2015 January

Library of Professional Coaching

“I just received the following note from one of our Inner Circle members.  Below the note is my response.”



Thought the first article related to some of the things we have talked about—our thinking process

and brain science.

You can share it with the group if you think it would be helpful.



Library of Professional Coaching

Why Transformative Coaching Takes Guts

Posted: 23 Jan 2015 09:33 AM PST


Most trained coaches know how to be supportive, encouraging and nonjudgmental. These approaches are useful but often not enough to create a new awareness. Coaching starts by building trust and rapport, but as the conversation goes deeper you might need to generate a bit of discomfort to create a breakthrough in thinking.

What happens when you challenge someone’s thinking?

In order to define who we are and make sense of the world around us, our brains develop constructs and rules that we strongly protect without much thought. In Who’s in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain (Ecco, 2011), neuroscientist Michael S. Gazzaniga says we get stuck in our automatic thought-processing and fool ourselves into thinking we are right. When someone asks us why we did something, we immediately come up with an answer even if the response doesn’t make complete sense. We instantly concoct a brilliant reason for procrastinating on a task, for prioritizing reading email over a project deadline or for making life decisions based on how we will feel in the future when, in truth, we can never be sure how the circumstances will impact us emotionally.

To disturb this automatic processing, you reflect holes in your client’s logic and ask questions that reveal the fears, needs and desires keeping the constructs in place. NeuroBusiness Group founder and CEO Srinivasan S. Pillay, M.D. writes that this coaching approach is the only way to stop the automatic processing. Reflection and questions crack the force field that protects your client’s sense of reality, enabling her to explore, examine and change strongly held beliefs and behavior.

The reaction to bringing these things to light will register somewhere between slight discomfort and an emotional outpour. Momentary confusion and abrupt realizations trigger emotional reactions. The truth can hurt or at least surprise you before it sets you free.

Therefore, negative emotions can be a good sign. When your client realizes she has blocked a truth that was in her face the entire time, she may feel mortified, angry or sad. She is finally confronting her rationalizations and seeing her blind spots. For a moment, her brain does not know what to think. As Nessa Victoria Bryce writes in the July/August 2014 issue of Scientific American Mind, this pause in certainty as the brain rushes to reinterpret information is necessary for a clearer and broader understanding of the situation to emerge. In researching how coaching works in the brain for The Discomfort Zone, I found this moment of uncertainty is necessary for behavioral learning to occur. Only with this new awareness will your client willfully commit to behaving in a different way.

Know your WHY

Posted: 23 Jan 2015 07:57 AM PST

Why Know Your WHY?

Knowing Your WHY strengthens corporate culture, employee engagement and deepens connections with ideal clients, customers and investors

Discussions abound on how to fortify employee engagement. Awareness of the critical need to place employees and team members “in the right seats on the bus” has been heightened. Companies strive to create not only external raving fans, but impassioned, raving employees as well. Given recent trends and statistics, it is no surprise that organizations are placing a concerted effort on beefing up engagement.

Gallup states in their most recent State of the Workplace report that 70% of all employees are indifferent or actively disengaged, and that each “actively disengaged” employees costs an employer an average $25,000 per year. SHRM, (Society for Human Resources Management), estimates that bad hires cost up to five times their annual salary. Forbes cites an average annual turnover rate of 33%, with nine out of ten people leaving because of attitude.

Concern with these statistics is well founded.  Again according to Gallup, it literally pays, in a big way, to be in the top 25% of “Engaged Companies.” Those that achieve this top quartile realize:  37% less turnover, 48% fewer safety incidents, 41% fewer product defects, 21% higher productivity, and my favorite: 22% higher profitability. Whether a given business or organizational leader is paternal and nurturing, or, conversely, dispassionate and bottom-line oriented, these numbers should be motivation enough. Leaders need to source, bring to their organizations, and institutionalize sure-fire ways to increase engagement.

Recently, I have been introduced to, and have become a huge proponent of, a novel approach to increasing both internal and external engagement. The “Know Your WHY” movement that is making great headway and producing consistently positive results as it spreads across the country and the globe. The secret sauce is that it is based on the way each individual in a business, organization, or team is hardwired.


Mike’s response

I had mixed emotions about this…

to whom is the judgment left?

and how is the judgment formed, from what perspective?

