Chiamaci  +39 02 495 395 73

20122 Milano, Italy - Via dei Pellegrini, 18

Contattaci

info@coachingroup.it

Maria Rosa Rocco

  • barish.yumerov
  • 23/02/2018

Maria Rosa Rocco opera sul mercato italiano da oltre 20 anni. Consulente per lo sviluppo organizzativo, utilizza il coaching e la formazione quali strumenti per raggiungere i cambiamenti desiderati, siano essi mirati semplicemente al miglioramento delle performance professionali sia invece più orientati alla costruzione di una condivisa cultura aziendale. E’ coach dal 1994, counsellor dal 2006 e nel 2011 ha avviato THE COACHINGROUP Srl.

Work-life balance, Leadership, Intelligenza Emotiva, Welfare, sono solo alcuni dei temi sui quali le piace confrontarsi. Ha ottenuto la certificazione per l’attività di coaching rilasciata congiuntamente da The international association for NLP di Milano e dal Centre for performance & alignment di Anversa; la certificazione all’uso dell’Individual Effectiveness, strumento di misurazione dell’intelligenza emotiva, il primo della seconda generazione degli studi in materia; la certificazione come Qualifed Operator in Applied Neuro-Alignment. Trainer certificata di PNL, con un Master in Comunicazione ed uno in Didattica, si è specializzata in “psicologia della comunicazione” presso l’Istituto Italiano di Programmazione Neurolinguistica.

Nel campo della PNL e del Coaching ha studiato con i maggiori esperti internazionali fra cui Robert Dilts, Jan Ardui, Peter Wrycza, Stephen Gilligan, Gianni Fortunato, John Whitmore, Jo Maddocks. E’ membro della International Coach Federation e di ICF Italia (chapter italiano); e membro di AICO (Ass.It. Counseling). Collabora con e rappresenta in Italia Performance Associates Ltd di Londra.

Finding the Balance Between Coaching and Managing

  • barish.yumerov
  • 28/03/2018

Trovare l’equilibrio fra dirigere le risorse e far loro coaching. Sempre di più viene richiesto ai Manager di supportare la crescita dei propri collaboratori con attività di coaching. E sempre più i dipendenti si aspettano e desiderano un approccio di coaching da parte del proprio manager. Un’attività di coaching efficace infatti, dicono ormai i risultati di molte ricerche, non solo aumenta la produttività, la motivazione, la fidelizzazione dei collaboratori ma, aumenta in loro anche la percezione di avere come capo un vero leader. Ma essere un buon coach per i propri collaboratori non è automatico per tutti. Sono necessarie alcune qualità, sensibilità e abilità particolari oltre che alcuni specifici atteggiamenti mentali. Nell’articolo che segue si parlerà di:  1) saper distinguere quando essere direttivi e quando fare coaching;  2) saper resistere alla tentazione di dare suggerimenti invece che aiutare il proprio collaboratore a trovare la sua migliore soluzione;  3) mantenere la relazione adulto-adulto e non cadere nel ruolo di chi si sente l’esperto e vede l’altro come il novellino, o peggio, un bambino.

 

 

logo

Di Jack Zenger e Joseph Folkman

Ask 100 people if they have good common sense, and more than 95% will tell you they do. Ask them if they are good coaches, and almost as many will say yes. Executives we talk to assume that if they’re good managers, then being a good coach is like your shadow on a sunny day. It just naturally follows. This would be good news, if it were so, since more and more top executives are expecting managers to coach their subordinates. In fact one at Wells Fargo announced that he expects the bank’s managers to dedicate fully two-thirds of their time to coaching subordinates. What’s more, employee surveys we’ve conducted over the past decade show that subordinates want coaching. Our own empirical evidence echoes myriad studies in finding that effective coaching raises employee commitment and engagement, productivity, retention rates, customer loyalty, and subordinates’ perception of the strength of upper-level leadership. Responses we’ve collected over the 10 years from some half-million individual contributors worldwide, evaluating about 50,000 of their managers in 360 reviews, show just about a perfect correlation between the leaders’ effectiveness in developing others and the level of their subordinates’ engagement and discretionary effort. Unfortunately, our long experience helping executives find and develop their strengths has taught us that coaching is not something that comes naturally to everyone. Nor is it a skill that is automatically acquired in the course of learning to manage. And done poorly, it can cause a lot of harm. What’s more, before they can be taught coaching skills, leaders need to possess some fundamental attributes, many of which are not common managerial strengths. Indeed, some run counter to the behaviors and attributes that get people promoted to managerial positions in the first place. Here are a few of the attributes we have recently begun to measure in an effort to determine what might predict who would make the most effective coaches. You’ll quickly see the conflict between traditional management practices and good coaching traits: Being directive versus being collaborative. Good managers give direction to the groups they manage, of course, and the willingness to exert leadership is often why they get promoted. But the most effective managers who are also effective coaches learn to be selective about giving direction. Rather than use their conversations as an opportunity to exert a strong influence, make recommendations, and provide unambiguous direction, they take a step back, and try to draw out the views of their talented, experienced staff.

