AEDP Module 2: Dubai & Kenya Visit

AEDP promised to provide a deeper understanding of change and strategy implementation as well as leadership issues facing emerging markets. The module 2 was thoughtfully placed in Dubai and Kenya.We tried to understand the two economy from a geopolitical, economic, cultural and environmental standpoint. Both the countries are power in making but at the same time they are place of stark contrast, often positioned side by side: abject poverty next to western luxury and sophistication; global corporations next to grass roots entrepreneurship.
During our 10 days trip, we were exposed to as many of these contrasts as possible, meeting an array of people from all walks of life – churches, mosques, media, big business moguls, slum dwellers, serial entrepreneurs.
AEDP's claim of building foundations for lifelong learning was proved beyond resonable doubt in this trip.

Peer Coaching Blog: 26.03.2010

We decided to hold our peer coaching session at Janis’s place. I was running late after our team presentation at IMD.

I played the role of coach first. I asked questions.The main outcomes/questions of the session were:

1. What if crisis hits you ? How will you keep faith in the change? Will you still believe in the change
2. What timeframe you have in mind? can you actually set a timeframe in this case?
3. How you plan to measure your improvement?
4. What other support infrastructure you need to help you in this process or to accelerate the process?

Towards the end we agreed on the action plan of atleast reflecting back on daily activity could be a solution. There were more questions than answers

As a coach I tried to show the Janis the other side of the picture "what if".I think this worked well, as atleast you make coachee aware about the crisis situation.

Later I played the role of a coachee. The main outcomes of the session:

1. Thin line between mindreading and babysitting.How you can balance the act?
2. How to navigate through a difficult conversation


Janis asked questions which forced me to think and take myself out of the context. Unfortunately I will not share the details due to sensitivity of the matter.

Towards the end we looked back at our coaching sessions and discussed what worked well and why. It helped a lot when you take yourself out of a context. As a coach this is what one should work upon: Help coachee think and help the coachee to explore.

We were left wondering why things work well with someone and not with others.Both Janis and myself are extravert and still things went well.

Peer Coaching Blog: 26.02.2010

Initially we decided to hold our peer coaching session at Janis’s place. Unfortunately my bag was stolen and I had to postpone the meeting. We held the meeting today over phone.
We had a short telephone chat before the meeting where we discussed what will be the agenda. This was quite useful in setting the tone of the meeting. We decided to follow up on the action items from the past sessions.
I played the role of coachee first. The main outcomes of the session were:

1. Setting and declaring agenda upfront makes the meeting productive and helps the participants to stick to the agenda.
2. Summarize where you left the meeting last and what were the agreed action items.
3. Take the discussions to the next level and apply the same model (GROW) to explore and agree on the next steps.

As a coach Janis showed a lot of empathy and understood my current problem. The joint approach to explore the next steps was quite constructive.
We again did a good time management in this round.

Later I played the role of a coach. The main outcomes of the session:

1. Productivity and efficiency of a staff could be related to cultural issue. Getting a third party expert opinion might be very useful
2. When planning a strategic move, it may be useful to pre announce what’s coming to the team?
3. Worst case scenario must be worked out. Figure out ways to prevent it if possible.
4. As a coach talk less and listen more.

As a coach I was able to follow the golden rule of silence as results a number of options were explored. We were able connect and understand the problem of each other.

In the end we agreed decided to call each other next week and set up the next meeting.

Peer Coaching Blog: 26.01.2010

January of the new year was no different than the last year. I spent most of my time in Singapore. We decided to meet for this coaching session face to face in Geneva.

Janis wanted to have a coaching session on the following issue :

I have behaviour in my personal and business life to be very pushy and persistent in discussing my point of view. Sometimes I drive it too hard without giving sufficient room for other people. Also I might push my idea too far, focus only on certain aspects, get discussion quite emotional, and risk it to become aggressive. After discussions I even sometimes recognize that I have been stuck too much on my idea, instead of considering other valid point of view, of I have argued just for sake of arguing.

This being a personal issue I decided not stick very closely to the GROW model. My intention was to reuse some of techniques/knowledge learned in the Resilience course and help coachee(Janis) also use those skills to resolve problems.

