From GROW to GROUP: A critical review of Brown and Grant; Theoretical issues and a practical model for coaching in organisations
Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 3:1, 30-45.
Coaching has always been acknowledged to be a successful developmental tool in the world of business. These methods used in large organisations have now been transferred into educational environments, spanning from primary, through to secondary and into tertiary. There is limited research in peer reviewed journals on coaching within education. A look at a range of leading journals yielded many articles focusing on executive coaching within the business sector. The theoretical piece of research that I have decided to review is stated above and was located in the; Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice.
The paper discusses the benefits of a group coaching model that is underpinned by Sir John Whitmore’s (1992) GROW model. The GROW model is widely used in a variety of contexts and this is why I have decided to review the article.
Brown and Grant (2010) explore the need to target interventions within organisations at group level, whilst acknowledging that most coaching is dyadic (one-to one) and that few models of group coaching have been developed. The authors have produced a piece of theoretical literature as it presents suggestions for recommend changes to coaching applications in organisations. The main findings of their work show the need to distinguish between group coaching and group facilitation. It identifies group coaching having an important but under used potential within organisations, in creating goal-focused change. The study attempts to merge coaching models with theoretical practices, to provide the coach with a framework to use when delivering interventions at group level. The results do not really highlight how group coaching is perceived or how successful when applied to different contexts. This critical review will attempt to decipher if combining models and theoretical practices create positive environments that sustain change.
This is an academic paper published by researchers at the University of Sydney and can be read in: Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice. The article seeks to evaluate the role of group coaching within organisations and discusses the many positives from using such an approach. It draws upon prominent coaching models and theoretical practices to evaluate the impact group coaching can have within business environments. The study has been conducted in two clear sections. The first solely identifies and discusses theoretical issues surrounding coaching, both at a dyadic level but also as a group. Throughout this part of the paper the authors review emerging literature on group coaching, but due to lack of quality research on group coaching, dyadic coaching is supplemented to support their arguments, on why certain models are needed to promote positive coaching environments. The second section of the paper analyses models and practices of coaching which are used in organisations. The main model discussed is Sir John Whitmore’s GROW, the authors adapt the basic principles of GROW to their model GROUP. The authors then explore and explain the fundamentals of the GROUP coaching model and what affects it could have at different levels within business organisations.
The main findings of the work are developed in the discussion around two key themes. Firstly, merging Whitmore’s GROW model and Scharmer’s (2007) U process for group dialogue allows for constructive coaching sessions that promotes and sustain change. Scharmer (2007) Theory U process proposes that the quality of the results that we create in any kind of social system is a function of the quality of awareness, attention, or consciousness that the participants in the system operate from. Secondly, for group coaching to be successful, the phase “understand others” must be reinforced to all participants, ‘to enable generative solutions at a systemic level rather than the more common reactive response on a symptom level.’ Brown and Grant (2010 p39). Furthermore, they argue the GROUP model is more of a mental model than a stepped, linear framework. Ultimately, they propose integrating the goal focused nature of dyadic coaching with the dynamic energy and systemic perspectives of inherent in group processes, fosters real change at individual, group and organisational level.
The aim of the authors is to review dyadic coaching approaches and compare them with a proposed model for group coaching. Brown and Grant (2010) state coaching within organisational settings continues to be almost conducted in a dyadic format; Hamlin, Ellinger and Beattie (2008) support this, proclaiming internal performance coaches are being used on a daily basis to develop professionals within many organisations. Throughout the first section of the article, it becomes apparent, the authors believe a greater emphasis on group coaching is needed. Wheelan (2003) criticises the dyadic approach as it fails to position systemic factors at the core of the coaching process. Scharamer (2007) supports both authors and Wheelan (2003) stating systemic awareness is needed for both individuals and groups to generate understanding of organisations and their various sub-groups. If this occurs real change can take place.
Throughout the first part of the paper clearly distinguish the difference between team and group coaching. The authors use the definition of Bloisi, Cook and Hunsaker (2003) to describe team coaching as; coaching specifically targeted groups where the individuals are working closely together towards a defined and accountable goal.
