This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The public sector has traditionally been perceived as resistant and inhospitable to innovation and change (Borins, 2001). This paper outlines a scenario that offers a viable, cost-effective solution for government institutions at the ministerial level to implement coaching. American Management Association. Coaching in organizations.
How can we, coachee and coach, be part of a solution or further action? Coaches are neither experts who provide ready-made solutions nor are they old-fashioned teachers who only convey knowledge. Not suggesting ready-made solutions and being neutral and non-directive are different concepts.
How can we, coachee and coach, be part of a solution or further action? Coaches are neither experts who provide ready-made solutions nor are they old-fashioned teachers who only convey knowledge. Not suggesting ready-made solutions and being neutral and non-directive are different concepts.
Because for some reason, a feasible solution is usually included with the "why," a bit like getting that second ShamWow for free. Keeping one's criticalthinking capacity on all the time – not hiding it behind laws or rules of polite discourse – is key to doing anything different or better.
Posted by Anthony on January 18, 2010 at 10:41 am | permalink | @Anthony: You clearly missed that Cathy and Quatrefoil are both Australian…as well as missing the point that extreme nationalism was one CAUSE of WWII and not the solution. Playing the whole 'if you don't think America is perfect, then get the hell on' card.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 36,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content