An Evaluation of Joe R.’s Performance and a Proposed Coaching Strategy
Joe R. is a systems analyst who has proved himself to be an effective Information Systems team manager. Due to the recent change from the project team model to an integrated matrix model, the organization forced the information systems team to collaborate with the business and marketing teams. This change of systems have affected Joe’s performance significantly, changing him from the efficient and effective team leader to someone who has started to feel frustrated over the changes. In the first place, Joe never had high regards for the business and marketing teams. Secondly, Joe has been accustomed to the old system where he had full control over the financial and personnel resources of his team. Now that he needed to cooperate with the other team members for important financial and personnel decisions, Joe has complained about the apparent lack of cooperation from the other team members who seem to have put into doubt each and every request he makes. He also complained about not being included by the team managers on decisions regarding personnel allocation.
Joe has proved himself to be an asset with valuable skills and coaching him seems to be the best option given Joe’s present predicament. In this paper, Joe will be assessed using the three evaluation models. In the assessment, Joe’s strengths as well as specific areas for growth shall be determined. Once these have been established, a rough statement on how to possibly establish a coaching relationship with Joe will be addressed. The plan of action for both Joe and the coach shall be established, assuming that Joe accepts the services of the coach. The goals of the coaching process as well as the strategies to be employed by the coach shall also be established.
Before moving into Joe’s assessment per se, a few words on the different assessment models are in place. Flaherty (2005) spoke of three assessment models: the five elements model, domains of competence model, and the components of satisfaction and effectiveness model. These three models, as their names indicate, assess three different things. The five elements model assess the individual in the perspective of his/her concerns, commitments, future possibilities, personal history, and mood. In one way of another, this assessment method gives the coach a general working perspective on the individual’s temporality, i.e., the individual’s past (personal and cultural history), present (mood, immediate concerns), and future (commitments, future possibilities). The domains of competence model, on the other hand, assess an individual’s accomplishment via the perspective of the individual’s “state of health” in three domains: self-management, relationships with others, and the facts and events domain. “Minimal competence” in these three domains (Flaherty, 2005, p. 83) is assumed to be necessary for an individual to truly accomplish something, that any accomplishment worth to be truly called as one ought to have these three domains present. The last model assesses the individual’s “satisfaction and effectiveness” by precisely looking at five different areas: the intellect, emotions, will, context, and soul (Flaherty gives specific definitions to each of these areas, and such definitions would be stated later on in this paper).
These three models shall all be used in the assessment of Joe R. Given than an individual human being will always be more complex than these models, and that a more holistic perspective would give the coach more vantage to maneuver and work on, these three models shall be used to evaluate Joe. It is assumed that more realistic goals and strategies, a better plan of action, shall be established the more the coach knows about Joe, and the more Joe has shared a part of himself to the coach. The more the knowledge exists between the two, the bigger the possibility that a trusting and helping relationship shall be developed.
Assessing Joe R.
I. The Five Elements Model
Joe seems to be immediately concerned with how he fits in the organization given the new integrated matrix model imposed on his team. This concern stops Joe from being as productive and effective as he used to be. To a certain extent, his concern regarding his performance in his newly redefined role produced feelings of “uncertainty” and being “devalued.” Such feelings that emanate from his present concerns in his job clearly affect his performance. Now, aside from the concern that comes from the reorganization of the company, Joe is also concerned about how his job may possibly rob his family of his time, if ever he gets promoted.
Joe is committed to the smooth functioning of his team, the way it used to smoothly function prior to the reorganization. He is also a committed family man. He is a husband at the same time a father of two boys. He has demonstrated his commitments to his family by coaching his boys’ softball teams. As such, he has committed himself to spend quality time with his family.
Joe thinks that the following are future possibilities: that he would be promoted and “move forward” in the organization, though with the explicit reservation that such a promotion may compromise the quality time he spends with his family; because of his commitment to his family, we could also infer that Joe thinks of the college of his boys as one of the possibilities he is dedicated to.
Joe’s personal history include the fact that he has a bachelor’s degree in computer science, that he is 42 years old, that he has worked 16 years in Techno Corporation, that he is married, and that he has two boys who play softball.
Joe’s mood (by mood, Flaherty refers to “a semi-permanent emotional tone by which a person exists. It gives meaning to present circumstances, defines our engagement in them, and colors our view of the future as well.” (2005, p. 79) is generally that of frustration, i.e., wanting something to happen but cannot accomplish this want (Flaherty, 2005). Joe has been frustrated with the new organizational model that makes him incapable of having as much control over his team as he used to have. As mentioned above, Joe does not anymore have full control over the team’s finances and personnel. This makes accomplishing what he used to accomplish as a team manager difficult for Joe. He is also frustrated over the “treatment” he gets from the other team managers. His peers always put to question his requests for finances and do not include him in decisions regarding personnel. Aside from frustration, Joe is also characterized by skepticism over the two other teams he has to work with. Joe “has habitually regarded the business and marketing functions of the corporation with some suspicion.”
II. The Domains of Competence Model
In the “I” domain, the self-management domain, Joe exhibits strong competencies. Joe is the type of person who sees his work through. He acts personally responsible for tasks that are assigned to him and puts up enough effort to ensure the best outcome. He is a person who obviously has passion in his field and in his team. He always comes prepared and prepares very good presentations to push his team forward. He obviously manages himself well since his level of efficiency could not be reached without very good self-management skills. Joe would not have problems “following through” on what he said he would do, he arrives on time, could clearly delineate between personal issues (that ought not to intervene with work) and work issues, and understands the standard operating procedures of his organization.
