1. Guiding Principles

1

Guiding Principles

Several foundational ideas, or guiding principles, inform the competencies and strategies in this guide. They are the same ideas that propel all of NIOST’s work: our quality assessment tools, trainings, and research collaborations.

This chapter lays out the strong foundation from which your coaching practice can grow.

Continuous Quality Improvement

“CQI is not quality for a day…but an ongoing culture of inquiry and reflection.” Young (2017)

Continuous quality improvement (CQI) is an ongoing, formal approach to creating and sustaining high-quality learning organizations. The idea that improvement is ongoing and cyclical is not new. Walter A. Shewhart and W. Edward Deming (1986), both scientists and management consultants, helped to create what is now known as the Plan-Do-Check-Act or Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle in the 1950s.

Variations of this cycle are being used for CQI in health care, human services, and education. NIOST uses the continuous improvement process shown below. An organization starts a CQI Continuous Improvement Process process by involving stakeholders to set a shared vision or goals. Then it collects information for data-informed practice, analyzing and reflecting on the data to set an action plan. After implementing the plan, the organization collects more data to see whether the changes had the intended impact.

For 30 years, NIOST’s thinking about CQI has been rooted in Peter Senge’s ideas about learning organizations, the Kaizen approach of incremental and orderly change, and relational and strengths-based theories. More recently, we have considered findings from neuroscience. These influences indicate that successful CQI depends on the whole team owning the process.

“CQI is related to the internal owning of a process by the team in the program. It is going beyond meeting the externally applied regulations and standards and moves the lever for change internally, under the control of the program participants themselves.” Wiggins & Mathias (2016)

Creating learning organizations: Senge’s five principles One of the most frequently cited works about organizational change theory is that of Peter Senge (2006). He talks about the need to build “communities of commitment,” in which people develop an allegiance to improvement, both as individuals and as an organization. He has identified five disciplines that enable learning organizations to make change successfully:

• Shared vision. Involve everyone in the organization in thinking about what they value and want to create. • Personal mastery. Provide supports so individuals can deepen their personal vision, focus energies, and develop needed skills. • Team learning. Learn as a team by engaging in dialogue and by thinking together. • Questioning mental models. Surface deep-seated values, beliefs, and assumptions to enable the team to decide consciously how to take action. • Systems thinking. Take the time to see interrelationships and the whole system. Pay attention to how changes being made may lead to unintended changes (Senge, 1990). See Appendix A for more about Peter Senge’s five disciplines of a learning organization and how to pose questions as a coach.

Making gradual improvements with stakeholders: The Kaizen approach Kaizen is a Japanese word that means gradual or orderly change (kai) for the better (zen). Kaizen involves everyone in an organization in working toward gradual improvements using conventional knowledge and skills. The Kaizen approach is used in quality improvement efforts in business, health care, education, and life coaching. For example, Toyota is known for its Kaizen practice. If there is a problem in the production line, all workers and managers involved in that line shut it down to seek solutions. If a particular car model isn’t selling, a representative group from management, sales, marketing, and production meet to identify solutions, which are laid out in incremental steps (Imai, 1986).

Building on strengths, interests, and talents A strengths-based approach builds on existing assets rather than trying to “fix” people and organizations. Research has found that people are most inquisitive, resilient, creative, and open to learning in their areas of strength. (Bloom, et al., 2013). By extension, then, organizations can excel only by amplifying strengths. “While there are many good levers for engaging people and driving

performance—selecting for talent, setting clear expectations, praising where praise is due, and defining the team’s mission—the master lever is getting each person to play to strengths” (Bloom et al., 2013). Good coaches don’t ignore areas of weakness or the importance of setting up systems that support quality, but they do start from a place of strength.

“A learning organization discovers how to tap people’s commitment and capacity to learn at all levels…where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free and where people are continually learning how to learn together.” Senge (2006)

Appreciative Coaching

A coach is “a guide by the side, not a sage on the stage” (King, 1993). To guide a CQI process, a coach works with the program leader and staff team as learning partners in quality improvement. The coach supports the program’s exploration of how to better serve participants and families.

Appreciative coaching—a strengths-based, relational approach—is the method we recommend. We keep social and emotional learning at the center and equity as a goal.

Strengths-based approach A strengths-based approach assumes that all individuals, teams, and organizations have strengths they can use to learn, grow, and change (Jablon, Dombro, & Johnsen, 2016). This approach helps individuals meet their potential, builds leadership capacity, and guides organizations to peak performance.

During the past few decades, a positive, strengths-based approach to individual and organizational change has emerged from several fields. This approach represents an effort to move beyond deficit thinking and to tap people’s motivation to improve. Positive psychology, for example, shifts focus from merely healing psychological damage to the positive experiences, individual traits, and institutions that help people lead more fulfilling lives. Positive youth development and resiliency theory have been incorporated in OST, school, and other settings for youth. Appreciative coaching was developed by organization development professionals who were frustrated with a deficit-based, problemsolving approach.

