To complete your Assignment, compose a cohesive document that addresses the following: See Attachment for detailed instructions? No plagiarism?

October 2010 | Vol. 31 No. 5 www.learningforward.org | JSD 63

By Jamie sussel Turner

N early every school I’ve worked in has an “Anne” on its staff. Teachers talk about how Anne

isn’t the teacher she used to be. Parents don’t want their children in Anne’s

class. Students walk on eggshells, careful not to upset her. Some principals talk with Anne about the problems they see, while others complain about Anne to their administrative colleagues and stick their heads in the sand, counting the years until she finally retires.

I know about the “Annes” in schools because I saw this scenario many times as a teacher and as a principal. This is one aspect of my leadership where I wish I had a do-over. Many times, I felt flustered with finding the right words to help this type of teacher. I once told a teacher she should consider retiring, and you can imagine how that went over!

The confrontation model outlined in Fierce Conversations became the key that opened the door to help me consider talking with Anne in a different way — a way that could enlist Anne in looking at the situation with me.

Here are the steps in the con- frontation model: • Name the issue. • Select a specific example that

illustrates the behavior or situation

you want to change. • Describe your emotions around the

issue. • Clarify why this is important —

what is at stake to gain or lose. • Identify your contribution to this

problem. • Indicate your wish to resolve the

issue. • Invite your partner

to respond. The confrontation

model incorporates these seven steps into a 60- second opening statement. Susan Scott recommends that after expressing these words, you invite the other person to talk. You sit back and listen, digging for full understanding when you need to. I found it helpful to plan the statement in advance, focusing on getting clear about the issue I really needed to address. I even practice my 60-second opening statement aloud several times so that I own the words and can deliver them with grace and skill.

Here’s something similar to what I said to Anne:

Anne, I want to talk about the effect your use of sarcasm is having on the emotional state of your students and also the effect your decision not to incorporate new strategies is having on your students’ engagement and learning. Last week when I was in your classroom, you

confrontation model of conversation provides tools to discuss and resolve tough issues

• In each issue of JSD, Susan Scott ([email protected]) explores aspects of communication that encourage meaningful collaboration. Scott, author of Fierce Conversations: Achieving Success At Work & In Life, One Conversation at a Time (Penguin, 2002) and Fierce Leadership: A Bold Alternative to the Worst “Best” Practices of Business Today (Broadway Business, 2009), leads Fierce Inc. (www.fierceinc.com), which helps companies around the world transform the conversations that are central to their success. Fierce in the Schools carries this work into schools and higher education. Columns are available at www.learningforward.org. © Copyright, fierce inc., 2010.

collaborative culture sUsaN sCOT T

I applaud Jamie Sussel Turner’s use of the confrontation model with her staff members. In our schools, in our lives, not speaking to the heart of the issue with grace and skill costs us dearly. Speaking to the heart of the issue, addressing attitudinal and behavioral issues with grace and skill, and gaining clarity about where we need to go with our colleagues is essential and allows us to tackle and resolve our toughest challenges while enriching the relationship.

— Susan Scott

Jamie Sussel Turner

JSD | www.learningforward.org October 2010 | Vol. 31 No. 564

collaborative culture sUsaN sCOT T

snapped at John for not doing his homework. He lowered his head in his hands to hide his tears. Also, last week I was in the hallway and heard you sigh as you used a sarcastic tone to tell the class, “I wish every class was as smart as you are.” Also, I wanted to note that during my last observation, you lectured the class for the entire period without engaging your students in any discussion or activities as our staff has been learning to do. I am concerned about the emotional state of your students and for their learning. I want you to know I also feel concern for you. I feel sad to see these changes in your teaching since I have always known you to be a kind teacher who is positive with students, is willing to try new strategies, and holds student learning as a priority. There is a great deal at stake for your students, for you, and for me. The daily emotional well-being and achievement of your students is at stake. Your students deserve to have a teacher who will speak to them with respect and genuine affection and teach them in a way that truly engages them in the learning process. My effectiveness as a principal is at stake because the success of our students lies squarely on my doorstep. I recognize that I have contributed to this situation by not speaking with you about this sooner in a way that clarified my growing concerns. I apologize. You

deserved better. I hope to see you continue and eventually wrap up your career as the well-respected and beloved teacher who began this career years ago.

I want to listen now. Please tell me what’s going on from where you sit.

“Are you trying to get rid of me?” Anne angrily responded.

