This is ‘awareness’ and ‘responsibility’ that John Whitmore eloquently explains in ‘Coaching for Performance’.

Martin

Specifically, I work with a product called the Enterprise Process Center. The EPC has a number of modules that allow for crisis management. There is a risk management module which allows you to visualize risks within processes and mitigate those risks by implementing controls on user activities. In addition, simulation functions allow you to simulate potential changes to processes before they are implemented - a cost saving measure.

Crisis managment is an issue that will continue to become a prominent discussion point in businesses around the world. Governments today use BPM software for crisis management, so why shouldn’t companies? I suggest taking a look at the site, it’s at least useful to read up on the latest software available.

Few could argue with your viewpoint that corporate ethics must ’start at the top,’ as you put it.

Organizations can have all the manuals about ethical behavior that they want, but the bottom line is that the behavior of both the board and that of CEO set the standard, and the behavior of staff generally tends to reflect the standards set at the top in the majority of cases.

You alluded to the role of government in fostering corporate social responsibility and accountability. In my opinion, the government has a part to play in three key areas:

(1) Defining standards of expected behavior - this is done at a national level by the setting of laws which define minimum acceptable standards, as well as through international frameworks, such as the UN Global Compact, which spell out principles which companies should follow in order to be ‘good’ companies.

(2) Setting an example - by striving to conduct their own affairs and those of their departments or state-owned enterprises in a fashion which sets a positive example for organizations to follow.

(3) Punishing negative behavior and rewarding positive behavior - unacceptable conduct should always be punished, but governments could also seek to reward socially benevolent corporate behavior. Tax breaks or subsidies, for example, could be awarded for the employment of physically disabled individuals.

What Is Executive Coaching?

Broadly defined, executive coaching is a one-on-one consulting relationship dedicated to improving high-level managers’ leadership capabilities and performance. Close to 60 percent of U.S. corporations employ coaches, and approximately 10,000 executive coaches are practicing today.

Coaching helps conquer ingrained leadership behaviors in ways that few other developmental approaches can muster. Senior executives value the privacy the experience affords, while managers appreciate learning how to coach their direct reports.

No coach, no matter how talented, can effect change and development in a leader who fails to understand how barriers can sabotage one’s efforts. When executives agree to change and improve, coaching works. When they see themselves as responsible for making change, coaching once again works. The return on investment for organizations is exponential.

As the person-being-coached allows his or her perceptions to evolve, this new self-awareness has great leverage in improving the person’s behavior and this can positively affect corporate performance. That is why the corporation agrees to pay for the personal coaching engagement.

However, when the coach is more concerned about his fiduciary responsibility to the corporate sponsor (who is paying the coaching fees) than the person-being-coached, lapses in trust and confidentiality of coaching relationship can easily occur. Once trust and confidentiality are in question because of ‘offline conversations’ between the coach and the corporate sponsor, the executive and leadership coaching relationship loses its power to positively impact personal and corporate development.

After all, there are no secrets in business.

The difference between managing human capital poorly and extremely well can be as high as 500% per person productivity and extremely high morale. People are about four times as capable as commonly expected, but very few managers know this. I concur that proper planning is a must, but treating people like they really are your most important resource and causing them to become self-directed is far more important than proper planning because self-directed people will correct any planning deficiencies on their own in order to succeed.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of managers use some form of the traditional top-down command and control approach to managing people. At its worst it totally demotivates and demoralizes employees, but even at its best it fails completely to cause employees to unleash their full potential.

To understand how to move from the bottom to the top of this spectrum of performance, I invite you to read these Leadership Articles starting with the article “Leadership, Good or Bad”.

Best regards, Ben