Coaching and positive psychology share the belief “that people want to learn and, most importantly, that individuals contain within themselves the solution to their own challenges.” MacKie (2016)

A strengths-based approach does not mean that coaches should not talk about a practice or behavior that is adversely affecting performance. Rather, it draws on people’s motivation to change by tapping into their goals and aspirations and by taking advantage of their knowledge, skills, and ideas about what will work. This approach can build self-esteem and confidence, helping individuals and teams realize that they can successfully make changes to better their work life and improve outcomes for program participants (Rush & Sheldon, 2011).

This increase in self-efficacy brings a positive change. It can expand what Stephen Covey (2005) calls a person’s “sphere of influence;” that is, a strengthsbased approach can help people see that they have more potential to improve their work and their lives than they may realize. This approach guides individuals and programs toward improvement through independent and empowered action, rather than being dependent on a coach (Gardner & Toope, 2011).

In a strengths-based approach, coaches model positive, strengths-based interactions that program leaders can use with staff teams, who in turn can use this approach with participants and families.

“There is almost no topic that cannot be broached under the right conditions, with the right intentions, with the right trusting relationship.” Crane (2002)

Relational approach NIOST’s coaching approach is influenced by relational-cultural theory (RCT), a development theory based on the idea that people “grow in and through relationships” (Schwartz, 2019). According to RCT, the goal of development is not independence; rather, “we are at our best when we engage in growth-fostering relationships” (Schwartz, 2019). RCT was developed, originally for clinical settings, by Jean Baker Miller and her colleagues at what is now the Wellesley Centers for Women, NIOST’s home. It has since been applied in education, business, social justice work, and other fields (Schwartz, 2019). RCT helps us understand how relationships and interactions can be powerful conduits for teaching and learning. It also gives us a lens to explore power, cultural context, and other issues important for equity, diversity, and inclusion. (See https://www.wcwonline. org/JBMTI-Site/introduction-to-jbmti.)

Reflection and inquiry are at the heart of a strengths-based and relational practice. According to Tom Crane (2002), a relational approach:

• Demonstrates respect for all individuals and for their experiences, ideas, and strengths • Helps people discover their own answers, rather than waiting for the expert • Solicits people’s input and recommendations, creating a high level of participation in solutions • Focuses attention on future solutions, not on past problems (Crane, 2002) According to Rush and Shelden (2011), reflection engages the part of the brain used to make linkages. This process leads to insights, which constitute an important driver of motivation to change. Strengths-based and relational approaches not only are more effective than other consultative strategies, such as feedback and problem-solving, but also decrease the need for deficit-based approaches. Even more importantly, they build staff capacity to reflect, an important step in building a sustainable culture of continuous improvement (Rush & Shelden, 2011).

Skillful coaches build their own reflective practice and then foster reflection on the part of program leaders and staff teams.

Keeping the brain in mind Many leaders think that getting people to change requires only the right information and the right incentive. But motivation for change is much more complex than that. Neuroscience is beginning to provide an explanation of how and why coaching works. Putting it simply, the brain is made up of three parts: It takes effort and focused attention to change a habit or embed a new •The reptilian system is the primary behavior. The brain’s reptilian and driver for eating, sleeping, and sex. limbic systems are quick to respond •The limbic system governs emotions, to immediate stimuli on an automatic memories, and habits. level. But change is established •The prefrontal cortex is responsible for through the prefrontal cortex, which higher-order thinking. requires conscious focus.

People can react emotionally to change. In that case, the limbic system takes over, so that people fall back into earlier habits and behaviors. Coaches need to understand how to tap positive emotions about change to build buy-in and decrease resistance.

Think about driving an off-road vehicle through a wilderness area. If you repeatedly drive down the same track, that track gets easier to travel, while other tracks get overgrown. Similarly, the brain prefers established pathways. Change is more likely to happen when coaches help people build on their strengths—when they travel established neural pathways—rather than trying to fix an area of weakness (Langley, 2012).

See Appendix B for information about what happens in the brain during a coaching session and about the roles of attention, reflection, and action in achieving insight.

Social and emotional learning Social and emotional learning (SEL) has always been at the center of OST. In their book Bringing Yourself to Work, NIOST founder Michelle Seligson and coauthor Patricia Stahl (2003) emphasize that adults who work with young people must know their own social and emotional hot spots and reflect on their own biases. High-quality OST settings foster SEL as adults intentionally model skills, offer activities that stimulate social and emotional growth, and make one-on-one connections with each participant (Seligson & Stahl, 2003).