I spent most of the time on exploring and explaining options as a result the focus on specific objective goals was missed out. Towards the end we agreed on the next points and Janis had few items or skills to work upon.

In the second half of the session, we dicussed a problem I am facing at my work place:

New bank engagement: After the merger the team is merged to my team. The head of the old team who was working in the past indepndently now has to report to me. I want to align him to my goals and objective but so far the outcome has not been very encouraging. The delicacy of the situation demands a very careful handling. There are differnt short term and long term goals with this team and I have to balance both of them.




Janis played the role of the coach skillfully. He emphasized the importance of breaking down the problem to bare bones and adressing the real issue. Then only one can come up with real options.

We missed the summarizing part and agreeing on certain specific goals and actions. Exploring options gave me some new ideas regarding handling the situation.

Towards the end we agreed on our next meeting.

Peer Coaching Blog: 28.12.2009

November and December were horribly crazy with a lot of travel. We wanted to do a peer coaching session before I leave for my vaccation to warm and sunny Cuba but unfortunately that didn't happen and we decided to do it just after I return back. Skype was the agreed medium to conduct the meeting.
I was still in my holiday mode on 28th, Janis came with a proposal about the coaching session and I gladly accepted. The situation descriptions reads as :

Dhruv Germany engagement. I have employee, who is Senior Business Manager Components in my team. Recently it came to my attention that there is problem in his engagement with Germany Components team – specifically with one Product Manager there - Conny. Conny was having much more senior view of herself, than Dhruv had about her. She has felt that in communication style of Dhruv, and it created problem. She believed that Dhruv is undervaluing her because of being women, not taking her serious, and not being specific in supporting her. My objective is to coach Dhruv to understand the issue, and come up with an action plan to adjust his relations/ communication style with Conny. Having sad that Dhruv is in quite difficult position. Beside managing Western Digital business, he is responsible for overall Components strategy implementation in Europe. So, he has to manage his work and availability for Conny specific WD linked requests more that any other Business Manager in my team.


We decided on the modus operandi for this meeting, first I will play the role of a coach followed by feedback session and then we would reverse sides.

When I played the role of a Coach, I tried to stick to the GROW model.
Janis during the feedback session gave the following feedback:

- Set the objective upfront: It is useful to bring both parties on the same page and set the tone and momentum of the meeting by explicitly mentioning that this is the coaching session

- Talk less, listen more : I fell into the trap of talking more many a times.

- Summarizing by the coachee: I did the summarizing bit myself and Janis's remark was it should have been done by the coachee.

What went right:

- Exploring options: I challenged the coachee to think beyond obvious and come up with different options.

- Questioning: Challenging the coachee to explain something in more detail

- Time limit: I managed to finish it within 30 minutes slot

- Next steps: Agreeing on specific measurable next steps.

Then I played the role of Dhruv. I intentionally tried to take the position of being defensive and push back. Janis used the "why" question very skillfully and that kind of forced me shed a bit of my defensive position

what went right:

- Setting the objective: It was quite clear from the opening line that we are here for a coaching session

- Exploring options: Janis encouraged to come up with more options by giving some clues and hints. This helped in guiding the thought process

- Setting goals: Goals were set quite clearly

- Time limit: Janis managed to wrap up the meeting within the time limit


what could be improved

- Sandwich Approach: I told him about my experience with this approach. It encourages the coachee to be more open and help them feel better. The packaging of negative points between postives conveys that this is a coaching session rather than a reprimand.

- Personal touch: Sharing a bit of personal experience helps. It leaves a lasting impression and the session less robotic.

- Figuring out coachee strategy: Coach should be aware about the strategy of the coachee ex: losing focus, pushing back. Playing the right counter strategy will make the session more fruitful.

In the end we agreed on our next meeting and action items.