Another definition of group coaching is proposed by Hawkins (2011) as; ‘a process, by which a team coach works with the whole team, both when they are together or when they are apart, in order to help them improve their collective performance and how they work together, and also how they develop their collective leadership to more effectively engage with all their key stakeholder groups to jointly transform the wider business (Hawkins 2011 cited in Clutterbuck 2013 p19). Brown and Grant (2010) define group coaching in much broader sense; acknowledging that groups of individuals do not need to be working together towards a specific goals.
All the above definitions identify the importance of the group and using coaching as the driving force for change but it can be assumed that the groups being coached are at the top of the hierarchical structure within organisations. The authors use literature from both team and group coaching perspectives throughout the article.
Brown and Grant (2010) found that group coaching has a positive effect on team productivity as goals are set together and driven by a shared purpose. However, the study is small, and the findings are rather limited, there is a lack of empirical research to support the claims made by the two authors. Brown and Grant (2010) are perhaps too quick to propose that ‘group coaching’ method is better for organisations and businesses.
Brown and Grant (2010) aim to provide theoretically informed commentary to break down the common purpose of coaching; by linking the dyadic and group approaches the authors highlight the main focus which is change and growth. Brown and Grant (2010) propose the primary difference between both models of practice; is the need for group coaches to have a strong understanding of group dynamics in addition to the individual interpersonal and rapport –building skills necessary for dyadic coaching.
What is evident from the merging of models, is the need to understand group dynamics, with rapport being one of the key elements for group coaching to be successful. Brown and Grant (2010) recognise approaches to dyadic coaching vary considerably when discussing how coaching is delivered; this is mirrored in the emerging group coaching literature, which discusses different approaches. The literature outlines a long list of benefits attached to group coaching. Ward (2008) claims improved listening and communication, constructive conflict resolution and leadership development; are a few positive outcomes that can be delivered via group coaching.
These assertions seem very persuasive when supporting group coaching as a model for an organisation, but as Brown and Grant (2010) admit much of the reported benefits are anecdotal. Hackman and Wageman (2005) support the authors as there is little robust evidence that coaching interventions focussed on improving interpersonal relationships reliably improve performance.
Brown and Grant (2010) convincingly argue the importance to acknowledge the dyadic approach which underpins coaching models like GROW, though the authors do not offer an alternative with which it could be contrasted. Being a single case study, there is little indication of whether other coaching approaches could be used in a group context. The literature included within the article supports the reliability of the claims made by the authors around the understanding of group coaching.
The article attempts to distinguish the differences between group coaching and group facilitation.
Both practices are similar as they draw upon a wide range of theories and approaches, which originate from various academic and professional disciplines. The authors accept group coaching and group facilitation are extremely similar, having the same purpose for improving groups do better. Clutterbuck (2007) presents greater clarity between the two practices, when applied within a team coaching context. In his opinion the facilitator manages dialogue for the team and focuses them on decision making. The coach empowers the team to manage the dialogue themselves and focuses on goal achievement. The writers attempt to clarify the differences between the role of coach and facilitator is achieved but a level of overlap and ambiguity still remains, causing a blurring of the boundaries between the two practices.
Brown and Grant (2010) are explicit about the theoretical orientation guiding their research, clearly defining the concepts they use, which makes extensive use of these concepts in reporting findings and they develop a model to explain the variation in coaching practice that the authors found.
The second section of the article examines John Whitmore (2002) GROW (Goal, Reality, Options, Way forward) model and how Brown and Grant (2010) use this to form a coaching model to guide the practice of group coaching. Brown and Grant (2010) merge GROW into GROUP, presenting their model as a more goal focused approach and as a possible alternative to other group dynamic approaches. The GROUP model (Goal, Reality, Options, Understanding others, Perform) clearly follows the initial phases of Whitmore’s famous GROW method of coaching.
What distinguishes GROUP from GROW is the understanding of others. Brown and Grant (2010) believe the ability to truly understand others is the key factor in successful group coaching. They further discuss the importance of this phase when shifting individual or group awareness, which enables generative solutions at a systemic level rather than the more common reactive responses on a symptom level. When delivering group coaching, dialogue not discussion is vital. Brown and Grant (2010) proclaim generative dialogue is central to the ‘Understanding Others’ phase.
Isaacs (1999) supports the authors by arguing that in discussion people see themselves as being separate from each other; where dialogue brings people together and generate insights. Scharmer (2007) believes dialogue enables a group to, ‘reach a higher level of consciousness and creativity through the gradual creation of a shared set of meanings and a common thinking process’ (Scharmer 2007 p49). Focusing on dialogue rather than discussion participants within the group will actively listen to each other.
