossly disadvantaged for so long, the opportunity to see the world in a new light, giving themselves a chance at a better life. "Blacks, it was felt, required - and were entitled to - special assistance until they can compete with whites on an equal basis" (Weiss, 1985).

          Although there are those who have an equal say against Affirmative Action, believing that their opportunities should not be shunted to no fault of their own. Working harder than everyone else to make the grade, the resume, the interview in order to give themselves the best shot against a level competitive playing field can foster a great sense of resentment against a disadvantaged that may have performed worse, or are less qualified yet was placed ahead. Similarly, "To be passed over because of membership one was born into, where this has nothing to do with one's individual qualifications for a position, can arouse strong feelings of resentment" (Nagel, 1981) However, had this hard worker understood what the disadvantaged's family, as well as the disadvantaged had endured and continue to endure, they may felt differently. In addition, if the hard worker knew that the school or company they were applying for had an Affirmative Action policy in place, well then they should not have much to complain about.

References:

HG.org (n.d.) What is affirmative action and why was it created? Retrieved fromhttps://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-affirmative-action-and-why-was-it-created-31524

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell

Nagel, T. (1981). A defense of affirmative action. Retrieved from http://ojs2.gmu.edu/PPPQ/article/viewFile/1258/1006

Weiss, R. J. (1985). We want jobs: The history of affirmative action (blacks, civil rights) [Dissertation]. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.plibproxy.pr.erau.edu/docview/303400788/7E0056B51F074A41PQ/29?accountid=10734

          

A634.3.4.RB_SiegmundWayne

The Bigger They Are

          Getting ahead in this world often depends on what you bring to the fight, the competition one must endure and the favorable perception of those that would be accepting you. The processes that force individuals to climb the ladders of success can be wrought with challenges from exams, degrees, and certifications to finances, applications, and interviews. If and when these individuals become the top of their game, they would have already experienced enough time proving themselves worthy of the advances and promotions attained in their field that many micro-sacrifices made have become the norm for them. Unfortunately, these norms or habits occur without any foresight or questions as to whether or not those decisions ought to have been made. Kramer (2003) shared, "They prove adept of overcoming whatever obstacles they encounter along the way...Yet just when they appear to have it all, these A-list performers demonstrate uncharacteristic lapse of professional judgment or personal conduct...Her (Peel) previously conservative tastes and modest habits went out the window; Ultimately, Peel's change in habits proved fatal."

          In society, this can be seen every day in the news. Watching and reading about President Clinton's escapades while in the Oval Office were confounding. Obviously, he had what it took to sell himself to the public with his education, accomplishments, and ability to persuade, however, to hear him confess indirectly about when he may have had sex "of any kind in any manner, shape or form." A mere case of "genius-to-folly syndrome" (Kramer, 2003). It was hard to believe, but if the President of the United States can succumb to the pressures, the glamour, the power, and opportunities to make poor judgments, who would be exempt? The truth is, no one is exempt from falling down the slippery slope of moral judgment and ethical decisions. The question is, can we protect ourselves from falling in the first place (Welch, 2016)?

          Often I am witness to a variety of infractions in the military. To see the lapse in judgment tends to reveal that some operators feel the rules do not apply to them, or that breaking the rule(s) will get them what everyone else wants, thus justifying their decisions. In a reported case when a Special Operations Forces (SOF) operator conducted an interrogation without the proper credentials which led to the death of the detained individual, it was this that spawned an ethics inquiry into how SOF conducts operations. Here, in order for this operator to get ahead, he "believed that getting ahead means doing things differently than ordinary people," and determined he can circumvent the rules without paying the consequences because of his misperceived community support of the egregious act. (Kramer, 2003).