I calmly repeated that I wanted to understand her point of view.

Anne took a deep breath before launching into an explanation of her need to continue teaching for two more years “for the benefits.” “You have no idea how hard it is to just make it to school each day,” she sighed, “The constant curriculum changes are stressing me out, the kids can’t pay attention like they used to, and the parents try to solve all of their problems.”

I didn’t disagree with Anne or try to dissuade her. I continued to listen, paraphrasing her comments from time to time.

After several minutes, she said she needed time to mull over our conversation and asked if we could meet again in a few days.

I thanked her for joining me in this conversation and we agreed on a time to talk again.

About a week later, Anne and I talked again. She spoke about how she’s struggled since the death of her mother, admitting that she may be suffering from mild depression. She recommitted to improving how she interacted with her students and to planning more engaging lessons. We both agreed to check in from time to time to keep Anne’s new goals in sight.

I used the confrontation model many more times over the years and found that it brings me clarity each time. For the last several years of my principalship, I was on a mission to create a school culture that valued relationships and honest conversation. I started with myself, changing how I engaged with others. This doesn’t mean that I talked with every single person about every single issue. Instead, I gave

time and space to situations and waited to see which ones seized hold of my attention and didn’t let go. I learned to soften my tone and invite other people to share their perspectives, so that confrontation was about our combined search for the truth.

I became calmer in confrontation conversations because I had greater clarity. I no longer shoved aside issues that I had avoided talking about in the past. This conversational model gave me the tools I needed to tackle and resolve tough issues. And as a surprising byproduct of my growth, several staff members began having successful confrontation conversations, too.

I can’t say that by talking with Anne I eliminated all problems with her or between her and other staff members. What I can say is that I felt less stress as I now had the conversations that previously weighed me down and more self-confidence in my growing ability to communicate with others in an authentic way.

I learned that each conversation we have builds trust in each of our relationships. Over the years, I had many other confrontation conversations about conflicts over curriculum approaches, scheduling issues, instructional practices, absenteeism, and more. By changing how I discussed difficult issues, I invited others to do the same. I like to think that my leadership helped our school community to talk about our conflicts in a direct and trusting way. I saw evidence of this in the years that followed when many more successful confrontation conversations led many members of our staff to listen to one another with greater respect and understanding, benefitting our students and enhancing the learning environment.

• Jamie Sussel Turner, an

elementary principal for 12 years, mentors principals and leads Fierce Conversations workshops. �

Work toward full understanding

how we use this model for confrontation is also important — i have a couple more steps to the model that follow up on that key opening statement. first, when you invite the other person to give his or her perspective, be sure to dig for full understanding, as Jamie sussel Turner suggests. as you work towards resolution, think about what you and your partner have learned. where are you now? what is your next step forward? and finally, how will you follow up in the future with one another? it helps to think ahead to your next conversation as you build your ongoing understanding and relationships.

— Susan Scott

Copyright of Journal of Staff Development is the property of National Staff Development Council and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Developing Sustainable Leaders Through Coaching

and Compassion RICHARD E. BOYATZIS

MELVIN L. SMITH NANCY BLAIZE

Case Western Reserve University

By integrating recent findings in affective neuroscience and biology with well- documented research on leadership and stress, we offer a more holistic approach to leadership development. We argue here that leader sustainability is adversely affected by the psychological and physiological effects of chronic power stress associated with the performance of the leadership role. We further contend, however, that when leaders experience compassion through coaching the development of others, they experience psychophysiological effects that restore the body’s natural healing and growth processes, thus enhancing their sustainability. We thus suggest that to sustain their effectiveness, leaders should emphasize coaching as a key part of their role and behavioral habits. Implications for future research on leadership and leadership development are discussed, as well as implications for the practice of leadership development and education.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

One purpose of management education is to de- velop people to be leaders of organizations and institutions for the future. The manner in which we approach the development of leaders is largely dependent on our concept of leadership. A variety of leadership theories have been offered over the past several decades (see Yukl & Van Fleet, 1990). “Great person” theories of leadership seek to un- derstand what an effective leader does (Bennis & Nanus, 1985) or what dispositional characteristics enable a person to be a leader. These characteris- tics range from cognitive ability (i.e., general g) to traits (e.g., extroversion), motives such as McClel- land’s (1975) need for power or charisma (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977), or transformational leadership style (Bass, 1985, 1990). A contingency theory of leadership tries to explain what types of leaders are needed for organizational effective- ness in various settings (Bass 1990; Boyatzis, 1982;

Fiedler, 1967; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969; Kotter, 1988; Yukl, 1998). More recent approaches to under- standing leadership (e.g., vertical dyad linkage or leader-member exchange) seek to understand re- lational aspects, including the leader’s ability to interact with others (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Kelly, 1992; Kram & Cherniss, 2001). These theories are the basis for our efforts to develop leaders; however, few if any theories of leadership have considered physiological aspects.

