Coach Nina Reed
CoachForum Replies Created
-
On pages 82-94, the concept of generous authority is discussed in service of 3 goals: protecting guests, equalizing guests, and connecting guests. In our efforts to bring generous authority into Counterpart, a great start would be to normalize on what accomplishing those goals looks like for us as Portico coaches and facilitators. Ask questions like, “When we protect our guests, what does that look like? What does it include? What are we doing and not doing?” We should ask those questions for each goal, then work collaboratively to determine how we can accomplish those goals by way of those mentioned tasks. Although the Alamo Drafthouse example of generous authority that starts on page 83 is [to me] an extreme example of the practicing of generous authority, what is obvious is that they normalized on what would make their guests feel protected and established guidelines that would support their guests feeling this way. Once we determine what a protected, equalized, and connected guest should experience and how they should experience it, our work as Portico coaches and facilitators is to “enforce” these guidelines.
For example, if we decide that protecting a guest means inserting a comment at your specified time and only at that time, as Portico coaches and facilitators we are going to design an agenda that equally distributes talk time, then we will hold our attendees to the expectation of speaking during that time only. We can provide a note-catcher to attendees so they can jot down notes and/or questions, provide time during the agenda for Q&A and elaborating on comments, and other normalized practices that support effective meetings.
-
The displacement will be valued if the purpose is clear. If they know why we’re doing what we’re doing, I think they will value what it is that we do. The kindness of exclusion on pages 36-38 vividly illustrates the point I am attempting to make. It was difficult for everyone in the workout group to express their concerns about a plan that a fellow group member made. Through a deeper dig, they discovered why she even made the concerning suggestion–because she was not aware of the purpose.
Bringing this point home, if the school leaders know why we gather, I think they’ll be more accepting of the different tasks that are included in the actual gathering. Creating virtual venues that ensure the value of displacement starts with purpose and alignment. I had a great couple of meetings with one school leader in the Portico group, but she decided not to stay with the group because she was with middle school leaders and she was a high school leader. I think if she became more familiar with the WHY, specifically why she was there, she would have realized the level was not important and actually had no influence on the collaboration.
-
PROMPT: What ways can we set clear purposes for Copilot with each leader and Counterpart with a group of leaders at the beginning of each year?
Page 32 reads, “Make purpose your bouncer. Let it decide what goes into your gathering and what stays out.” In order to set clear purposes, I think it will be a great idea to divide the planning for Copilot and Counterparts into sections–quarters perhaps. July-September, October-December, January-March, April-June will be the quarters, and decide on the most efficient and practical purpose for each quarter. Consider what goes on in the schools during those times to most efficiently determine meeting content. Ask questions such as, “what needs to be discussed? Why does this need to be discussed? What are the intended outcomes–how will these discussions support school leaders?”
By asking what should be discussed during each quarter, we are determining our purpose [the WHY] and can plan content [the WHAT] that is based on the established purpose.
-
What have been your most effective tools and/or methods for forming relationships with individual school leaders as well as between school leaders this year?
I am discovering the benefits of making personal connections. Specifically, there’s something about being able to connect with a basis in experiences. Even if the experiences differ, I’ve been able to connect based on those differences. It’s beneficial for school leaders to acquaint themselves with the Coach, and it’s even more beneficial to reference those connections as the need presents itself during sessions.
An example of this–during one session I referenced my experience working in the charter sector. Although the school leader with whom I was speaking had no actual experience in charter schools, she did reference her knowledge of charter schools and asked about strategies charter schools use to connect with parents and the community since they can actually write “requirements” in their charter. I shared strategies, and we figured out how she could modify the work done in charter schools to make it relevant in her school. She experienced success with the plans we made!
-
@Jessica I agree with you here. I’m reading that you’re saying the first step is to ensure our understanding of generous authority. Not only ensure our understanding, but I think it would be a great idea to normalize a definition then somehow practice this during our Calibration meetings.</font>
-
@Jessica you’re absolutely right! Totally agree with you! Some topics remain constant, and I think highlighting those will support the intentionality that comes with the mighty task of planning. We’ll definitely be accepting of the fact that things and people will change, though! Thanks for this feedback!
-
@Ted, your response made realize that I did not elaborate as I should have. You are right, finding those commonalities is the first step. I’ve discovered that school leaders are more open and engaged when they have similar or even opportunistic interests.
-
Yes, Tracy! One thing the virtual setting has taught me to do is be intentional with the relationship-building that comes with effective coaching.