          As a member of the United States Navy, I have spent the past 19 years training, teaching, deploying, traveling, learning and having a family of my own far away from my biological family of whom I am very close with. Though I have personally never experienced reaping rewards by sacrificing ethical standards in my job, in 2009, I was called off of deployment to be with my father who was reportedly on his death bed. Once I had arrived by his bedside and learning of his poor health, my spouse and I decided to move him in with us so that he can be properly cared for. Six years later, his overall health had improved immensely, visiting his grandchildren and other extended family members along the way that was once estranged to him. In 2015, my family and I were offered the opportunity to move to Germany for a three-year tour. While my father was sad to hear that, he was also happy for us. I told him we would be right back living near him in three years. For a man of his age and a lack of will to live, it was extremely difficult to choose to leave him for Germany. Although we stayed in touch very often, his health appeared to decline. One year later, upon visiting family in the States, my brother brought our father to where we would be spending Thanksgiving. Upon his arrival, it was determined he should be hospitalized. Ten days later, my father had passed away. I often ask myself knowing my values towards family if it was worth moving to Germany.

References:  

Charan, R. & Colvin, G. (n.d.). Why ceos fail. [Fortune Archives]. Retrieved from http://www.pycco.com/why_ceos_fail.pdf

Kramer, R. M. (2003, October). The harder they fall. Harvard Business Review, (81)10. p. 58-66. Retrieved from https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=2527021d-c8af-4af8-b33f-a674504aa3a6%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=10986098

Welch, J. N. (2016, October 13). What did bill clinton mean when he said, it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is. Retrieved from https://www.quora.com/What-did-Bill-Clinton-mean-when-he-said-it-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is

                                                

A634.2.4.RB_SiegmundWayne

Theories of Ethics

          I have never thought so much on something as I have on my reflections of ethics and where I stand in terms of them. In trying to process and decide what choice(s) I would make in the 'Train Dilemma,' I made considerations in terms of a consequentialist without actually have lived through the scenario, which might I add, is quite different. After reading about the considerations, or lack thereof, that consequentialists make, I would have to say that I would now change my decision on throwing the switch and redirecting the train from the track with 5 children to the one track with one child. Why? I suppose it has more to do with the fact that I directly did not decide the current course and implications of the track the train is currently on and choosing to take another's life in order to change the consequences of what may 'naturally' occur seems unfair, unjust, and downright immoral! "Consequences - and only consequences - can conceivably justify any kind of act, for it does not matter how harmful it is to some so long as it is more beneficial to others" (Alexander & Moore, 2012). 

          Withstanding Consequentialists' total lack of "strict moral limits on what we can do to others" (LaFollette, 2007), I believe there is a place for consequentialism in ethics. It is necessary to take into consideration the effects that your decisions will have on others and the relative environment, as well as the impact it may have directly and indirectly upon yourself. LaFollette (2007) states, "...any consequentialist theory must specify (a) which consequences are morally relevant (i.e., which we should consider when morally deliberating); (b) how much weight we should give them; and (c) how, precisely, we should use them in moral reasoning." There is a place for consequentialist concerns when it comes to deliberating morals and their ethically relevant consequences, but as a whole, there is not enough balance in the use of one's morals ethically if "we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences" alone (Lafollette, 2007).

          Deontology is based on the moral code that we develop and use as the sole deciding factor in ethical decision-making despite the consequences. The only concern is determining which relative code(s) is morally weightier than others under the given circumstances. Lafollette (2007) also discusses that the morals, or rules also specify what to do when there is a conflict between them; that there is some meta-moral - one to rule them all - so to speak. For example, if I was to witness an infant about to fall off a chair, but in consideration to go help keep the child from falling, my act of trying to help may, in fact, cause the child to get hurt. If I chose to do nothing, the child may still get hurt, but not at the cause of my actions. My meta-rule would be to err on the side of helping because of my belief that my intervention would be of benefit to others.

          It would be wise if people considered multiple ethical philosophies in support of their ethical decision-making. I cannot see myself justifying making morally related decisions where the consequences are irrelevant, nor can I be so concerned with the moral consequences alone that the decision I make is directly, or indirectly contradicting the consequences. Ditto & Liu (2010) offer "Is it possible that people are able to enjoy the best of both worlds, touting their moral imperatives while at the same time believing that the cost-benefit analysis is on their side as well?" I think so.