I do believe that coaches should at times challenge thinking…

however, all this transformational coaching stuff is rare, because people don’t transform, they learn, grow and develop, i’m much more interested in scaffolding that process, instead of transformational work…


2015 January

Narrow Thinking Signals…

“I just received the following note from one of our Inner Circle members.  Below the note is my response.”


You want to see a sign of narrow thinking?

Obama made a remark directed at Putin (indirectly)…

I told you before, Putin is NOT stupid, and the Russians are NOT someone to mess around with, but just like the incredible GAFFE by Obama on his “I won both of mine…” he has now thrust us into another cold war, only this time, it’s not going to be funny…

Putin will MAKE OBAMA PAY for those remarks, mark my words.

Instead of Obama modeling the solution, remaining empathetic and offering a fig leaf, he threw down a gauntlet and will now UNDO everything that has been achieved since the wall came down.

The LEGACY of Obama will be smeared with foreign policy gaffes, and I believe what will erupt will be WWIII, and we’ve seen the spark now.

YOU NEVER< NEVER put a bear in the corner, the only thing they know to do if fight.

We have single-handedly declared war on Russia through the leadership of sanctions which caused they economy to crumble.

THE ONLY THING that brought us out of a depression was a WAR…

Do you think that is an isolated circumstance?

Or is WAR FOOTING a tool that can be used to resolve depression?

If so, we are in trouble because RUSSIA IS IN DEPRESSION, and the oil “business” has helped trigger the problems.

I expect the ARCTIC to be a battleground as well as eastern Europe, all fought by proxy…
Top News

War Is Exploding Anew in Ukraine; Rebels Vow More


Evidence is increasing that Russian troops and Russian equipment have been pouring into eastern Ukraine again

What choice do they have?

And who narrowed the choice?

Through lack of experience (a foreign policy team that doesn’t know what it’s doing) and OBAMA’s ego position.

You wanted interesting?

You got it!


Mike’s response”

Here’s the quote:

Second, we are demonstrating the power of American strength and diplomacy. We’re upholding the principle that bigger nations can’t bully the small by opposing Russian aggression and supporting Ukraine’s democracy, and reassuring our NATO allies.
Last year, as we were doing the hard work of imposing sanctions along with our allies, as we were reinforcing our presence with the frontline states, Mr. Putin’s aggression, it was suggested, was a masterful display of strategy and strength. That’s what I heard from some folks. Well, today, it is America that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated, with its economy in tatters.
That’s how America leads: not with bluster, but with persistent, steady resolve.


THIS WAS A BAD MOVE, and shows lack of empathy for the Russian people in general, about 10 million or so are Russians on the USA, or more.

In developmental coaching, I call this modeling the problem, here’s why:

When someone models their “reasoning”…contained within that are the problems of the next or more complex levels…

So I call it modeling the problem which can be solved at a different level…

In this case, Obama and our country is making a huge error that will come back to haunt us all and the world…

it’s just a matter of time…

If Obama thinks Putin is not “so masterful” then the WORST thing he could have done…is embarrass him in front of 37.1 million watching the speech and the billion they will affect…

SUPER STRATEGIC ERROR…that shows Obama’s ego position…

2015 January

Red Beach

When I landed…in Tacloban,

The executive jet that was blown off the runway which trued to takeoff about the pope…

Was still sitting there in the mud on the side of the runway…


2015 January

Celebratory Plaque at 50th for Red Beach

Had to share this bit of irony…

An. “oxymoron”…

Fight for peace…


2015 January

Red Beach Finally

I’ve always wanted to see where McArthur walked ashore in Leyte.


2015 January

Oriental Leyte

This was where I was going to stay to visit red beach 70th anniversary — oops!


2015 January

Mike and the Pope in Tacloban


2015 January

The Obama Drama

I couldn’t chk this but this video revealed a lot more than ego complexity! About obamas development.



2015 January

Europe Moves Further Apart After Bank Decision – Geopolitical Diary

“I just received the following note from one of our Inner Circle members.  Below the note is my response.”


