All entries for Friday 19 February 2016
February 19, 2016
There are lot of definitions for coaching, but one which inspired me was "coaching is about helping or assisting people to solve their own problems". Its leader job to coach its team members not guide. Agree! If i had got an opportunity to coach Hitler, how would it look like. His objective was to kill people and invade world no matter how much destruction it causes. If i would have been coaching according to the definition which inspired me, then i would have suggested some good bombs, poisnous gases, powerful tanks, some war moves and many other ways to kill. It was not just the Hilter's fault for massive destruction, all of his brigade was as responsible as Hilter, because they were till some point assisting Hitler how to achieve his goal. If they could have taken off the cap of coaching at that time, they might have suggested something else or given a strong opposition to his idea.
If coaching means persuading and motivating someone to solve their own problem, then why do we need a coach. Coach should coach and sometimes direct as well even if it is against the will of other person. All humans are born with different instincts and traits. They might think, whatever they are doing is the right thing to do, but if its fundamentaly wrong, then it need to be stopped imediately. Because expence of such learning can be very high. There might be possibility that at sometime Hitler would have realised his mistake and had learnt something, but that was too late.
Leader should use a mix of coahing and direction to assist his team to solve their problems. Because there is no alternative to experience. If leader knows from his expereince that some of his team member is doing something fundamentally wrong and he knows the consequences, in this case he should direct his team member. But if leader feels his team member is heading towards right direction but is stucked somewhere, then he should coach him about, how does his team member thinks it should be resolved and then should build on suggestions of his team member to coach properly.
Leader is an agent of shareholders and his primary goal is to maximize the wealth of shareholders. If his coaching process is costing lot of money to shareholders then shareholders will either withdraw their money or change him, both of them are not good for a company. By using mix of direction and coaching, he can maximize shareholders wealth along with promoting the culture to learn and solve their problem on their own. This will be beneficial in lon run, as team members will be able to solve their own problems as it will give leaders some extra time to think about other issues. Resulting in improved performance of overall team.
From my past accounting academic background, we were taught how to control the cost and keep an eye on increasing cost. Most importantly find the reason for increasing cost and try to relate its impact on the revenue generated. Increasing cost were termed as "Adverse impact". It was very important to relate every cost, that if it is contributing to increasing revenue or not. Like if training expence, marketing, raw material costs were increasing they use to have an poitive impact on reveneus as well. But it was very difficult to make direct link between CSR and revenue in short run, as accounting records are updated on very short term basis. So CSR expence use to be our first target to cut down, when we wished to control or reduce costs. I think its just difference of perception for the treatment of CSR in accounting terms as expence where as it is an investment in future, if CSR activity is in line with your vision and helping to promote the brand. Because at sometimes alot of successfull products are launched under the umbrella of brand with positive image.
There is difference in accounting investment and investment in customer brains for soft image of brand. Accounting investment normally consists of capital(long term but in something tangible or non tangible) or revenue(short term used in a year). CSR is normally treated as revenue expenditure which i realize is quite different despite which it should have been. CSR is sort of capital investment which you are doing in future to strengthen your brand. It is very important to note that CSR doesn't and shouln't mean throwing away money without adding value to business. CSR should be some positve socially respoinsbile acitivity which helps to generate value and recognition for business in long run as well.
As organizations are an important player in socities, so are socities an important stakeholder to businesses. In many cases, socities provide important input to businesses interms of employees motivation, their skills and engagement to make business more successfull, suppliers and customers. CSR is investment in the future inputs to increase the quality of inputs. If operations of some business is making the lives of socities around misereable, someday in future that misery will enter the organization as input and ruin all its performance. Because we have one plannet for all living beings, its very important to take care of it. It's more like "GIVE AND TAKE". Think about them, they'll think about you. It might take some time, but they will. Becaue humans are attached to emotions, which sometimes connects them to some organization or products.