A senior research scientist in a pharmaceutical company, Carol, who was responsible for overseeing and directing all internal medicines development, especially with respect to quality and the FDA trial and approval process, was having important difficulties with certain peer relationships. She was seven months into her new position, having been recruited from another pharmaceutical company with very high recommendations from peers and others who had worked with her for more than five years. Executive leaders were concerned that she would fail, if something was not quickly.
Randy Ruppart was the executive coach designated to work with her on these issues. After two lengthy meetings with Carol, Randy conducted in-person interviews with all relevant peers, much like an executive 360 degree process, having secured the approval from Carol and other key company persons involved in this effort. He learned that Carol was highly regarded for her scientific credentials, her research publications, and the relevancy of her experience as she had developed her career. Peers were highly satisfied with her as a scientist and believed she was superb choice for the position.
However, he learned also that Carol was perceived by her peers as having some rough edges that would appear, at times, as abrasiveness and possible disrespect. The latter came out when it appeared that in cross-functional meetings or other peer interchanges, Carol was not sufficiently respecting the perspectives and points of view expressed by others. Some peers observed that she was particularly sharp or even challenging with certain members of the group, continually. All could see that this type of behavior would not be effective over the long term, especially because Carol was losing the needed respect and cooperation of several of her peers, both men and women, rapidly.
All feedback to Carol was given without attribution and with care not to reveal in any hidden way from whom it was that the various comments came. She was both astonished and embarrassed that she had made such impressions on key others in such a short time. A coaching plan was created to help her increase her listening skills and the use of other communications skills to ensure that she heard others thoroughly and correctly and then asked non-challenging questions to probe for greater understanding. Additionally, the coaching plan would assist her in learning to a greater degree how to use negotiating and influencing language, at this level, more effectively. Her former company had a culture that valued and encouraged hard hitting debate and toughness as a way of ensuring quality and a low failure rate with the FDA.
Carol and Randy worked together to learn these needed skills, to apply them in appropriate and productive ways, and to look forward to her adaptation to a new culture as an opportunity for learning. After four months of coaching, the complaints about Carol had died away, and the degree of cooperation from peers had gone up quite noticeably. She continued her learning, practice, and critiques. At the end of eight months of coaching, another peer interview series was conducted. In this round, Carol’s rating with her peers went up significantly. And yet, not all peers felt very sure the “new Carol” would last long before reverting to her former interaction style. They believed that a halo effect might be operating; but they were willing to give her a chance and try to support and encourage her wherever possible.
When a three months and six months review was conducted, after the end of the formal coaching program, that included Carol, her EVP manager, her senior level HR specialist, and Randy, the conclusion was that Carol, even by her own self assessment, had retained and was successfully practicing what she had gained from the coaching. There had been some slips; but Carol had quickly self corrected and said she had been strengthened by these instances. The coaching had been a successful intervention and a key scientist and executive had been saved from failure.