By integrating the latest findings in affective neuroscience with well-documented and recently discovered findings in biology and stress research, we expand the discussion of leadership and lead- ership development beyond previously considered factors. Utilizing a more holistic approach to lead- ership development, we propose that leaders may better sustain themselves by balancing the poten- tially stressful effects of exercising leadership with the ameliorative effects of coaching the de- velopment of others.

The structure of this article is as follows: We begin by exploring the potential effects of stress from performing the leadership role. We then illus- trate how this threatens leaders’ ability to sustain themselves over time. Going beyond the tradi- tional view of coaching as a means of developing

Richard Boyatzis and Melvin Smith are professors in the De- partment of Organizational Behavior, Weatherhead School of Management, and Nancy Blaize is an MBA graduate of Weath- erhead School of Management. Communications should be sent to the first author. The authors wish to thank Professors Kathy Kram and Jane Dutton for feedback on earlier drafts and mem- bers of the Coaching Study group at Case.

� Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2006, Vol. 5, No. 1, 8 –24.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

8

others as leaders, we offer a new perspective— one suggesting that the process of coaching others may actually allow leaders to increase their own sus- tainability as a result of the physiological effects of experiencing compassion, which can serve as an antidote to stress (see Figure 1). We also offer other potential benefits (in addition to a potential risk) of experiencing compassion from coaching others, and acknowledge other means of experi- encing compassion outside of the coaching rela- tionship. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the implications for future research on leadership and leadership development, as well as implica- tions for leadership development and education.

LEADERSHIP, POWER STRESS, AND THE BODY’S RESPONSE

Leadership requires the exercise of influence or power (Kotter, 1982; McClelland, 1985; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1990). It requires having an impact on others and making things happen. It also involves a de- gree of responsibility for the organization. Further, the higher a person is elevated in an organization, the more “power” is involved in their role (Kotter, 1979), because they must influence the behavior and decisions of people upon whom they depend for organizational performance and for whom they are responsible. Success and effectiveness in lead- ership positions have been shown to be predicted by a leader’s power motivation (McClelland, 1985; McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982; Fontana et al., 1987; Jenkins, 1994; Jacobs & McClelland, 1994) when modified by unconscious and conscious self- control.

The exercise of leadership does not require that a person be in a powerful position (i.e., the boss). For example, a person could show thought leader-

ship by declaring an innovation. But both involve influencing others and, therefore, the use of pow- er—the former to get compliance or inspire perfor- mance, the latter to get consideration or accep- tance of ideas. It is the use of power or influence that distinguishes leadership, not the power differ- ential between the leader and others in terms of formal organizational authority (Quinn, 2004). It is precisely this behavioral or functional requirement that distinguishes individuals who are exercising leadership. When this is not viewed as part of the role or activity, the person is less effective (McClel- land, 1975; McClelland & Burnham, 1976). Further- more, such influencing or exercising of power is a major role requirement of individuals in manage- ment or executive jobs (Kotter, 1979).

Being in situations that are perceived to be un- controllable, those involving social evaluation (i.e., others observing and judging), and involving com- mitment to reaching important or salient goals or tasks, or being in situations that merely anticipate events invoking these perceptions and feelings seems to provoke stress more than being in other types of situations (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004; Sapolsky, 2004). Because individuals in leadership roles have to influence others upon whom they are dependent so that they might do their jobs, and since they may feel responsible for the collective effort and desired progress of the organization, they are frequently, if not daily, in situations that invoke stress. That is, they are personally working on things that are important to them, somewhat uncertain, and that often involve others watching or critiquing. Each condition may invoke stress.

This suggests that leaders are under a steady flow of stress related to the exercise of power and its responsibility. This could be labeled chronic stress, with episodes of acute stress (emerging

FIGURE 1 Theoretical Model of Sustainable Leadership and Compassion

2006 9Boyatzis, Smith, and Blaize

from a sudden or unexpected crisis). This combi- nation of stress is said to increase the “allostatic load” on individuals (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004; Ray, 2004; Segerstrom & Miller, 2004), which can lead to a variety of deleterious consequences.