Coaches must also be responsive to the trauma and adverse childhood experiences that many OST participants and families face—as do some program leaders and staff, and perhaps even the coaches themselves. OST coaches need both to tend to their own wellbeing and SEL skills and to support program leaders and staff teams to build their skills so they can help children and youth to do the same.

Equity, diversity, and inclusion Ultimately, coaching is about improving outcomes for all children and youth. In fact, coaching is an ideal means of working at the program level to make programs welcoming and responsive to all young people and their families.

To create environments where all are welcome and can flourish, coaches can use an equity lens to understand the impact of dominant cultures and the influence of power and privilege in the lives of young people, families, and service providers. Strategies such as ongoing training for cultural responsiveness can help coaches uncover their own unconscious biases. Understanding history and gaining knowledge of culture, race, ethnicity; language and methods of communication; nationality and citizenship; gender identity; and sexual identity; socioeconomic status and social class; religious and spiritual identity; access and barriers to participation; and physical, cognitive, and emotional wellbeing will help equip you to support all families and children.

Internal and external coaches Both internal and external coaches are valuable. Funding, philosophy, and other individual circumstances determine which kind of coach a program uses. Each type has pros and cons. Here are some reasons programs coach from the inside or seek a consultant.

TYPE OF COACH

Internal

External

ADVANTAGES

May be more cost-effective and sustainable than hiring an external coach Understands the culture and values of an organization

CHALLENGES

Must work hard to separate their roles as supervisor or colleague and as coach Must deal sensitively and transparently with confidentiality, staff discipline, and other potentially sticky issues

May have a broader perspective and more objectivity May be perceived as neutral or trustworthy by program staff May provide important support for program leaders who carry a heavy workload Must take time to understand the workings of the organization May not have frequent contact with staff May have trouble with follow-up from a remote location

Guiding Principles References

Bloom, J. P., Hentschel, A., & Bella, J. (2013). Inspiring peak performance: Competence, commitment, and collaboration. New Horizons. Covey, S. (2005). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in personal change. Simon and Schuster. Crane, T. G. (2002). The heart of coaching: Using transformational coaching to create a highperformance culture. San Diego, CA: FTA. Gardner, M., Toope, D. (2011). “A Social Justice Perspective on Strengths-based Approaches: Exploring Educators’ Perspectives and Practices.” Canadian Journal of Education. 34-3. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=a+social+justice+perspective+on+strengths-ba sed+approaches:+exploring+educators%27+perspectives&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_ vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijxYeq8c_XAhXsk-AKHVCdBAsQgQMIJjAA Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen: The key to Japan’s competitive success. New York, NY: Kaizen Institute. Jablon, J., & Dombro, A. L., & Johnsen, S. (2016). Coaching with powerful interactions: A guide for partnering with early childhood teachers. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. King, A. (1993). From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side. College Teaching. 41(1), 30–35. Langley, S. (May 23, 2012). The Neuroscience of Change: Why It Is Difficult and What Makes It Easier. The Langley Group. http://blog.langleygroup.com.au/ neuroscience-of-change-what-makes-change-easier/ MacKie, D. (2016). Strength-based leadership coaching in organizations: an evidence-based guide to positive leadership development. Kogan Page Publishers. Rock, D. (2006). A Brain-Based Approach to Coaching. International Journal of Coaching in Organizations, 4(2), 32-43. http://researchportal.coachfederation.org/MediaStream/PartialView?documentId=2886 Rush, D. D., & Shelden, M. L. L. (2011). The early childhood coaching handbook. Brookes Publishing Company. PO Box 10624, Baltimore, MD 21285. Schwartz, H. L. (2019, September 20). Connected teaching – An approach for classrooms, communities, and the workplace [Blog post]. https://www.wcwonline.org/WCW-Blog-Women-Change-Worlds/ Connected-teaching-an-approach-for-classrooms-communities-and-the-workplace Seligson, M., & Stahl, P. (2003). Bringing yourself to work: A guide to successful staff development in after-school programs. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook. New York: Doubleday. Shewhart, W. A., & Deming, W. E. (1986). Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control. Courier Corporation. Wiggins, K., & Mathias, D. (n.d.). Continuous Quality Improvement: An Overview Report for State QRIS Leaders. The Build Initiative. http://qrisnetwork.org/sites/all/files/session/resources/ Continuous%20Quality%20Improvement,%20An%20Overview%20Report%20for%20State%20 QRIS%20Leaders_1.pdf Young, Billie (June 2017). Continuous Quality Improvement in Early Childhood and School Age Programs: An Update from the Field. BUILD. https://qrisnetwork.org/sites/all/files/session/ resources/Continuous%20Quality%20Improvement%20in%20Early%20Childhood%20and%20 School%20Age%20Programs%20-%20An%20Update%20from%20the%20Field.pdf