The Performance Improvement Blog

Executive Coaches Talk About Coaching Effectiveness

I participated in a presentation on coaching at Zingerman’s Roadhouse in Ann Arbor, Michigan on September 21, 2012. My co-presentors were Rob Pasick and Barb Allushuski. We talked about the growth of executive coaching, the range of styles of coaching, the ups and downs of coaching, and how to evaluate coaching. See below:

 

Why Evaluate Executive Coaching

Executive coaching has quickly become a nearly two billion dollar industry. Many companies now rely on coaching for the development of their leaders. Having a coach, once perceived as an admission of failure, is now perceived as a normal part of managing large, complex organizations. And coaching has also become common for entrepreneurs who need help transitioning from leader of a start-up to manager of a rapidly growing company.

With this acceptance of coaching, CEOs and Boards are beginning to ask if the substantial investment they are making in it is paying off.  Unfortunately, we don’t know much about the impact of coaching. Studies of coaching tend to rely on surveys of executives who are being coached. But this method of studying coaching is fraught with problems.

For example, an American Management Association survey of coaching found that respondents from organizations that use coaching more than in the past are also more likely to report two kinds of advantages:

1. They’re more likely to report that their organizations have higher levels of success in the area of coaching.

2. They’re more likely to say that their organizations are performing well in the market, as determined by self-reports in the combined areas of revenue growth, market share, profitability, and customer satisfaction.

The problem with this kind of study of coaching is that it is correlational and correlation does not necessarily mean causation. It is highly likely that high performing organizations choose to use coaching more than low performing organizations. In other words, high performance predicts coaching rather than coaching predicts high performance.

Survey studies of coaching are problematic in other ways, too. One, they lump all coaching into a black box without examining the many variations of coaching. Two, they are based on the assumption that the purpose of coaching is to change the individual when, in many cases, the purpose is to change a team or the organization as a whole. Three, they don’t tell us exactly how the coaching contributed to performance improvement within an environment in which many other factors may have contributed to the change. And four, they rarely look at long term impact, which is what is often the intended purpose of coaching.

To evaluate executive coaching, first we need to define what is meant by "coaching" in the situation being evaluated. Do they mean coaching for greater self-awareness, for developing leadership skills, for making a transition to a new job or role, or for solving a specific problem? Do they mean face-to-face, by phone, or email? Do they mean an hour a day, an hour a week, an hour a month, or as needed. Is the coaching process mostly inquiry or mostly advocacy?  Does the coaching include interviews of supervisors and direct reports? Does it involve observation of work situations and interactions? In other words, what does coaching mean for that executive and that organization?

What we need are studies that tell us what kind of coaching under what circumstances contribute to what kind of results for the organization and over what period of time. Surveys are helpful for knowing the extent of coaching and the general attitude of employees toward coaching. But to understand coaching well enough to be able to replicate effective coaching or improve coaching for an organization, we need to tell the story of the coaching experience. How did the executive get involved in coaching? What were her expectations? How did she work with the coach? What did the coach actually do? How much time did they spend in coaching? What happened? What did the executive learn? What is the executive doing differently? What impact is that having on her team and organization? What evidence is there that this kind of change is occurring and that it is linked to coaching?

When we can answer these questions we will understand what it is about various coaching interventions that have an effect on results.  We will be able to compare coaching to other potential interventions and replicate effective methods. We will know the return on investment. We will know what makes an executive coach qualified to coach. We will know what makes one approach to executive coaching better than another.

Evaluation of coaching is also important to do because it reinforces client learning. When we ask someone questions about what they have learned, it helps to make that learning stick. This is what happens when we ask clients questions about the coaching they received. Their self -awareness is increased, behavior change is strengthened, and long-term follow-through is more likely.