Brown and Grant (2010) extend their model further by applying a review and evaluate stage to their model. This allows the action steps from the previous coaching sessions to be systematically reviewed and evaluated, before new goals are established or adapted. Underpinning the review and evaluate stage is double loop learning. Argyris’s (1991) approach to double loop learning supports the author’s use of this theory within their model. As Brown and Grant (2010) propose for the group coach to encourage participants to examine their underlying assumptions and mental models, and where appropriate the group to identify areas where personal change or transformation has occurred.
No detailed reference has been made to other research that might support Brown and Grant (2010) claims about effective group coaching approaches in business or educational settings, nor is any counter evidence discussed. Their claims would be more convincing if they had related them to others’ work. It is notable that Brown and Grant (2010) question the orthodox view of that 1:1 coaching is always effective. If most of the existing research supported the orthodox they set out to challenge, when the authors wrote their article there may have been little published evidence from elsewhere to support his view.
Clutterbuck (2009) identifies many issues with simplistic models of coaching. He highlights dangers in one model approaches, such as GROW and can be related to GROUP. Clutterbuck (2009) believes coaching becomes mechanistic and in some cases the setting of goals at the start of the relationship can sometimes be a crutch for the coach, rather than for the benefit of the coachee. Clutterbuck (2009) reasons that models such as GROW or GROUP are valid in appropriate circumstances, but can and sometimes demonstrably do lead to rigidity of thinking about their client. He further highlights the model, process or theoretical framework drives the learning conversation, rather than the learning conversation driving the selection of tools and techniques. It is clear from the article the model being proposed is purely goal focused and could be deemed rigid by Clutterbucks (2009) definition.
Brown and Grant (2010) conclusions are that group coaching should be widely used within different organisational contexts. Collective target setting promotes effective teamwork and increases productivity. These conclusions are fairly convincing for the context of business environments but I would question if such an approach can be transferred easily into an educational environment. The authors back their claims with a coherent piece of research that is, however modest in scope.
The writers could in principle have provided stronger support for their claims if they had drawn on a wider range of research literature on group coaching approaches in business and elsewhere, had investigated a wider range of organisational contexts and included outcome measures in assessing the degree of synergy achieved within selected groups that received coaching as a collective. However, given the modest scope of their research, they appropriately state their claims which are tentative. Brown and Grant (2010) avoid gross over generalisation by indicating that they are making claims only for a select sample of businesses.
Brown and Grant (2010) emphasise the importance of their model being client-centred, which allows for greater flexibility and the methodology is to aid the process of group coaching, not an ideology to be strictly adhered to.
The emerging academic literature around group coaching is still limited. Therefore, this article has attempted to integrate the dyadic GROW model with Scharmer’s U Process to produce a methodology that will assist in developing and promoting group coaching within organisations. The article highlights the lack of robust research that supports the proposed benefits of current literature around group coaching but do identify the need for focused interventions at group level.
In conclusion, can a group coaching model be transferred from the business sector into an educational environment? From critically reviewing this article I would argue that it could. The need to tackle under performance is vitally important in any school, by using a group coaching approach within departments, this could foster the necessary change that is required to improve standards. The approach described by Brown and Grant (2010) of harnessing the goal focused nature of dyadic coaching with dynamic energy inherent in group processes could have a dramatic effect on how teaching – teachers are developed.
The underlying issue by transposing this model into an education setting is the experience needed for the coach to tackle complex dialogues between staff and departments. There was a lack of evidence within the research that focused on how to improve group dynamics to ensure dialogue was productive during coaching sessions. External coaches could be an option but due to schools having contrasting budgets this would not be a viable solution.
The authors try to show what good practice looks like when using the GROUP model but I would argue that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that this approach would foster real change at the individual, group or organisational level in an educational context.
This is a response and reflection on @carminegallo post in Forbes : http://www.forbes.com/sites/carminegallo/2016/05/24/3-daily-habits-of-peak-performers-according-to-michael-phelps-coach/#12338f6c194a
Bob Bowman is one of the greatest coaches of modern sport and guided Micheal Phelps to an unprecedented medal haul in both World and Olympic competition. It would be easy to attribute this success to raw talent, natural ability or a meticulously periodised training programme but when you scratch a little deeper, you will see it comes down to the practice of three daily habits to achieve excellence which can be equally as powerful to us a school leaders.