Peer coaching: 27.11.2009

Today I had my first peer coaching session with Janis Kemers. We decided to meet in the town of Nyon, Switzerland. Nyon is like middle ground, midway between both of us.
From my own experience building a bit relationship is the first and foremost step towards coaching. This was was the focus of the session.
We started off by talking about AEDP module in Lausanne. By sharing our experiences we immediately hit a common ground and couple of mojitos helped to calm us down.
We quickly changed gears from IMD, AEDP, syllabus, professors, AEDP friends down to us. We openly shared our perception and feeling about each other. What we liked, what we observed, what we missed ? This helped us in knowing each other and building that "trust" which will be a core ingredient for our future sessions.
We looked back at our leadership classes and explained to each other our understanding of the GROW model. The common view was this model could be quite handy in our professional as well as our personal life. That lead us to our next topic " what areas we would like to improve upon". Janis listened to me quite well and asked cross questions to challenge my views. He was able to corelate to some of my problem, as we shared the common problem of being dominant and forceful.
We agreed not to do an active coaching session today but share which learnings from AEDP we have implemented so far. It was an aha moment for me when Janis told me about the impact of using 'yes and' instead of 'yes but'. I shared my experience of counting till three before reacting and how this technique has helped me in my professional life. As this technique gives me those few extra precious moments and control my emotions.
The action plan was to try each other's technique and figure out how usful was it?
One question which puzzled both of us was: what makes people tick? why we like someone and reject someone else?
It was for me a step towards a long journey and I am glad I found a right peer coach. We agreed on our next step and date for the next session.

Relevance of VLE for AEDP

I introduced briefly the concept of blended learning in my last blog. The term ‘blended learning’ is used in multiple contexts, but in its purity it means: Learning that is facilitated by the effective combination of different modes of delivery, models of teaching and styles of learning, and is based on transparent communication amongst all parties involved with a course--Heinze and Procter

Let’s return back to AEDP:

IMD’s AEDP(Accelarated Executive Development Program) is a blended learning program that gives you control over the time and location of your studies while also providing peer interaction through short intensive modules. – Leif M. Sjöblom

So what are ingredients for a perfect blended learning program like AEDP?

1. Flexibility of location and time: Designed for full time working professionals
2. Collaborative learning: The concept is heavily rooted in Vygotsky’s theory of ZPD(zone of proximal development). Collaborative learning is a situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together.More specifically, collaborative learning is based on the model that knowledge can be created within a population where members actively interact by sharing experiences and take on asymmetry roles. Leif hinted importance of collaborative learning by mentioning peer interaction
3. Learning Materials
4. Faculty

Now IMD wants to design a perfect blended learning program, ingredient 3 and 4 are world class, how can we address 1& 2? The requirement 1 clearly rules out the feasibility of a full time traditional classroom course. Requirement 2 underlines the need for a virtual environment else flexibility of location and collaboration cannot be accommodated at the same time.

VLE comes in as solution to address the requirements of AEDP. Please refer to my blog “Path to blended Learning-Virtual Learning Environment” to learn about VLE. “Countenance” model (Stake, 1967) can be used to better understand the impact of VLE. The countenance model aims to capture the complexity of an educational innovation or change by comparing intended and observed outcomes at varying levels of operation. The congruence between the intentional and the observational accounts provides the basis for judging the success or otherwise of the innovation, whilst at the same time allowing for the recording of unintended outcomes. The experiments showed that observed outcomes were far more positive than intentional. Some positive outcomes of the studies related to VLE:
1. Improved learning experience by offering flexibility of time and place
2. Effective use of staff time
3. Increasing the reach- Internationalisation
4. Financial benefits: decrease in overall cost of education
5. Better use of space in campus



Typical components of VLE:



In terms of toolset VLE contains :
 Conferencing
 Content
 Tracking
 Assignment handling
 Assessment
 Synchronous tools
 Blogs
 Wikis
 Podcasting
 Social bookmarking
 Eportfolio

IMD’s VLE covers the full spectrum : wikis, blogs, conferencing, synchronous tools(chats), virtual blackboard etc. The VLE is packaged with all the enablers required for providing the best possible collaborative environment. I think IMD’s VLE is placed perfectly to enable the democratization of learning and run blended learning programs like AEDP smoothly. VLE introduces the participants to Web 2.0 and social networking tools and utilities. VLE tools helps not only to have a virtual classroom but also facilitates the peer learning by sharing and collaboration.

To summarize the usage of VLE has turned the learning experience upside down. Traditional courses can be summarized as : You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. With VLE enablement: You can bring a pond to a horse and hope it will dink.