Learning to act right (6)…. Learning to be accountable.

Learning to act right (6)…. Learning to be accountable.
Torrey Orton
April 16, 2010

"It was my fault …"

… said James, an executive coach, as he worked over a recent incident in his practice. He has in hand a rising CEO, Tom, with a commitment to developing interpersonal and group sensitivities and competences, especially under pressure and/or in conflict. Half way into a six month coaching process James began thinking some structured group work would be useful as a complement to and extension of their one-to-one work.
James's thinking had been prompted by a professional colleague's (Anne) mention of a new relationship skills program she had designed. She was building on her extensive experience with a variety of group-work formats and focuses. She was ready to run a trial group and was networking for potential participants. Fees would be nominal.

James agreed to nominate a client after a few further chats with A. This was Tom, who J. encouraged to attend on the grounds he was ready for and could use the enlarged growth opportunities of group work. T. signed up, paid up (6 sessions in advance) for a two hour evening session a week with 8 other exec's in training.

"I want my $ back…"
J stayed in touch with T's experience, but it was not the main focus of their work. Not, that is, until T. reported having walked out of the final session with A. in a stir of disappointment at the process. He felt it had not really been what it was claimed to be in the pre-work documents, or J.'s description of it, or the facilitator's (A.) work style. "I want my $ back" T. said at the next meeting with J. he had also made the same request of A. and her organisation.

It became clear to J. that T. had not been an appropriate candidate for A's program – an impression confirmed when he suggested T. go back to A. to see if he could clarify his perception of what the program was supposed to be. This perception was the basis of T's sense of betrayal by the program, and by A. and, implicitly, by J. T. agreed but was not able to follow it through.

J. realised that the responsibility for T's experience and its resolution was his. He had over-rated T's development at the time and under-rated the shortcomings of A's design. He had for a number of understandable, but, it turned out, inappropriate reasons misjudged this opportunity for everyone. He entered it under some time pressure to nominate someone, had wanted to help A. get her new program up and, indirectly, to support A.'s organisation in its business development efforts. This combination, along with J.'s tendency to over-estimate client development on the basis of development achieved in coaching, produced the mismatch, and he sat at the centre of it.

So, rectification was his to achieve, including financial aspects. The highest possible refund was <$500, so dollars were not the issue, though differently for T. and A. They were the currency of their relationship.
For J., the basic framework for taking up his responsibility was the concurrent and continuing coaching process with Tom. One of its core themes at the time of this disappointment was how to negotiate perceived performance failures, and that's where J started – with his own misjudgement of both T and A. He explicitly took charge of the follow-up individually with T., Anne, and the head of her organisation (who offered to cover any refund if it was eventually agreed; J. refused).


Finales
J. met with T. in an unpaid consultation to explore the experience, with a focus on how T. had been disappointed to the point of not being able to raise it with A. until too late, both emotionally and temporally. J. also participated in a debrief with A. and her organisation, seeking to understand what actually happened and how it might be approached differently. This included review of how the program was promoted and conducted to reduce future prospects of such misunderstandings and or mis-fits. In both events major growth occurred for all participants, including J.