The world of Venture Capital and venture-backed start-ups is definitely a world of “alpha males” (even the females!) There is a huge value placed on toughness and force and “the ability to get things done”. But how much of that is really because that style is effective…and how much just because everyone is afraid of losing respect if they look “weak”?

I have watched conflicts arise and get worse (when I know people really want to work together), watched people draw false and very negative conclusions about another (who I know really wants to be liked), seen deals fall apart and people lose their jobs when it really doesn’t have to happen…all because someone is afraid of not looking strong. In truth, in all those instances, true strength would have been being honest, saying “I’m sorry” or “I don’t know” or “I was wrong”.

I have also seen leaders who had the courage (and knew when) to reveal themselves in service of modeling humility and the ability to make mistakes, who weren’t afraid to show that they cared, who had enough confidence to admit when they didn’t know (but would figure it out). Those were the leaders I thought were really strong.

Can you be the one to “buck the trend”? To show real courage?

I’m afraid more and more I see the opposite — organizations that are afraid. A friend and I were talking about this today, how the fact of the matter is a lot of organizational leadership is about making decisions you know are likely to be “wrong” (or as a CEO I worked with liked to say, specifically wrong but directionally correct). But rather than accept the idea that the best they can hope for is to be “right enough” to have the chance to course correct later, many organizational (and individuals) move into paralyzing fear.

Of course, if the people thought it was ok to admit they were afraid, they might be able to move through the fear. Instead, they seem to adopt any number of ineffective “fear minimization techniques” — excessive arguing, never making decisions, criticism and blame of someone else if something goes wrong, “us vs. them” fueds, avoidance, etc.

As Jack Kornfield puts it in A Path with Heart, our fear causes us to “contract”, to begin building a “false sense of self”. Rather than say we don’t know, or feel the anxiety of not being sure, we limit our choices, make hasty decisions or refuse to decide, snap at whoever brings issues up, isolate ourselves…We cut ourselves off from asking for help, enlisting others in the decision, really looking at where the fear comes from. Instead we put forward a “false self” that seems bigger and more confident (and less approachable) than we really are.

Unfortunately, fear in organizations is contagious. The “contracted behavior” from one person triggers contracted behavior in others. The CEO becomes critical of any ideas, so the VP’s begin to join the game of “criticize others but offer nothing yourself”, so “us and them” wars spring up between departments so the employees begin taking less responsibility….Pretty soon you have an organization where nothing positive can happen.

It can be confusing to me coming into an organization like this. I can feel all the blocks, but no one else is willing to admit they are there — because if they admit it they will have to change it, which they think means they have to go back to feeling the fear they have defended against. But the “blocks” CAN be taken down, if enough people within the organization are able to take one more risk…with help.

Is your organization in fear? Think about the last time you openly discussed a new idea, or identified a problem, or took on the responsibility to try something new…Don’t you miss it?

Although I have seen multiple formats for review forms, they all (according to law) should include 3 parts — progress against goals (what), feedback on effectiveness (how) and a section of development planning. The “progress against goals” section provide clarity of direction and the definition of “success”. Ideally, the goals for each employee should be derived directly from the organizational goals and priorities. These goals should be measurable and objective — the employee should be able at any time to know how well he or she is doing against those goals. If the company direction or priorities change (which should only happen if there is a significant change in the environment), it should trigger a formal revisiting of the employee’s goals by the manager.

Although this section should be the easiest on which to rate the employee, many companies don’t do a good job of setting measurable goals in advance, so that when it comes time for the review the manager is left scrounging for notes on what the employee actually did. A good planning process that involves all senior leaders can ensure that every group has identified the contributions they need to make to company success — and then the manager can link individual goals to these group goals.

The “feedback on effectiveness” section addresses those employees that get results, but at a huge cost to the rest of the organization. In this section, the employee is rated against “performance factors” — qualitative characteristics that reflect the company’s desired culture. There is a need to be careful in defining these factors — the company should be able to prove that these “soft skills” are directly linked to success, and they cannot measure “attitude” or be used as a way to discriminate.

