Make the essentials stand out for multiplying the results

« The least is the most »

Ludwig van der Rohe
(German architect of the early twentieth century)

The mainsprings of our missions are: relevance, usefulness, efficiency. During the course of our missions, we ask ourselves:
Do our actions have an impact on the client’s problems? Do they help him move forward? Do they produce profit? Do they promote real added value? Should we intervene to solve this particular problem or is the client capable of solving it on his own? On which level should we concentrate our actions so as to limit our intervention to a minimum and leave as much freedom as possible to our client?

We firmly believe that client autonomy is the final goal of both individual and collective coaching. It is the only criterion on which to base the answers to the above questions.
With this goal in mind, we direct our attention to finding the best operating angle to solve a particular problem
. This is a painstaking and dedicated task developed over 15 years of practical experience, as attentive observers of company organization supported by the study of human psychology. In order to obtain big changes, we must “think big”, while never neglecting details. If our client already knows how to proceed, we support him so as to widen his perspectives and accelerate the attainment of his goal.
If, on the other hand, our client does not know a priori how to proceed, our intervention will help him find a solution that has already been germinating within him. In either case, we accelerate the process of change.

In some cases we stopped the coaching process beforehand, because the client’s problem was solved ahead of schedule. On other occasions we told our client that he could tackle the problem himself, with a minor intervention on the part of the coach, thus helping him to avoid unnecessary expenses.
A conflict within the Executive Committee of a large company may often seem an overwhelming obstacle, since it arises from three closely interwoven issues: strategy, organization and ego.
In one of these cases, the team manager asked us to intervene because the strategy devised by a well-known counseling firm had not achieved the expected results on account of serious disagreement within his team. “I have an excellent team, he explained, but I cannot benefit from it, because every issue gives rise to a confrontation.”
After talking to team members, we arrived at the conclusion that it was useless to continue as long as an answer to organizational and strategic issues had not been found. Instead of starting a lengthy procedure with the team, we met the manager on three occasions in order to move forward on the following issues. He identified the strategic decisions that he could take right away and those that he couldn’t deal with immediately for lack of sufficient elements. We then discussed with him the best way to explain these strategic and organizational decisions to his Executive Committee and to the different teams. Finally, we attacked the ego problem on two fronts: with the manager, to make him realize that his ambivalent attitude towards his staff was one of the main causes of misunderstandings within his team; with team members, to whom we explained the precise steps leading towards a decision.

Having attained the desired results, we discontinued our intervention mid-way.
Six months after our mission, change was durably entrenched. Furthermore, the Executive Committee was in the process of developing a successful strategy at a far more rapid pace than we had foreseen.