References:

Alexander, L., and Moore, M. (2012, December 12). Deontological ethics. Retrieved from https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/win2015/entries/ethics-deontological/

Ditto, P. H. & Liu, H. (n.d.). Deontological dissonance and consequentialist crutch. Retrieved from http://portal.idc.ac.il/en/symposium/hspsp/2010/documents/03-ditto.pdf

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

A634.1.5.RB_SIegmundWayne

The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a Good One!

Scenario One

          In this case, where the decision between having five children potentially die, or one child dies, I would instinctively throw the switch towards a single child. While this scenario would still be a very serious dilemma, it would still be the choice I would make justifying it with the belief that saving five children is more valuable morally than just saving one. Rakowski (1993) shares, “Sometimes it is morally imperative, or at any rate morally permissible, to keep alive as many people as possible.” However, this decision is not made lightly, understanding that one life is no more valuable than another. Nonetheless, more lives would constitute a better decision, because there are a greater number of opportunities to enrichen the lives of others as well as the environment and community from which they live. 

          On the other hand, the only other way I would possibly make another choice and not throw the switch is if I was able to somehow determine the quality of life the children would grow up to lead. Case and point: If the one child alone on the other track were to grow up to become President of The United States and the other five children would end up dealing drugs and committing murders, I may not throw the switch. The only 'other' dilemma I would have to deal with is a moral principle that informs me that all lives are equally valuable no matter what, and I should not be the one to judge otherwise, for there is a purpose and reason behind everything. Yet, Philos (1995) states, “It is explained in the initial liability principle, that loss should lie where it falls unless there is sufficient reason to shift it.” I feel I have found sufficient reason. If I have the ability (choice/free will) to do something, then I have the responsibility to do something.

Scenario Two

          In this scenario, given the information presented and nothing more, I would not throw the elderly man in front of the train to stop it from hitting all five children. Instead, I would throw myself. If I were to look at both scenarios and ask myself what the difference is between throwing the switch and pushing an elderly gentleman to save five children's lives, I would say nothing. However, given the circumstances presented, I would obviously be close enough to the train to put myself in its path if I was able to push the elderly gentleman and do the same.

          Would there be a time I would choose differently? Would I not throw myself, or push the elderly man and not save the children? Perhaps if I knew that the elderly gentleman would eventually save at least the same amount of lives or more. Considering another set of circumstances; had I known the elderly gentleman had been diagnosed as terminally ill and only had a few days left to live. In this case, I would need to have his permission to push him in front of the train. In my mind, the elderly gentleman’s life is still valuable, and I would still choose to throw myself in front of the train instead of the elderly gentleman.

Scenario Three

          If the child on the side track was my child, my decision would remain the same for all the same reasons, and under all the same circumstances. This decision appears to be an example of Utilitarianism that claims, “Our duty is to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Five lives saved is better than one life saved. Therefore, the right thing to do is pull the lever” (Westacott, 2018). I still argue that all considerations must be a part of that decision.

References:

Philos, J. A. (1995). Sacrificing one to save many. U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, 12(2), 189-200. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12474847

Rakowski, E. (1993). Taking and saving lives. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2710&context=facpubs

Westacott, E. (2018, February 19). Would you kill one person to save five?: Understanding the trolley dilemma. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five-4045377

A633.9.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Polyarchy Reflections

     As an emerging leader, I now look at organizational hierarchies in a very different light than I had in the past. More so, I see polyarchy as the evolutionary convergence of anarchy and oligarchy giving the resultant paradox a meaningful and functional place within this evolutionary system. While the previous system worked to gain control and influence over itself, polyarchy gently integrates attributes of anarchy and oligarchy into the mix creating a more flattened and transparent culture of communication, collaboration, leadership development, and strategy development. However, the elements of complexity and uncertainty can be used in our favor if we know how to leverage and engage these dynamics. A polyarchy, while complex and uncertain, does have an underlying order. Obolensky (2010), through comparison with chaos mathematics and quantum mechanics, realized that a polyarchy would benefit greatly from both deterministic as well as non-deterministic approaches.