Finally, the “development” section of the review process should enable the employee and the manager to agree on which one or two skills the employee needs to develop in order to grow in value to the organization, Ideally, one of the elements of the company culture should be a commitment to getting and addressing feedback — this section allows the manager to work with the employee to agree on what and how the employee will focus development energy, and how progress will be measured.

So if the performance review process is so basic, why do managers hate it? Partly because the process has either been made too complex, or the company does not engage in a planning process that provides the framework for establishing goals and performance factors. Or perhaps the manager has never learned how to effectively deliver feedback. All of these are indicators of a gap that will hurt the company in other areas also.

• Download Slides (N=2)

“I get to have my own way – but I have to come up with all the ideas”
Have you ever dreamed about never having to influence or persuade or compromise?  Our CEO’s admit that is sometimes fun – but the downside is that when everyone else is looking to someone “more senior, with more experience” to come up with the next great idea…you have only yourself.  And somehow people seem to equate “CEO” with “always has the right answer”.  Part of being the CEO is being able and willing to make the decision or take the action without full knowledge or certainty – or as one CEO explains “I am often wrong but seldom uncertain”.

“I have to recognize that not everyone works like me”
At one time or another, almost every CEO we work with has asked us, “why don’t they just do what they are supposed to?”  Many of the leaders we work with are self-motivated, high achievers who, when faced with a problem figure out an answer and make it happen. Often these leaders have figured out exactly what their organization needs to do – but have to acknowledge that it takes more than they can do single-handedly.  They are happy to hire others, and even seem at ease hiring people who are better than they are – but still they struggle to maintain their patience during the endless doubt and debate and alternative agendas and misaligned priorities.  Many believe that the most critical trait of a CEO is tirelessness – having endless energy to listen and repeat and process and keep trying.  Or as one of our clients stated – “I never knew as a CEO that I would have to spend as much time selling internally and externally”.

“It seems to require both baring my soul and suppressing my feelings”
In a particularly tense coaching moment, one of our clients asked in all seriousness, “is this a moment when I am supposed to share my true feelings or pretend I don’t have any”.  As our CEO clients explain, being a leader requires both.  There is tremendous power in a CEO sharing his or her vulnerabilities and authentic emotions.  Sometimes it is up to the CEO to make the first move to mend a fence, to “be the bigger person”, to create the space and put into words the doubts or fears that are paralyzing the rest of the organization.  At other times, leadership requires “rising above”, not reacting or giving in to worries or hurts or crises of confidence.

“I have to have enough faith for us all”
Just like a child needs to believe in the omnipotence of her parents, an organization needs to believe that their leader not only can but will at all costs achieve success.  Many times we have heard from employees “our CEO believed in us more than we believed in ourselves”.  It can sometimes be a tricky balancing act to see and plan for all possible risks without letting your faith and determination crack.  A CEO needs to balance humility with confidence, practicality with stubbornness, and above all needs to remember that the most powerful motivational tool they have is their own belief.

The  1776 has a wonderful passage about George Washington,

“…he saw things as they were, and he saw himself as he was.  As subject as any man to moments of doubt and uncertainty, he managed to summon the self-confidence necessary to persevere amid disaster.  He was committed heart and soul to the cause, resilient, open to new ideas and seldom failed to learn from his mistakes.  Through the often dark year…he would not only overcome his own fears but help his countrymen conquer theirs, too…”

This beautifully captures what we see as the job – and the key challenge – for a CEO.

Still want the job?  We believe it can be a joyous and rewarding, but challenging journey – and we want to help!

Relevant Link
CEO Coaching

Related Tools
CEO Role
CEO Competencies

Our Philosophy on Executive Coaching
In our experience, coaching centers on two types of conversation. In the first type of conversation, the coach gives advice utilizing behavioral feedback about specific actions, behaviors and strategies. This type of coaching focuses on specifying what a person should do and how they should do it.

In the second type of conversation, the coach and the executive explore how the individual thinks about the situation and how their “mindset” influences their choice of behavior. This “orientation focus” exposes assumptions and requires more questioning about the reasoning and beliefs that lead to action.

We find that both kinds of “coaching” are important in enhancing executive performance. While short term change in an executiveís behavior requires focus on behavior, long term change requires a deeper exploration about how the executive conceptualizes his or her role, style, and the value he or she needs to bring to the organization.

