CASE STUDY:
P&G Improves Coaching — By Listening
Seeker and Helper Roles
In the Seeker role, select an issue that is significant, current and unresolved. It should have to do with relating to others. The situation is difficult, it needs to be changed and you care about the outcome. The person in this role is practicing the skills of reaching out for perspective and help.
In the Helper role, the person is practicing listening and coaching skills with the intent to help the Seeker see, think, feel and plan. Issues are rarely as simple as they might first appear. The current concern is often only a symptom of a bigger issue that needs to be addressed. Often it is important to listen and then ask questions which probe deep enough to dig beneath the surface to understand what the issue means to the Seeker. As the Helper, find out who is involved, try to clarify things, be supportive, ask open-ended questions, (yes/no questions add little) tolerate ambiguity, keep cool, maintain a sense of humor and do not problem solve.
Observer and Facilitator Roles
The Observer role calls for careful listening so this person can coach both the Seeker and the Helper. How well do the Seeker and Helper listen to each other? How sensitive is the Helper to the level of tension in the Seeker? Does the Helper stay in role or become a parent, judge, social worker or prosecutor? Does the Helper blame people or take sides instead of trying to understand the complexity of the issue in a complicated work situation?
The Facilitator was expected to observe and listen carefully to the group interaction and their use of LEAD group process, as well as assist when needed. Facilitators were from HR at P&G, the university, and the professional community.
LEAD Group Composition
The LEAD Groups where constructed by taking into account gender, race, age, years in current role and workplace discipline (process engineering, consumer research, analytical, packing technology, etc), career track (Principal Scientist or Section Head) in order to have as diverse a group as possible since diversity is seen as a positive factor in innovation. Further, to assure diversity as well as improve the chance of building unlikely personal networks, researchers¹ separated people who were in the same business units such that no one in a person’s group would have been part of their normal work group. Therefore these were diverse teams that represented, as much as possible, the total membership of the College in each LEAD Group.
In addition, the order of participant presentation —that is, the order of the Seekers —was determined by a case classification which we established to help order the cases from least to most complex. One of four classifications were assigned to each case as judged by the university research group: 1) personal, 2) interpersonal, 3) technical or 4) systems. That is progressing from relatively “simple” to more complex organizational issues.
Usually there were six participants in a group and eight to nine LEAD Groups per college. The LEAD Groups met for a three-hour block on Tuesday and another three-hour block on Thursday. During each three-hour block, three cases were discussed. Approximately forty-five minutes were spent on each case with short breaks between the cases.
¹Researchers: Klein led a group of colleagues and graduate students located in the Organizational Training and Evaluation Lab in the Psychology Department of the University of Cincinnati. Lab members included Ruth Joffe, Charmane Harrison, Mary Lou Kohne, Jenny Lang, Linda Little, Gerald Matthews, Ian Pritchard, James Short and Kristy Smith.