     Working with the mindset of where and how best to implement polyarchy-type elements into an organization, I must keep in mind the type of system and context I am currently working with in order to help decide what deterministic and non-deterministic approaches would be best to use. Looking at traditional leadership from the lens of complex adaptive leadership implies there will require a 'buy-in' from these traditional leaders in the incorporation of a polyarchy. It also implies that there may be limitations, and perhaps even a degree of resistance along this evolutionary process, as well as numerous, non-deterministic decision points that will need to be addressed as they are encountered. As each organization encounters a 'tug' towards polyarchy, some may be too 'set in their ways' and comfortable to allow such a shift to occur, while others may require a great deal of time to move through strategic-, organizational-, and self-awareness, organizational buy-in, and the implementation process of leadership development. Finally, it implies that an understanding of the dynamics of anarchy as it relates chaos and complexity will be required. As an understatement, this may also imply that this perception would probably require action for such a shift to be initiated from a complex adaptive leadership position, and not from the traditional leadership (Obolensky, 2010).

     In the future, as I embrace the full spectrum of complex adaptive leadership, and intimately manipulate the alchemy of its elements, I will forevermore look to identify traditional leadership within organizations and determine how a polyarchy would best be implemented. Addressing leadership to enable followership would be one of my first tasks. Obolensky (2010) eluded to, if leadership is not willing to cross-functionalize leadership-followership, the organization may not be able to move forward towards a polyarchy. Getting buy-in from leadership to raise their employees to the same leadership levels as themselves, while developing their followership levels, will initiate and facilitate this shift. Even if a shift only partially took root, the organization would be better off than if it had not.

     Over the next three years, I assess that I would require some 'self-coaching' to raise my followership level to a 5, all the while finding a way to accomplish my job position tasks and gain a broader, wider and more inclusive understanding of the organizational and strategic context. More often than not, leadership is privy of many focuses within an organization that others are not, and for good reason; each person has a role to play. In addition, for myself as well as for the organization's sake, coaching sessions from 'outside' consulting would also help assist with an all inclusive internal growth towards an organizational common goal. I would require an outline, beginning with topics to address as it relates to any internal and external limitations, and how best to either remove, or work with them. In addition, I would require documentation of progress over time as a form of feedback in addition to subordinate, peer and leadership 'reviews.' I also feel observation of the environment around me within the organizational context would also provide feedback in seeing what kind of leadership I am offering and imparting. In addition, I would require an annual assessment of the organization of which I am leading to determine if these developments are on track and taking hold, and if not, to determine why.

     In the process of leadership/followership development, I would continue to learn about leadership styles, embracing and understanding the benefits of each. I would learn how and when to recognize the times and places in which to employ any given style to facilitate a desired personal, or organizational response. I would often reflect on the Four + Four model as it relates to the inter-dynamics and interdependence between them. Identifying where and how much of "unnecessary leadership stress (fear of letting go, working too hard and playing a charade)" as a result from an analysis done using the Situational Leadership model that was adapted from Goleman (2000) would provide great context in light of a polyarchy (Obolensky, 2010). Engaging followers to enable leadership through the 5 levels of followership utilizing the skill/will matrix will enable me to identify behaviors conducive to a polyarchy construct. Taking advantage of the GROW (goal, reality, options and will) model and employing the 70%, 20% and 10% rule, maturity, alongside organizational behaviors can be further assessed to determine how leadership will spend their time, and support how and when, if at all, leadership will devolve and let go (Groth, 2012).