As a result of this demand for influencing others and the increased responsibility of the position, leaders experience a form of stress called “power stress” (McClelland, 1985) to differentiate it from other causes or types of stress, such as stress that might result from loneliness, being rejected, fear of failure, or physical exhaustion. That is, power stress is part of the experience that results from the exercise of influence and sense of responsibility felt in leadership positions. In addition, to be ef- fective as a leader requires the regular exercise of self-control: placing the good of the organization above personal impulses and needs (McClelland, 1975; McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). This exercise of self-control is also stressful (Baumeister, Heather- ton, & Tice, 1994; Sapolsky, 1999, 2004), with or with- out the exercise of influence. In other words, to inhibit an impulse, deny an urge, or hold back from saying something requires exertion of energy, con- sciously or unconsciously. A person must take at- tention from other thoughts or functions to focus on controlling a thought, feeling, or action. To sustain the self-control requires constant exercise of this focus and energy. Therefore, effective leadership invokes both power stress and stress from the ex- ercise of self-control frequently resulting in the likelihood of the experience of chronic power stress.

The experience of power stress, like most forms of stress, arouses the sympathetic nervous system (SNS), which initiates the classic fight or flight physical response (Cannon, 1935; Steele, 1973, 1977; McClelland, 1985; McClelland & Jemmott, 1980; Mc- Clelland, Ross, & Patel, 1985; McClelland, Floor, Davidson, & Saron, 1980; Schultheiss, 1999; Schul- theiss & Brunstein, 2002; Schultheiss & Rohde, 2002; LeDoux, 2002; Sapolsky, 1999, 2004; McEwen, 1998).

Physiological Responses to Stress

When stress causes the arousal of the SNS, it re- sults in increased secretion of multiple neurotrans- mitters including epinephrine and norepinephrine, associated with activation of the body through the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) and the sympathetic-adrenal medullary axis (Sapolsky, 1999, 2004; LeDoux, 2002), as shown in Figure 2. Individuals experience an increase in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (DeQuattro & Feng, 2002; Sapolsky, 2004). At the same time, blood flow is redirected to the large muscle groups (Sapolsky,

2004). Meanwhile, even neural circuitry is reallo- cated, in the sense that the brain appears to focus on those circuits deemed necessary for survival (LeDoux, 2002) and activation of the right prefrontal cortex (RPFC) greater than the left prefrontal cortex (LPFC; Sullivan & Gratton, 1998; Davidson, Jackson, & Kalin, 2000; Davidson et al., 2003). Cortisol is secreted from the adrenal gland and causes dys- regulation of inflammation (Davidson et al., 2003) in part by decreasing the body’s ability to fight infection by suppressing cell-mediated immunity (McEwen, 1998; Saper, 2002; Rosenkranz et al., 2003). Cortisol has the additional impact of overexciting neurons and inhibiting the potential growth of neural tissue through normal neurogenesis (Erick- son et al., 1998; Davidson et al., 2003; LeDoux, 2002; McEwen, 1998; Sapolsky, 1996, 1999, 2004; Zull, 2002).

This arousal of the SNS and activation of the right prefrontal cortex (greater than the left) have been shown to be related to specific emotions, such as fear and disgust (Davidson et al., 1990). Other negative affect, such as feeling depressed or anxious and “unpleasant engagement with the en- vironment” has been related to such neural circuits (Tomarken et al., 1992) as well.

The chronic release of glucocorticoids (e.g., cor- tisol) from the adrenal gland has immunosuppres- sive effects (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004; Miller, Co- hen, Pressman, Barjkin, Rabin, & Treanor 2004; Petrovsky, 2001; Segerstrom & Miller, 2004). One study showed that people with the leadership mo- tive pattern (i.e., high need for power, higher than the need for affiliation, and high in self-control as defined in McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982) showed consistently lower levels of immunoglobulin A (S- IgA), an accepted indicator of immune system functioning (McClelland, Locke, et al., 1982). How- ever, it has also been shown that chronic stress may enhance immunoglobulin production, leading to an inappropriate antibody response, thereby in- creasing the possibility of autoimmune disorders, such as diabetes (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004; Miller, Cohen, Pressman, Barjkin, Rabin, & Treanor 2004; Segerstrom & Miller, 2004).

