fieldnotes on executive coaching

yesterday I had my performance review conversation with my new boss. my review document had a 'developmental' comment that i had never heard before - to wit;

Consider ways to enhance executive presence so as to consistently position self as a role model to fellow leaders and staff by establishing immediate credibility through professional style.

This was followed by this statement:

Truly a smart, bright and insightful professional who should not hesitate to offer her voice in all forums and discussions, whether directly or indirectly related to immediate role and responsibilities.

and then lots of positive valuation of my 'transparency,' 'frankness,' tact,' and 'strong voice and leadership. "

so what did this 'executive presence' comment really mean? I was surprized, and really intruiged to hear what my boss was thinking and commenting on when he made this statement. He had a hard time clarifying what he meant. he used illustrative examples that all had to do with clothes - 'you know how kathy k dresses the part,' ' i felt awkward when i wasn't in a suit for a leadership presentation and i had wished someone had told me before hand how to present myself...' but he insisted it was not about my clothes. so what was it about? i let him off the hook, suggested that the firm give me an executive coach (which he jumped on and thought was a great idea) and then pondered for a day.

So what was it about me that makes it difficult for my own team leaders to establish 'instant credibility' with me? and how are these qualities perceived by the organization at large? was it just my leadership who has this challenge with me (i suspect it might be) or is this sentiment more broadly held by my internal clients as well? This is my new research project. here's why.

my organization spends an enormous amount of corporate energy promolgating the idea that they respect and value difference in their staff. they use the blanket term 'diversity' to cover a very broad range of 'differences,' and they say that difference has value because it brings more opinions and perspectives to the table, which is always 'good' because the alternative is 'group think,' which is bad, because it doesn't create room for progressive change.

i'm wondering what is different about me that cannot be incorporated into this 'diversity' spectrum? or more to the point, that my colleagues can't recognize as a 'legitimate' difference that they then must accept under the rubric of being supportive of diversity of perspective?

I have a suspicion that it's that 'transparency' thing......and perhaps also the fact that I am not a hieracrchical boss. To illustrate - we have an internal process called "PULSE" - a questionaire that asks our staff 20 questions every 6 months about how they feel about the relationship between the organization and themselves. My function consistently scores more low on questions relating to trust with leadership. My boss was discussing with me and wondered why this is still low, since the leaders 'are always available and all of them are always open to being asked anything.' and that's true. there are lots of 'ask me anything' forums - anonymous email boxes, submissions to webcasts, local face to face meetings. I pointed out, however, that 'ask me anything' is not the same as 'tell me your opinion.' the first reiterates a hierarchy of knowledge and in fact perpetuates the notion that leaders know things that underlings don't, and that they won't know about unless they ask. the second assumes that leaders have something to learn from their staff. I don't think my leaders think they have anything to learn, however, and that is exactly why they are not trusted.

more later.


I have a few different ideas, and i'm really looking forward to pursuing them with this coach person. they better be smart and good because i am going to work them hard.

i have a few different ideas on where to go with this.