In the “we” domain, the relationship with others domain, Joe seems to have some glaring problems. Joe has been used to having things his way. This has accounted for the successes of his team. Nevertheless, once the organizational change happened that necessitated Joe to “share” some decisional powers with others, Joe started to crack down. He is obviously having a hard time consulting financial and personnel matters with his peers. In this aspect, we could say that Joe lacks openness and appreciation over the other team managers. By openness, we refer to “allowing ourselves to be influenced by the ideas, emotions, and world of a person whom we are relating” (Flaherty, 2005, p. 85). The fact that Joe heavily complains about the repercussions of the new organizational model and even requests the supervisor to exert influence to back him up in his desire to get what he wants (i.e., not to be questioned in his every requests and to be always involved in personnel decisions) means that Joe never considered the wisdom of the new setting. Neither has he considered the concerns of the other team managers. Such lack of openness eventually leads to lack of appreciation over his peers whose worldviews are not validated by Joe. We could hardly say that Joe does not bring his peers around his way of seeing things (Flaherty, 2005, p. 85).
In the “it” domain, the domain of facts and events, Joe obviously has strong competencies again. Being the domain of the “experts,” Joe would probably pass as a good model for others in this domain. He obviously has good understanding of the “mechanisms, processes, statistics, systems, and models” (Flaherty, 2005, p. 86) of both his job and his organization.
III. Components of Satisfaction and Effectiveness Model
Joe has the intellect for his job. By intellect we refer to knowing how to make distinctions and making predictions on the future consequences of one’s actions (Flaherty, 2005). Though Joe feels unsure whether his college degree is sufficient for a future promotion, still, Joe has the intellectual competence required for his job.
As regards emotions, i.e., “the ability to bring events or people close to us or distancing ourselves from people and events” (Flaherty, 2005, p. 85), Joe seems to have the ability to see things related to his team in an objective manner, capable of distancing people and events from him in such a way that an objective perspective on the needs of the team is reached. Nevertheless, Joe did not exhibit the same “objectivity” towards his reaction to the other team managers. He takes the actions of his peers personally, being upset at how he is “excluded” in personnel decisions. He also does not objectively see how his bias against the two other teams may affect his relations with them.
Joe has the will to make things happen in his own team. This accounts for their successes. Nevertheless, he seems to lack in this capacity given the new organizational model.
As regards context, i.e., the “capacity to design a purpose and then bring one’s life in alignment to it” (Flaherty, 2005, p. 89), Joe seems to put the happiness and the welfare of his family as his primary purpose as his family has always been the primary consideration even in terms of future promotion. A more thorough discussion of purpose with Joe is necessary as he seemed never to have made his purpose explicit.
Joe does exhibit soul, i.e., “kindness, generosity, compassion, and connectedness to the rest of humanity” (Flaherty, 2005, p. 89). He does seem to have very good connection with his staff, who has worked effective ly with him. He also seems to connect with his sons whom he coaches softball. A more thorough discussion on soul would probably benefit Joe.
Based on the three assessment models, we could say that Joe’s strengths rest on his commitment to his job and family, his prospects for the future possibility of being promoted and being able to send his boys to college, his self-management competence, his strong expertise in his craft, his strong intellect in making distinctions and predictions on his tasks and the will to make things happen. Nevertheless, Joe would need to be helped on his immediate concerns regarding fitting in the organization that preoccupy his mind, he also needs to settle the apparent conflict between possible promotion and the time to be robbed from his family. The negative moods of frustration and skepticism definitely drain energy from Joe, at the same time, these moods stop him from having good relations with his peers. Joe has problems in the “we domain” where Joe could improve on openness and appreciation of others. In the emotions side, Joe could improve on the “objective” evaluation of himself as regards his relations with his peers. A longer discussion regarding context (purpose) and soul with Joe could be beneficial.
A Plan of Action for the Coach and Joe
The coach would have to proceed by initially scheduling talks with Joe. It is imperative that these conversations are friendly, non-judgmental, and non-invasive. This would mean openness to Joe’s distinct personality and a true desire to coach him especially in those areas for growth. These talks should include the areas of growth mentioned above, plus lengthier conversations regarding context and soul. After these initial talks and when the coach has gained Joe’s trust and comfort, it would also benefit the coaching activity if the coach would observe Joe in different situations. Thus, the coach might want to see Joe in his place of work, at home, and in the softball field with his boys. This would aid the coach in having a more objective perspective on Joe’s areas of growth. This would also aid the coach in noticing patterns in Joe that Joe might also be unaware of. Once a good working knowledge is already present and the strengths and areas of growth have already been determined by both Joe and the coach, both of them could then proceed to determine how to overcome the weaknesses. This would mean making Joe be aware of his weak areas, i.e., the areas on the “we” domain that stop him from having good relations with his peers. Some goal-setting on this domain would be beneficial. Joe and the coach could probably set goals that would help Joe to be overcome frustration and skepticism. This may occur by pointing out Joe’s realistic capacities and a reiteration of his strengths. This would probably aid Joe in overcoming the negative moods of frustration and skepticism that is presently eating him up. A weekly follow-up on his progress would be best.
Reference:
Flaherty, J. (2005). Coaching: Evoking excellence in others. Massachusetts and Oxford: Elsevier.