Many common human diseases are attributed, in part, to overactivation of the SNS and what is often called a heavy “allostatic load,” including hyper- tension, myocardial infarction, chronic infections and peptic ulcer disease, autoimmune disorders, obesity, influenza, cardiac arrhythmias, heart fail- ure, diabetes, and susceptibility to cancer (David- son et al., 2003; McEwen, 1998; Sapolsky, 1999, 2004). For example, hypertension in young adults is thought to be due to chronic stimulation of the SNS, activating norepinephrine pathways from the brain to the kidneys, skeletal muscle and heart

10 MarchAcademy of Management Learning & Education

(DeQuattro & Feng, 2002). Peptic ulcer disease is caused, in part, by the presence of the bacteria helicobacter pylori. In this case, stress decreases the body’s ability to defend and heal from such infections and promotes the formation of ulcers; the immune system is dysregulated by chronic stress, causing a decline in its function and ensu- ing disease.

Stress and Sustainability

Extensive studies have shown that the body’s re- action to stress involves more than the stimulation of the SNS; it also involves the abatement of the parasympathetic nervous systems (PSNS; McEwen, 1998; Sapolsky, 1999, 2004). While the sympathetic nervous system is responsible for the body’s ability to react quickly and effectively to physical or emo- tional provocation, the parasympathetic nervous system is responsible for recovery from such ex- citement and for keeping the body functioning at basal levels (i.e., at rest; McEwen, 1998; Sapolsky, 2004).

The arousal of stress prepares individuals to

deal with crisis in the short run. With chronic or repeated activation in the long run, it makes the body susceptible to infection, myocardial events, and gastrointestinal distress, as well as disturbing sleep patterns and other normal human functions (Sapolsky, 1999). Prolonged exposure to stress and arousal of the SNS does harm to the body, in effect draining one’s energy and capability to function and innovate (McEwen, 1998).1 McClelland (1985) summarized a study suggesting that people high in need for power will not experience power stress to the same degree as others. When in power- arousing situations or roles, they may experience sufficiently less power stress so as to not show the same deleterious effects of power stress on the immune system. But the negative effects of chronic power stress on other aspects of neuroendocrine, cardiovascular, or gastrointestinal functions of the

1 Studies of women suggest a slightly different response to stress, but one that still involves arousal of the SNS (Taylor et al., 2002).

FIGURE 2 The Power Stress Syndrome

2006 11Boyatzis, Smith, and Blaize

body, such as those resulting from being in a lead- ership role, have not been explored in this context.

Some scholars contend that genetic disposition determines which people are more likely to expe- rience stress and its negative effects than others with such genes (Nicholson, 2002). While individ- ual differences to stress are expected, as are dif- ferences in the severity of secretions emanating from arousal of the SNS, the dynamics of gene expression are believed to have more impact and may literally override inherited dispositions (E. H. Davidson, 2001; Lickliter & Honeycutt, 2003; Wil- liams, Barefoot, Blumenthal, Helms, Luecken, Pieper, Siegler, & Suarez, 1997). Gene expression appears to be affected by environmental condi- tions, behavioral patterns, diet, and self-manage- ment activities (Williams et al., 1997). Therefore, many medical researchers now believe that ge- netic determination may have less impact on cer- tain physiological processes than the summary of one’s experiences and surrounding conditions.

Unchecked or unbalanced behavior in leader- ship positions, especially if the person is arousing their self-control in order to be effective, will result in damage over time. This may be experienced and labeled as “burnout,” “burn up,” “fatigue,” an in- ternal sense of restlessness or boredom, and other maladies and illnesses. Due to the impact of chronic stress on limiting neural functioning and learning, including the potential for future learn- ing from neurogenesis (Sapolsky, 2004), we believe a leader who is effective but experiencing chronic power stress will lose some ability to adapt, learn, and stay healthy. As a result, that person will have difficulty sustaining the mental, emotional, per- ceptual, and behavioral processes that enabled him or her to be effective. In this way leadership, and in particular effective leadership, is less sus- tainable over time, (as shown in Figure 1). We therefore suggest that, sustained effective leader- ship will be adversely affected by the power stress aroused in the process of fulfilling the leadership role.

COACHING LEADERS TO BE EFFECTIVE

Research on how effective leaders developed in their careers continues to point to mentors, coaches, or those who helped them along the wa

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.