Habit No1: Vision
Bowman reflects that not one of his athletes had any lack of clarity about ‘why’ they’re in the pool and the focus for that day – micro-periodisation is a feature of elite training but linked with ‘why’ and I am hearing Simon Sinek running through my head adding brevity and significance to what each daily focus is. Bowman’s focus is to enable every swimmer to swim a medal winning time and to encourage athletes to focus on the process not the outcome.
Process not outcome is something that is hard for leaders to comprehend. In high stakes accountability of education it surely makes moral sense. If the processes are right the outcomes will surely follow? In Bowmans case it links to ‘controlling the controllables’ – his athlete’s may well swim medal winning times in training, heats and finals but may not end up with a medal. The medal isn’t the ‘why’, it is being fast enough – if you get that right process, the outcome will take care of itself! The same can be true for the relationship betweem the classroom and results. If the classroom is purposeful, engaging, challenging and with high expectations, surely the results will take care of themselves? In theory anyway!
This links directly to our previous post on ‘Better’ and creating an environment that enables everyone to succeed and feel valued in the organization. As Bowman says, ‘it’s more important to pursue excellence every day' and to remind yourself of the ‘why’ and ultimate vision to ensure sustainable greatness happens.
Habit No2: Mental Rehearsal
Bowman reflects on Michael Phelps’ ability to visualize himself and mentally rehearse every aspect of what he is going to achieve. What makes Phelps so good at this, according to Bowman, is that he is able to perceive every aspect of his performance, even to the point of sitting in the stand, overcoming barriers, running through different race scenarios, watching his race unfold.
Now how many times a day, a week, a half-term, a term, do we as leaders take an opportunity to deeply reflect on where we are and where we want to get to?
Bowman believes that the ‘brain is unable to distinguish between something that’s vividly imagined and something that’s real’ – this is a key concept in achieveing and believing we can achieve what we set out to do each day.
How much time do we focus on where we are rather than picturing and rehearsing the steps that will enable us to get to where we want to be? The reflections on the Relentless Optimism are just that in our desire to have maximum impact on the lives of the young people we serve and stepping-stones to doing it – be it seeking Headship, being the best leaders we can be or making the most impact on our young peoples lives.
Bowman says ‘If you can form a strong mental picture and visualize yourself doing it, your brain will immediately find ways to get you there’. This surely has to be something we adopt as school leaders into our day? - thinking through and ‘feeling‘ the steps that are going to lead us to where we want to get to.
Habit No3: Practice
It isn’t surprising that practice features as a key component to Phelps sporting success and is much talked about in Mathew Syeds’ Bounce and has lead to a greater understanding of Mastery and the golden 10,000hrs to become expert. But does this work in a leadership context?
Bowman reflects that Phelps trained for 365 days a year for 6 years in preparation for the 2004 Olympic games. School improvement would struggle to be allowed such a length of time but even so, clarity around the vision, coupled with mental rehearsal and practicing the right things undoubtably has impact.
The challenge is that excellent performers make it look easy. They are deceptive in how they make it look. Excellent leaders are no different but underneath this lies hours of practice that goes unseen. With authentic leaders the practice is discreet and it is the fundamental desire to get it right drives them. Bowman notes that ‘the wonderful result of practice is that you have literally programmed the brain for peak performance’.
So, what do we know now that we didn’t at the start of this post?
Vision is king – know where it is you are going but more importantly ensure every member of the organisiation lives and breathes the ‘why’ you are doing it.
Mentally rehearse the steps you are going to take to ensure the organization delivers the vision for your young people and colleagues. Mentally walk through the successes and barriers that you will potentially encounter so that they don’t hold you up and you can anticipate them.
Practice, practice, reflect and refine and practice! This is true to all aspects of your role as a leader. Mentally rehearse the difficult conversation, practice presentations so they look smooth and seemless, anticipate the curve ball questions with pre-thought out responses.
And don’t doubt ‘why’ we do it! To be relentlessly optimistic for the young people we serve and to make sure every single member of the organization feels valued in pursuit of doing it ‘better’!