13 Attributes of Leaders

An article in the June issue of Inc. magazine, edited by Leigh Buchanan, identifies 13 “types of leaders.” I think “attribute” is a better label of the 13 given that an effective leader can have more than one of these qualities. In any case, it’s a useful list to consider especially since Inc. cites an excellent book for each of the 13. Here is the list with the corresponding books:

1. Adaptive - The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World, by Ronald A. Heifetz, Marty Linsky, and Alexander Grashow
2. Emotionally Intelligent - Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, by Daniel Goleman
3. Charismatic - Charismatic Leadership in Organizations, by Jay A. Conger and Rabindra N. Kanungo
4. Authentic - Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value, by Bill George
5. Level 5 - Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don't, by Jim Collins
6. Mindful - Mindfulness, by Ellen J. Langer
7. Narcissistic - Narcissistic Leaders: Who Succeeds and Who Fails, by Michael Maccoby
8. No-Excuse - No Excuse Leadership: Lessons From the U.S. Army's Elite Rangers, by Brace E. Barber
9. Resonant - Resonant Leadership: Renewing Yourself and Connecting With Others Through Mindfulness, Hope, and Compassion, by Richard E. Boyatzis and Annie McKee
10. Servant - Servant Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness, by Robert K. Greenleaf and Larry C. Spears
11. Storytelling - Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership, by Howard Gardner
12. Strengths-Based - Strengths Based Leadership: Great Leaders, Teams, and Why People Follow, by Tom Rath and Barry Conchie
13. Tribal - Tribal Leadership: Leveraging Natural Groups to Build a Thriving Organization, by Dave Logan, John King, and Halee Fischer-Wright

Lifelong Employee Learning

The Evolllution, in a report titled, Lifelong Education and Labor Market Needs, presents findings that support a key role for post-secondary institutions in educating workers for jobs that have gone unfilled while unemployment remains high, and in continually improving the position of workers within companies. The report’s conclusion states:

Many North Americans have trouble keeping pace with the changes occurring in today’s workplace. Despite the existence of 9.3 million unemployed Americans, the country experienced a shortage of 7 million skilled workers in 2010, a shortage that is expected to climb to 21 million by 2020. A lack of educational attainment sits at the root of the issue. So much so, that unless more North Americans strive to achieve a higher level of education, average income per capita is going to decline within the next decade.

Much of this unemployment is structural. Employers just don’t need as many employees today as they did a few years ago to do the same jobs. Technology and automation have made companies much more efficient. The only hope for workers is to continually upgrade their skills. Alvin Toffler, the futurist, has been quoted as saying, “The illiterate of the 21^st century will not be those who cannot read or write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” Colleges and universities will remain one key resource for this learning, unlearning, and relearning.

However, let’s not put all colleges and universities into the same pot. They have different missions, structures, and cultures. For example, large universities are not adept at making quick and timely changes in their curricula to respond to changing needs in a company’s workforce. In my region of the U.S. there is a severe shortage of IT engineers. Companies do not need people with four-year computer science degrees nor do they necessarily need people with two-year, community college degrees. They need people who have had enough education to be able to do the job and solve problems for customers. Some employees might only need a class or two. For others, a two-week “bootcamp” might be all that is necessary. Universities tend not to look at education this way. They are oriented towards the academic year, academic terms, and academic requirements.  These programs are often designed around the intellectual interests of faculty, not around the needs of students and their employers. That’s fine, but this is not what employees need in order to be successful in their work places.

Community colleges, by virtue of their mandates, can be more responsive to the development of workers. Living up to their name, these institutions strive to meet the needs of employers and learners in the communities that they serve. They can add and subtract courses and programs from term to term, and sometimes in shorter time spans, as long as there is a demand from students and there are available instructors (full-time or part-time) to teach the courses.

Universities often have to go through a much longer process to change curricula, sometimes taking several years with required approvals from departments, central administration, and state-level committees. These institutions can be effective partners in employee learning and development, but employers and learners should not assume that every institution can be responsive. Their mission and culture will dictate whether or not they can meet the needs of employees.

For these partnerships between employers and post-secondary institutions to work, employers must demand more cooperation from colleges and universities. And employers must be prepared to encourage and support employees who want to take advantage of this kind of resource.