     I am hopeful and excited about the emergence of this type of leadership, and the challenges it presents given a particular organizational environment. Looking forward to opportunities with an open mind to leadership development approaches, I feel as I continue to learn about different ways of implementing polyarchy among traditional leadership, I will favor much from tactical patience and personal, as well as professional, self-reflection, and introspection. Thank you for a wonderful, enlightening learning experience.

    

References:

Goleman, D. (2000, April). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results

Groth, A. (2012, November 27). Everyone should use google's original '70-20-10 model' to map out their career. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/kyle-westaway-how-to-manage-your-career-2012-11?IR=T

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham Surrey, EN: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.



A633.8.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

How To Better Enable Leadership

     As a senior enlisted member of my military organization, a joint special operations group, as an action researcher, I can say that there is a great deal of potential for individual leadership development from a coaching perspective, as well as improvement to the organizational strategy. The enlightening material here is the discovery of leadership perspective on leadership development, as well as organizational strategy development through a coaching effort. I never would have known otherwise, had I not approached leadership in the manner I had, how much buy-in I received, and the positive support from my subordinates. Sometimes, it just takes engaging. Laying out a vision, personalizing tasks, following up, attending to resistance, and making adjustments as needed suggested by employees, will help take their buy-in and effectively allow for an organizational shift in culture (Broder, 2013).

     From an organizational perspective, it appears the suggested enablement to leadership would be as a supervisor would counsel, mentor and eventually, effectively coach, so as to raise the self and organizational-awareness, capabilities and accountabilities of subordinates. This leadership behavior occurs on a regular basis in the military, as it provides a picture of progression for individuals throughout their career. Typically, an evaluation report is provided annually spelling out strengths, as well as areas that could use more improvement. In addition, a counseling occurs at the six month mark to ensure, or steer the individual back on track. However, while this will not change within the ranks of the military for purposes of timely promotions as needed in order to place up and coming senior ranked personnel in those places where the former has recently retired, or left the military.

     From an individual perspective, enabling leadership does not come from these evaluation reports, nor will it come from the six month mark counseling. Instead, both superiors and subordinates in my command feel the best way to enable leadership is to set the example (be the change you want to see, consistently), and coach each other on a daily basis. In time, as we take the initiative to learn how to be better coaches, we will be enabling leadership at all levels at the same time over time. The key here is to own the process according the my superiors. Providing courses of instruction to learn how to become coaches to all individuals of the organization, raises the awareness of the organization to the benefits of this enablement at the individual level. As goals of leadership enablement is developed, daily dialogue towards this endeavor will build in organizational culture that continuously supports enabling leadership, thus growing leaders from within, rather than merely waiting to see what leaders may emerge. Goleman (2000), stated, "...it requires constant dialogue, and that dialogue has a way of pushing up every driver of climate."

     As an action researcher, I often ask myself, "what can I do, and how best can I do it?" These questions are often me taking initiative. My obstacle is usually identified as focusing so much of my energy on a given task, that other tasks may fall off my plate. I continuously make lists with these tasks prioritized, so as to not forget what needs to be done in a timely manner. As far as promoting leadership at every level, I can improve as a mentor and coach to my subordinates by developing approach strategies that allows the individual to develop as a good follower, discover solution sets for themselves and to take responsibility and accountability for the decisions they make. Stevenson (n.d.), shares,

                    the more an individual is involved in identifying problems, in working

                    out and applying solutions for them and in reviewing the results, the

                    more complete and the more long-lasting the learning is. This form of

                    self learning tends to bring about learning with a deeper understanding

                    than learning that is taught,”(as cited by Redshaw, 2000, p. 106).

    

     At my peer level, I can set the example of what leadership is, and coach where it is welcomed. At my superior level, I can promote leadership by growing in leadership myself, and becoming a Level 5 follower supported by my own skill and will, so that I may support them (Obolensky, 2010).