A desire to give advice or to aid in discovery. Subordinates frequently ask managers questions about how they should handle various issues or resolve specific problems. And managers are often promoted to their positions because they are exceptionally good at solving problems. So no one should be surprised to find that many are quick to give advice, rather than taking time to help colleagues or subordinates discover the best solution from within themselves. The best coaches do a little of both.

An inclination to act as the expert or as an equal. We’ve all seen instances when the person with the most technical expertise has been promoted to a supervisory or managerial position. Organizations want leaders to understand their technology. So, naturally, when coaching others, some managers behave as if they possess far greater wisdom than the person being coached. But in assuming the role of guru, the wellmeaning manager may treat the person being coached as a novice, or even a child. Still, the excellent coach does not behave as a complete equal, with no special role, valued perspective, or responsibility in the conversation. How effective is your approach to coaching? We invite you take a coaching evaluation to see where you stand in comparison to outstanding business coaches. It will measure the how strongly you prefer to behave collaboratively or dictatorially, how prone you are to giving advice or enabling other people to discover answers for themselves, and how apt you are to exert your expertise or treat everyone as equals. While certainly the best coaches adjust their style to the particular person and situation at hand, we have found that there are ideal ranges on the scores for all six of these dimensions. Neuroscience is consistently reminding us that the brain is remarkably plastic. So even though we’ve found a strong correlation between certain traits you may not already possess and the ability to be an effective coach, we have found that people can learn to acquire them — if they are willing to work at it. What that takes is a willingness to step outside your comfort zone and behave in ways that may not be familiar. It’s just like learning to play golf or tennis. What feels awkward at first begins to be more comfortable in time. Leaders can learn to be more collaborative as opposed to always being directive. They can learn the skill of helping people to discover solutions rather than always first offering advice. They can learn how satisfying it is to treat others with consummate respect and to recognize that in today’s workforce, it is not unusual to have subordinates who are more comfortable with the latest technology than their leaders are.

Gli autori

Jack Zenger is the CEO of Zenger/Folkman, a leadership development consultancy. He is a coauthor of the October 2011 HBR article “Making Yourself Indispensable” and the book Speed: How Leaders Accelerate Successful Execution (McGraw Hill, 2016). Connect with Jack at twitter.com/jhzenger. Joseph Folkman is the president of Zenger/Folkman, a leadership development consultancy. He is a coauthor of the October 2011 HBR article “Making Yourself Indispensable” and the book Speed: How Leaders Accelerate Successful Execution (McGraw Hill, 2016). Connect with Joe at twitter.com/joefolkman.

Research-Based Strategies for Overcoming Procrastination

  • barish.yumerov
  • 28/03/2018

In quest’articolo l’autore, a seguito di alcune ricerche sul tema, ci offre alcune soluzioni per superare il “vizio” di procrastinare attività. Ad esempio, considerando che in realtà realizzarle raramente è faticoso come immaginiamo, invece di forzarci a svolgere tutta l’attività in una volta sola, possiamo concentrarci sulla prima parte. Oppure cominciamo pensando all’attività e alla nostra resistenza e stabiliamo il tempo che vogliamo dedicarci. Vogliamo dedicarci un’ora? Magari solo 30 minuti? Riduciamo la quantità di tempo, se serve, in modo da aggirare la nostra resistenza ad occuparcene. Quindi cerchiamo di capire il minimo che possiamo fare – scrivere pochi paragrafi, leggere poche pagine o qualsiasi altra cosa che non ci induca a procrastinare nuovamente. Una volta iniziata, l’attività ci sembrerà più gestibile.
Lavorare su qualcosa, anche a piccoli pezzi, implica che continueremo a esaminarli
e che saremo più propensi a riprendere il lavoro in seguito.