Further fuel for the discussion that Mark and Mike are having



Europe Moves Further Apart After Bank Decision

January 23, 2015 | 00:55 GMT



Today was a momentous day for the European Central Bank (ECB). Traders across Europe rejoiced as the floodgates were finally opened and ECB President Mario Draghi announced the long-awaited decision to undertake quantitative easing, a policy of purchasing government bonds, which is aimed at stimulating inflation in the eurozone. The decision is undoubtedly excellent news for investors, who are likely to see asset prices rising across the board off the back of this huge cash injection. However, politicians across the Continent will consider the development somewhat more ruefully; for hidden within the announcement was evidence of Germany’s weakening commitment to the European project.

From a purely economic perspective, Draghi delivered almost everything the markets could have asked for. At 1.1 trillion euros ($1.13 trillion), the quantitative easing program was more than twice the size expected and included all the peripheral sovereign bonds that had already been bought by traders in anticipation, raising prices to record highs. Best of all, he suggested that the central bank’s commitment to hitting its 2 percent inflation target was unlimited and that it would continue buying bonds until it succeeded. The man famous for saving the eurozone in 2012 will now do his famous promise of “masterful work with whatever it takes,” for as long as it takes.

Considering the economic heft of this decision, why did the ECB wait until the eurozone had actually entered deflation (-0.2 percent in December) before using it? Within the answer lies the flaw in Draghi’s plan, and the sacrifice he had to make in order to hit the inflation target, his primary responsibility as president of the ECB. For this morning’s announcement also revealed that 80 percent of the bonds would be bought not by the ECB but by the national central banks, which would each buy their own country’s bonds and hold the default risks separately.

What is a Geopolitical Diary? George Friedman Explains.

While this unusual formulation should have little impact on the effectiveness of quantitative easing, the political message it sends is starkly negative: If things go badly, everyone is on their own. This message is a change of direction for the eurozone. Ever since the inception of its forerunner in 1951, the European Union’s credo has been “an ever closer union,” constantly tightening the links that connect the nations until one day a United States of Europe existed. Draghi’s decision to separate the risks of the European states is a seminal moment, since it is a reversal of this momentum.

In 2005, European voters rejected a treaty that would have established a constitution for the future union. It was a setback and a pause in progress, but the constitution idea could still have been floated again at a later date. The move to separate the risks of eurozone states, by contrast, is a step backward. It is a negation of the precedents established in the 2011-2012 crisis, in which countries raised funds to aid their fellow members, and in which the “whatever it takes” promise implied that the ECB backstopped all eurozone bonds. Now, Europeans are taking a step further apart.

But how did this happen? What forced Draghi to adopt a structure that undermines the European project in this way? The answer to that question is Germany. For at least the past 12 months, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Bundesbank head Jens Weidmann have been united in the belief that quantitative easing would be bad for Germany because it would involve spending ECB money (of which Germany provides 17 percent) on the countries in the European periphery — and would leave Germans carrying a large part of the bill in the case of a default.

When it became clear that deflation was imminent as the global oil price plummeted, the Germans realized that a compromise would be necessary. In fact, it was Weidmann who in December first began talking publicly about a solution similar to the one announced this morning. On Jan. 14, Draghi held a private meeting with Merkel, presumably to gain her blessing on the plan, and it seems certain that she gave it. Merkel signed off on a plan that would loosen the ties that bind the eurozone, preferring it to a standard risk-sharing model that, though unpalatable to her countrymen, would have brought Europe’s countries closer together.

The weakness in Europe’s construction has always stemmed from the fact that ultimately, every individual nation puts its own interests first and Europe’s second. In 2009, Greece revealed that it had been falsifying its official figures for several years, allowing its citizens a more comfortable life while saving problems for later. This revelation was the start of an economic crisis, culminating in the sovereign bond crisis of 2012. In 2014, France and Italy both failed to comply with the Growth and Stability Pact, struggling to accede to the budgetary demands of the European Commission because of domestic political constraints. The commission’s unwillingness to discipline the offenders has resulted in an undermining of its credibility.

It is not new for a country to put its own well-being before that of the collective, or for the European Union’s institutions to be undermined by its own members. What is new this time around is that the problems came from Germany, Europe’s largest economy and historically its staunchest defender. Germany has proved that, just like its fellow eurozone members, it is willing to forgo the good of the union to protect its own interests. But in doing so, it has reversed the momentum of the eurozone — a slow-moving beast, which will be hard to turn around again.


2015 January

That Sinking Feeling called “Subsidence”