I had an inspiring day @TheKeySupport Performance Management Conference today and came across for the second time in 24hours, a quote that has caused me to reflect deeply on what it is we are trying to secure as Senior Leaders in schools.
@johntomsett shared this quote which I had also received as a text this morning by one of the @ROptimism team. It reads:
Just look after people!
'Too much sport operates under the tyranny of the result...the core principle at Saracens is that we gather talented people together, treat them unbelievably well and in return they try unbelievably hard. That is it. Everything else - winning or losing matches, winning or losing Cups - are just outcomes. They are not the primary aim. We exist to have a positive impact on as many people as possible'.
Edward Griffiths, CEO Saracens RFC
This quote represents a defining moment in shaping and consolidating my vision for Headship and will be a key component of any applications and interviews I am lucky enough to be invited to. My mission statement will be built upon 'better'. Better people - be it students, teachers, support staff, parents must be part of the core aim of any school community. In being better, everyone achieves and unlocks their full potential on the road to being exceptional.
I took some time out of school this morning to reflect on this and propose these slight tweaks to Edward Griffiths original statement. This will become my ultimate driver as senior leader.
Too much in education and school operates under the tyranny of the results and high stakes accountability structures. The core principle at the school I want to lead, is that we strive to gather talented people together, with the same core values and passion for our young people and we treat them unbelievably well. In return, they will try unbelievably hard to be exceptional in everything they do. That is it! Everything else, OFSTED, exam results, governmental change are secondary. They are not our primary aim. We exist to have a positive impact, nurturing and releasing the potential in as many young people and colleagues as possible.
This is a core driver, the leadership DNA that we live by in striving to do the best for the young people we are fortunate to serve, ensuring that colleagues are enabled to do everything in their power to be exceptional. In essence, ensuring everyone is focused on being better!
Better isn't a new concept and one of the @ROptimism key mantra's is 'how can we do it better?'. 'Better people make better All Blacks' we have already reflected on in a previous blog, so in essence, better leaders will enable better climates, better outcomes and therefore, better potential to be released in everyone.
Adidas is without doubt one of the leading sportswear manufacturers and a huge global success. Easily identifiable and innovative, Adidas has become a huge success.
This success wasn't accidental and did not happen over night. In this series of blogs, we are going to have a delve into the Adi Dassler Standards, the bible which at one time was given to all Adidas employees, which sets out the blue print of what and how this company became a giant of the global sports marketing world on built on simple, shared and embodied core values, something we believe will resonate with school leaders. We hope you enjoy!
Like all visionary leaders Adi Dassler started with a clear vision. Over time, following interviews with his trusted colleagues, these were identified and exemplified and became 'his' standards. He offered a definition of what is was to be part of Adidas and what he expected out of every colleague.
These were the core principles that were built upon to become and embody everything Adidas aspired to do.
Any organisation needs to have a clear idea of where it is going, these 'guidelines and measuring sticks' of success needed to execute and evaluate our performance are essential. Without them, much time and effort is wasted and opportunities are missed.
There is no doubt about the value of such a set of guiding principles and you will see as we explore them each week that these are in no way constraining but enable all members of the organisation to reflect and question 'how can we do it better?'
This constant reflection, coupled with a crystal clear vision, building the organisational trust, diligence & belief enabled Adi Dassler to create an organisation that embodies what schools can create, the only difference is that our 'product' or USP is our young people!
I wanted to reflect on @ieshasmall Introverted Leader talk at the Telegraph Festival of Education, after being left speechless by @jazampawfarr story above. I have combined these with my own views on what we do as leaders and what it means to be Relentlessly Optimistic for our young people.
@jazampawfarr asks us to consider which type of teacher we are going to be and I suggest that this can be asked as which type of leader we are going to be? Do you remember ‘why’ you went into teaching and then leadership? Do you care and advocate beyond the job because it is more important than performance tables and accountability measures? We manage the hope and aspirations of some of the most vulnerable members of our society and cannot afford to hinder the life chances of any students and these students in particular.
Now, from the What it means to be Relentlessly Optimistic video, you get a sense of my own feelings on this and the breaking down and running through walls analogy, whilst motivating and inspiring for some, isn’t necessarily how we all manifest our own leadership. Or can it be but in different forms?
The values may well be the same but how we make that happen can be hugely different and equally important.