 

logo

Di Chris Bailey dalla Harvard Business Review

Chances are that at this very moment you’re procrastinating on something. Maybe you’re even reading this article to do so. A while back, I took a year to experiment with every piece of personal productivity advice I could find. In becoming hyperaware of how I spent my time, I noticed something: I procrastinated a lot more often than I had originally thought. In one time log I kept, I found that over the course of one week, I spent six hours putting off tasks — and that’s just the procrastination that was apparent from my time log. This got me thinking: why do we procrastinate, even though we know it’s against our best interests? How can we overcome it, preferably without hating ourselves or the techniques we use in the process? To answer these questions, I spoke to researchers, and spent time digging through dozens of academic journal articles. The advice I gathered became the foundation for part of my book and, fortunately, I discovered that a lot of it works. Why we procrastinate. One of the first things I learned was that procrastination is a human condition. About 95% of people admit to putting off work, according to Piers Steel, author of The Procrastination Equation. And I’d argue the remaining 5% are lying.

As for the phenomenon of putting stuff off, it’s “a purely visceral, emotional reaction to something we don’t want to do,” says Tim Pychyl, author of Solving the Procrastination Puzzle. The more averse you find a task, the more likely you are to procrastinate. In his research, Pychyl identifies a set of seven triggers that make a task seem more averse. Bring to mind something you’re putting off right now — you’ll probably find that task has many, if not all, of the characteristics that Pychyl discovered makes a task procrastination-worthy: 1. Boring 2. Frustrating 3. Difficult 4. Ambiguous 5. Unstructured 6. Not intrinsically rewarding (i.e., you don’t find the process fun) 7. Lacking in personal meaning On a neurological level, procrastination is not the slightest bit logical — it’s the result of the emotional part of your brain, your limbic system, strong-arming the reasonable, rational part of your brain, your prefrontal cortex. The logical part of your brain surrenders the moment you choose Facebook over work, or decide to binge another episode of House of Cards when you get home. But there’s a way you can give the logical side of your brain the upper hand. When you notice an approaching showdown between logic and emotion, resist the impulse to procrastinate. Here are the best ways I’ve discovered in my research to do that. Reverse the procrastination triggers. Consider which of Pychyl’s seven procrastination triggers are set off by an activity you’re dreading. Then try to think differently about the task, making the idea of completing it more attractive. Take writing a quarterly report. If you find this boring, you can turn it into a game: see how many words you can crank out in a 20-minute time period. Or if you find a work task ambiguous and unstructured, create a workflow that lays out the exact steps you and your team should follow each month to get it done. Work within your resistance level. When a task sets off procrastination triggers, we resist doing it. But just how resistant are we? Let’s say you have to wade through a dense piece of research for an upcoming project. To find your resistance level, consider the effort you commit to that task along a sliding scale. For example, could you focus on reading for an hour? No, that period of time still seems unpleasant. What about 30 minutes? Shorten the amount of time until you find a period with which you’re no longer resistant to the task — and then do it. Do something — anything — to get started. It’s easier to keep going with a task after you’ve overcome the initial hump of starting it in the first place. That’s because the tasks that induce procrastination are rarely as bad as we think. Getting started on something forces a subconscious reappraisal of that work, where we might find that the actual task sets off fewer triggers than we originally anticipated. Research suggests that we remember uncompleted or interrupted tasks better than projects we’ve finished. It’s like listening to a catchy song, only to have it unexpectedly cut off in the middle and then have it stuck in your head the rest of the day. Starting a task means you’ll continue to process it — and this makes you more likely to resume the work later on. List the costs of procrastination. This tactic works best when you’re putting off larger tasks. While it’s not worth spending 20 minutes listing the costs of not going for your evening run, listing the costs will significantly help for a task such as saving for retirement. Add to your list all the ways procrastinating on retirement saving could affect your social life, finances, stress, happiness, health, and so on. It’s also worth making a list of the things you put off personally and professionally, large and small, while calculating the costs of procrastination for each.

Disconnect. Our devices offer a cornucopia of distractions, whether it’s email, social media, or texting with friends and family. This is especially difficult as our work becomes more ambiguous and unstructured (two triggers of procrastination). When you notice yourself using your device to procrastinate, disconnect. Sometimes when I’m writing, I go as far as to put my phone in another room, and shut off the WiFi on my computer. Other times, I turn to an app like Freedom or Self Control, which blocks access to distracting sites, and require me to physically restart my computer to restore access. This may sound drastic, and it is. Disabling digital distractions ahead of time gives you no choice but to work on what’s really important. There are proven ways to combat procrastination so that it doesn’t get in the way of accomplishing your most important tasks. The next time you resist a task, consider whether it sets off any of the procrastination triggers, work within your resistance level, force yourself to get started on it, list the costs of putting the task off, or disconnect from the internet. If you’re anything like me, you’ll find yourself procrastinating a lot less often.

1 2 3 10