Our Approach
Where possible, measurable outcomes for the coaching process should be connected to the organizationís business goals. These outcomes can be constructed by:

• determining the contribution the executive needs to make to the business goals
• identifying how coaching will help him or her act more effectively to contribute to those goals
• using a 360-degree feedback process to determine areas of desired improvement
• utilizing the organizationís performance management process to identify areas of desired improvement

Coaching outcomes should be measurable and associated with a specific timeframe. The outcomes should include only those areas which are completely within the power of the executive to achieve. They should be agreed upon by the executive, his or her manager, and the coach. Measurement methods and provisions for regular feedback from the manager should be arranged.

The Focus
Executive coaching is not therapy. Although many coaches are trained in psychology, and the coaching relationship may naturally touch on the executiveís feelings or how his or her behavior in aspects of his or her personal life result in issues similar to work, the focus of the relationship should be on business-related behavior.

The Framework
The key to successful coaching is regular, structured contact. It is helpful if a three-way relationship can be constructed with the executive, his or her manager, and the coach. The roles for each member can be negotiated, but it is important to combine behind the scenes work to explore alternative behaviors with real time observation as the executive begins to try these new behaviors.

Frequently it is helpful to begin the coaching relationship with some kind of data gathering, so that the coach can present the executive with the real costs of the behavior. It is also vital to hold a three-way conversation with the executive, the coach and the manager, so that all parties agree on the objectives, timeframes and roles.

The executive and the coach should meet regularly, gathering feedback on how the new behaviors are working and exploring the next challenge the executive will face. As desired, the coach may also observe the executive in these situations, in order to allow more detailed feedback.

Frequency, Location and Format for Coaching Sessions
The coach provides value by giving the executive both objective feedback and suggestions about alternative behavior. In order for this feedback to be specific and helpful, the coach needs to observe the behavior directly (as well as to gather data about the reactions of others to the behavior). Therefore, the coach must be allowed to observe the executive in action (allowing for the desired confidentiality of the coaching relationships, as well as the continued effectiveness of the executive).

Therefore, at least at first, much of the coaching sessions need to be in person. The coach can combine one-on-one sessions with observations of the executive at meetings and/or data gathering using instruments or interviews. For the most part, feedback and suggestions for alternate behaviors should be made in private to the executive. The coach may make separate recommendation for the executive to read, attend workshops, or engage in additional training beyond the scope of the coaching relationship. Agreements for these should be made separately and specifically, not necessarily assumed to be covered by the coaching contract.

The time frame, frequency of meeting, and payment terms should be agreed upon by the executive, the coach, and the representative of the client organization. Since change takes time, a minimum of 2-4 hours a week for the first month (in person as much as possible), two hours twice a month for two additional months, and monthly check-ins for three additional months is recommended.

Month 1	Month 2-3	Month 4-12
2-4 hours/week	2 hours, twice a month	1-2 hours monthly
in person (on site)	in person/phone	in person/phone

Confidentiality
Specific provisions for confidentiality should be made at the beginning of the coaching relationship. It should be stated directly who knows about the relationship, and what explanation will be given for the coachís presence. It should also be stated directly who has access to any data gathered by the coach, and whether the coach will report separately to the executive’s manager. Any other limits to the relationship should be stated expressly during the contracting period.

Download Skill Inventory

• VP Marketing
• VP Engineering
• Founder
• CEO

Here are some guidelines that can help:

Suggestions for scheduling
Before delegating your schedule to an administrative assistant, you first need to list all standing meetings, the standard times you commit to being “in the office” i.e. office hours and “sacred” time that is hours that are reserved for you for reflection and to prepare work products.

Approved meetings
List all those meetings and/or people who can be scheduled without further information.

Meeting criteria
For all other meetings that are proposed, you are going to want your administrative assistant to collect certain information about the meeting at a minimum:

• Purpose
• Attendees
• Topics to be covered
• Decisions to be made
• Preparation/information needed/available

Based on the above, you are going to want to retain the right to make a “yes” or “no” decision about whether to attend the meeting.

Approved phone calls
List all those people who can be put through without further information
A best practice is to prepare a call list of phone calls you need to initiate and/or return and make those calls together in one block of time.