Welcome to Business Management
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Executive Coaching Research, Part IV
Anderson (2001) surveyed executives from a Fortune 500 company who had recently been through an executive coaching program. The research was designed for executives to speculate the monetary value of the coaching based upon their work subsequent to the coaching received. Compared to the amount spent on coaching, the study reported a 529% ROI and additive intangible benefits. When employee retention (presumably from executives who remained because of the firm offering coaching) was factored into the equation as a benefit, the ROI increased to 788%.
Overall, productivity (60% favorable) and employee satisfaction (53%) were cited as most significantly affected by the coaching. Respondents defined productivity in this context as relating to their personal or to their work group productivity and half (50%) documented annualized financial benefits, but could not quantify them. Based upon multi-source feedback, corporate management believed the ROI from executive coaching was of significant value to the overall corporate profitability.
This study is worth citing for several reasons. First, the executives were from a Fortune 500 company. Second, the evaluating company and author was an independent third party. The executives had recognizable potential in that they were already identified for an executive development program. The employees reacted positively to executive coaching, believing that the interventions brought both corporate and personal benefits. Finally, the author had leadership positions in several professional groups that have excellent reputations in the training and development community.
In a more recent study, Orenstein (2002) challenged the prevailing understanding of executive coaching as an exclusively individual intervention. Orenstein believes executive coaching is a complex and demanding process that encompasses multidimensional interrelationships among the client, the organization (client) and the coach. She uses four premises that guide the process, including, (a) the role of the unconscious in individual and group behavior, (b) the interaction between the individual and the organization, (c) multilevel organizational forces, and (d) the coach's use of self as a tool.
In one of the largest studies involving executive coaching, Smither, London, Flautt, Vargas, and Kucine (2003) evaluated the effect of executive coaching by using multisource feedback ratings from executives in a global corporation. The focal point of their research was to discover the impact of executive coaching as it related to actual behavioral change and improvement. The study involved over 1,300 senior managers who had received multisource feedback on their performance with the results being made available to the researchers. Just over 400 of the managers (29.7% of the original group) were assigned to work with executive coaches.
Smither (2003) had several hypotheses related to executives who worked with coaches. They proposed that those who received coaching would be more likely to set specific goals, share their feedback (asking for ways to improve), and improve in their future multisource ratings. The study's outcome demonstrated that clients who worked with executive coaches were more likely to set goals that were specific and garner ideas from their supervisors for personal improvement. Additionally, managers who were coached improved more than the non-coached managers in their ratings from both direct reports and supervisors.
As a result, of the study, Smither (2003) made an important observation: practitioners may wonder whether the small, albeit positive, effect sizes observed in the current study are sufficient to justify the investment in executive coaching. Because the standard deviation of job performance in dollars is likely to be large for senior managers, even small improvements in performance may be associated with meaningful economic benefits. In the end, the authors think that judgments about the practical (e.g., economic) value of executive coaching must await further research.
Overall, productivity (60% favorable) and employee satisfaction (53%) were cited as most significantly affected by the coaching. Respondents defined productivity in this context as relating to their personal or to their work group productivity and half (50%) documented annualized financial benefits, but could not quantify them. Based upon multi-source feedback, corporate management believed the ROI from executive coaching was of significant value to the overall corporate profitability.
This study is worth citing for several reasons. First, the executives were from a Fortune 500 company. Second, the evaluating company and author was an independent third party. The executives had recognizable potential in that they were already identified for an executive development program. The employees reacted positively to executive coaching, believing that the interventions brought both corporate and personal benefits. Finally, the author had leadership positions in several professional groups that have excellent reputations in the training and development community.
In a more recent study, Orenstein (2002) challenged the prevailing understanding of executive coaching as an exclusively individual intervention. Orenstein believes executive coaching is a complex and demanding process that encompasses multidimensional interrelationships among the client, the organization (client) and the coach. She uses four premises that guide the process, including, (a) the role of the unconscious in individual and group behavior, (b) the interaction between the individual and the organization, (c) multilevel organizational forces, and (d) the coach's use of self as a tool.
In one of the largest studies involving executive coaching, Smither, London, Flautt, Vargas, and Kucine (2003) evaluated the effect of executive coaching by using multisource feedback ratings from executives in a global corporation. The focal point of their research was to discover the impact of executive coaching as it related to actual behavioral change and improvement. The study involved over 1,300 senior managers who had received multisource feedback on their performance with the results being made available to the researchers. Just over 400 of the managers (29.7% of the original group) were assigned to work with executive coaches.
Smither (2003) had several hypotheses related to executives who worked with coaches. They proposed that those who received coaching would be more likely to set specific goals, share their feedback (asking for ways to improve), and improve in their future multisource ratings. The study's outcome demonstrated that clients who worked with executive coaches were more likely to set goals that were specific and garner ideas from their supervisors for personal improvement. Additionally, managers who were coached improved more than the non-coached managers in their ratings from both direct reports and supervisors.
As a result, of the study, Smither (2003) made an important observation: practitioners may wonder whether the small, albeit positive, effect sizes observed in the current study are sufficient to justify the investment in executive coaching. Because the standard deviation of job performance in dollars is likely to be large for senior managers, even small improvements in performance may be associated with meaningful economic benefits. In the end, the authors think that judgments about the practical (e.g., economic) value of executive coaching must await further research.
# posted by gopi @ 5:22 AM 
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]