@ieshasmall spoke about the benefits that the introverted leader can bring to school leadership, especially when complimented with extroverts. @ieshasmall noted five typically introverted traits and can be used as strengths. The link to @ieshasmall’s blog is below but I wanted to dwell on two of the traits identified, as I feel these connect the most with ‘why’ we do it.
‘Observation and the ability to notice what others may miss’ are essential if we are not to miss the current day @jazampawfarr’s of this world. This is something that could be missed if leadership is dominated by gregarious and extroverted leaders. We need leaders to notice all things but especially the small things!
‘Quiet passion’ – that burns and niggles is another of the traits identified in introverted leaders. Again, essential if we are not to miss any young people and ties in with my contention that actually, that fire and passion is the same as our extroverted wall-breakers but expressed and channelled through a different lens.
Ideally, leadership will be a blend of extroverts and introverts. The danger is the quiet voice of the introvert can be drowned out by the extroverts. There is a saying about being wary of the quiet person in the fight, as they sit back and watch trouble unfold and know that when trouble comes, they can take care of it. The same can be applied to leadership contexts, so extroverts need to know themselves and enable our introverts to shine through and have a voice. Extroverts need introverts spotting and noticing the small things, otherwise they will be missed.
@ieshasmall commented that ‘the most important thing for leaders of all types is to be really clear about our purpose and aims’; I feel it goes even deeper than that and that we have to connect with ‘why’ we are leading in schools. We have to lead to make a difference on everyone within the organisation. As @jazampawfarr puts it, we need to be ‘agents of transformation’ . We can do this as extroverts running through walls or as introverts, with a steely, considered determination to do whatever is needed for our young people!
As long as our values and ‘why’ are the same, the walls will come tumbling down!
We, like many of our colleagues, are in the midst of number crunching, analysing, crystal ball gazing and looking for those 'marginal gains' that will ensure that we our Year 11 students get the grades that they are not only capable of, but deserve.
We have divided the Year 11 into groups that meet regularly with members of the Senior Leadership Team; reflected on who would work best with each person, to try and ensure the best match and leverage to entice and elicit more from individual students. Google Classroom has been employed to create learning groups, Weebly has been used in the development of a one-stop-school specific revision hub where there are materials and resources in abundance.
However, what value does this extra-ordinary effort from us have if we cannot unpick the 'why' and get students to really 'TH!NK' about what they are doing? In a Leadership training session last year, we were fortunate enough to go through a coaching session with the sports performance coach Keith Antoine (@coackKBA). Keith introduced us to what he called the 'Think Model' and I have reflected on this and will endeavour to explain its value in the context of Year 11.
The model begins with the tenet that 'people always do the right thing......as they see it at that point in time for them'. It is worth exploring this a little; people always do the right thing in their mind, Year 11 students are no different. They do not actively set out to under achieve, leave work to the last minute, but they invariably do. They often lack the capacity to perceive forwards and think about seeing it at a 'future point of time'.
At this point, well intended ‘coaches’ rain forth great wisdom about what they did, what students should do and wonder why it has little or no effect. They stumble into the ‘advisory or telling’ mode.
The problem here is that very little actually changes in their learning behaviour. Students are not required to 'think' deeply enough and with guided and skilful questioning make the connections. More often than not, motivation plummets and resentment and disaffection grow. After all, ‘if I don’t try, I know I didn’t achieve because I put no effort in, not because I couldn’t do it’!
Our challenge is to enable students to 'TH!NK' deeply.
We must ask questions that enable our students to 'think' about the changes and narrow the gap between us 'telling' and them 'thinking', otherwise, learning behaviours won’t change.
I have attempted to capture this visually below.
We must ask the right questions to enable students to ‘TH!NK’ above the line and make positive connections about the choices they are going to make.
They have to connect cognitively to the tasks in hand if they are to make positive behavioural change. They lack the depth of experience to reference these points in the future so we have to elicit skilful responses by asking the ‘right questions’ and avoid ‘telling’ at all costs!
If we can get this right, then students self-confidence will grow and they will see and make the positive changes that are needed to be successful.
The challenge for us as educators is to move out of the ‘telling phase’ and invest enough time and thought to ask the right questions to enable them to ‘THINK’ with clarity and purpose so that they can sense and feel the end goal!