References:

Broder, L. (2013, August 22). Change is good. Now, how to get employees to buy in. Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/227920

Goleman, D. (2000, April). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), p. 78-90. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=24eab2c2-630f-445f-96bf-fc3783108172%40sessionmgr4007&vid=0&hid=4204&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=2839618&db=bth

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham Surrey, EN: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Stevenson, H. (n.d.). What you need to know about coaching services. Retrieved from http://www.clevelandconsultinggroup.com/articles/coaching-services.php

A633.7.4.RB_SiegmundWayne

How Do Coaches Help?

     Coaching, at first, sounds like a pretty broad term in general. As a gymnastics coach for 13 years, I remember teaching progressive skills, basic and advanced techniques as well as how to think about certain skills to assist in overcoming fears. As a certified personal trainer for three years, again I coached on how to execute safe and effective techniques for exercising, motivate to establish commitment and routine, as well as assist in changing to a healthier lifestyle, such as diet. In the future, I have considered becoming a Life Coach, where I would help individuals and families make healthier and wiser choices during and throughout the different phases of their lives personally, professionally, spiritually, economically and socially. In the corporate arena, what Executive Coaches do to help executives, how this progress is measured and how it is reported is somewhat of an elusive process.

     In an attempt to define the term coach, Ralph Stayer (1990), owner of Johnsonville Sausage, explained in a nutshell that coaching is "...communicating a vision and then getting people to see their own behavior, harness their own frustrations, and own their own problems" (para. 24). After a number of failures in trying to redesign the way his company did business, Stayer discovered that he really did not have any control over his employees in how they felt, behaved, expected, and perceived. However he did discover he had control over a couple contextual things he had created - the systems and structures.

     What Stayer learned along the way was first, just get started in making a system change instead of waiting for more information, and second, start the change with the most visible system that you have control over (Stayer, 1990). Structurally, Stayer created teams where individuals once managed, flattening the company's hierarchy from six tiers to three. In the end, Stayer dropped terms like employee and subordinate and replaced them with member, and managers came be known as coaches. In Stayer's new business model, he had incorporated 'coaches' into his structure "...who could build problem-solving capacities in others rather than solve their problems for them" (1990).

     In most corporate environments, however, coaches are typically hired to help executives make improvements and progress within the context of business, however, it proves that personal issues typically arise and get addressed as part of the overall coaching purpose (Coutu, 2009). In fact, Coutu (2009), found through an academic study, "...that between 25% and 50% of those seeking coaching have clinically significant levels of anxiety, stress, or depression." Coutu doe not state that executives with coaches have metal health problems, but that it is noteworthy to understand that using an executive coach under these circumstances could be dangerous and counterproductive (2009).

                       

According to Coutu (2009), most coaches say they "are hired primarily to work with executives on  the positive side of coaching – developing high-potential talent and facilitating a transition in or up", while a lesser amount claim "that they are most often called in to act as a sounding board on organizational dynamics or strategic matters", and that "relatively few coaches said that organizations most often hire them to address a derailing behavior."

Furthermore,, Coutu shares that ...[coaches] "will do more than influence behaviors; they will be an essential part of the leader's learning process, providing knowledge, opinions, and judgment in critical areas. These coaches will be retired CEOs or other experts from universities, think tanks, and government"

     It appears that while there is a caution and concern in hiring an executive coach, it proves valuable to ensure that proper and appropriate credentials are established, as well as a well-laid out plan developed related to the reasons as to why the executive coach is being hired in the first place. I find this a very interesting arena, and will continue research to discover today's ground truth in today's corporate environment as it relates to executive coaching.

References:

Stayer, R. (1990, December). How I learned to let my workers lead. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), p. 66-83. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=4f69943d-bad1-4ec1-8212-a2e11968a222%40sessionmgr4007&vid=0&hid=4206&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=9012241290&db=bth

Coutu, D. (2009, January). What can coaches do for you? Harvard Business Review, 87(1), p. 91-97. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=55b8da69-1efd-467e-9691-796e2a92ca17%40sessionmgr4006&vid=0&hid=4206&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=35820714&anchor=AN0035820714-38