Global Trends in the Use of Coaching in the Workplace (2011)

Global trends in the use of coaching in the workplaceResearch study, prepared by Matt Rule and Dr. David Rock

www.neuroleadership.com

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Trends in coaching strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6High-level definition of coaching programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6Maturity of coaching strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6Description of coaching strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7How coaching programs link to business strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Coaching strategy development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Coaching program support and management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Investment in coaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Comments about coaching strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Trends in general coaching practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Coaching definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Types of coaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Coaching program delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Coaching program integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Formal coaching engagements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Comments about general coaching practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Trends in coaching skills programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Purpose of coaching skills programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Vendors and models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Coaching skills training and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Integration with existing organizational priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Measuring impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Trends in internal coaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Purpose of internal coaching programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Vendors and models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Internal coach population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Training and development of internal coaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Internal coaching supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Internal coaching engagements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Integration with existing organizational priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Measuring impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Trends in external coaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Vendors and models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Selection criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30External coaching engagements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Integration with existing organizational priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31External coaching supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31Measuring impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Comparing the three modalities of coaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Choice of modality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Vendors and models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Number of coaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Coaching supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Structure of engagements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Training and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37Integration with existing organizational priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Measuring impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Key findings from the whole study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Key findings about coaching strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Coaching skills programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Internal coaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42External coaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43The value of partnering with an external resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Contents

© NeuroLeadership Group 2011 3

IntroductionBackground

The NeuroLeadership Group (formerly Results Coaching Systems) is a human performance organization with operations in 24 countries.

In early 2010, the NeuroLeadership Group (NLG) commenced a study into the way organizations around the world utilize coaching in the workplace.

Coaching has emerged as a key component in most organizations’ human resources and learning and development strategies.

Through this study and the responses from different organizations from around the world, we aim to better understand how extensively coaching is being utilized, in what ways it is being deployed, how developed it is (both globally and in different markets) and how successful it is for these organizations.

This paper outlines the findings from the study.

Purpose

This study has three main objectives:

n Identify, measure and compare the ways in which internal coaching, executive coaching and coaching skills programs are being used in organizations

n Identify emerging trends in how coaching is being used in different parts of the world

n Quantify the impact each form of coaching is having

It is assumed that the findings from this paper will help identify best practice principles that organizations can apply as they continue to build their coaching strategies.

Methodology

Data presented in this paper was collected via an online survey that consisted of 81 questions across six sections:

n Strategic planning

n General coaching practices

n Internal coaching

n Coaching skills for managers and leaders programs

n External coaching

n Information about the respondent and their organization

4 Global trends in the use of coaching in the workplace

A team consisting of six people from NLG (David Rock, Matt Rule and Ruth Donde) and Hydro Tasmania (Suzan West, Nicola Jones and Mark Mclean) created the survey. The survey was then sent to a group of senior HR and L&D managers who provided feedback that guided revisions prior to launching. David Clutterbuck provided valuable feedback on the survey during its development.

To ensure the data was appropriately focused and accurate, respondents who wanted to take part in the survey were asked two questions to qualify them.

As this is a study about coaching in medium to large organizations, the first question identified if they were a small business or not. The second question identified whether they had full knowledge of their organization’s coaching programs. If either question was answered ‘no’ the respondent did not qualify and was taken to the end of the survey.

The majority of questions were multiple choice and respondents only needed to answer questions that were relevant to them and their organization. If the respondent’s organization did not have the modality that was being measured in that part of the survey (eg. internal coaching, external coaching or coaching skills programs) the survey skipped that entire section and moved to the next.

So therefore, the percentages presented in this paper are of those who do have active coaching programs that include the modality of coaching being measured.

If the organization didn’t have an active coaching program at all, it took them to the final section of the survey relating to information about them and their organization.

The survey was promoted via NLG’s database, as well as through relevant associations, business networks and group mailing lists.

Respondents could remain anonymous if they wished, however they were required to answer questions relating to demographics.

Demographics

896 people attempted to complete the survey. From these, 363 respondents qualified and completed the survey.

Respondents from 28 countries completed the survey. For the purpose of analyzing the data and comparing and contrasting trends, countries are grouped by region. Regions are depicted in the graph below.

Oceania refers to Australia and New Zealand.

The major countries represented in the survey were (largest to smallest): United States, Australia, Czech Republic, Brazil, South Africa, China, Finland, New Zealand, UAE, India, Singapore, United Kingdom and Canada.

Regions:

South Asia 5%

Middle East 5%

Africa 7%

Latin America 8%

Asia 11%

Oceania 16%

North America 22%

Europe 26%


Other countries represented included: Austria, Barbados, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Kenya, Niger, Pakistan, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Slovakia, Switzerland and Turkey.

Over half of the respondents worked in the Human Resources department of their organization. The other 47% were a mix of people who worked at the Executive/C-Suite level or worked in Learning and Development, Organizational Development or Operations.

The industry in which the respondents operated in was quite varied. The four largest being: Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (17%), Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (14%), Manufacturing (14%) and Government and Education (13%).

The majority of organizations that took part operated in 1–15 countries (62%) and had more than 10,000 employees (30%).

Departments:

Finance 1%

IT 2%

Marketing 2%

Administration 3%

Sales 6%

Operations 8%

Executive/C-Suite 11%

Other 14%

Human Resources 53%

0 5 10 15 20 %

Nonprofit

Internet

Construction

Agriculture, Mining

Health Care

Retail, Wholesale

Communications, Utilities

Other

Government, Education

Manufacturing

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services


Trends in coaching strategyRespondents were invited to take part in the study regardless of whether they currently had a coaching program running within their organization or not. Of all the respondents, 79% had a coaching program currently running within their organization.

The 21% that did not have an active coaching program within their organization did not answer any other questions in the survey (except for questions about them and their organization) and are therefore excluded from the remaining data figures provided in this paper.

Of those that said they did not currently have a coaching program running, 18% were from the Czech Republic, 11% were from the USA, 11% were from Finland and 10% were from Australia.

High-level definition of coaching programs

The majority (42%) of those that have an active coaching program said that it could be defined as a formal program with clear strategy, formal endorsement and funding.

In relation to strategy, 55% of the respondents who do have a coaching program running within their organization said they had a clear strategy in place. However, comments later in this paper show the variations in how clear organizational strategy for coaching is (and isn’t).

Organizations surveyed with 10,000 or more employees appeared less likely to have a clear strategy in place. Only 45% of those respondents cited that they have a clear strategy compared to 55% of organizations overall.

North America was the region that had the largest percentage of organizations with a clear coaching strategy (59%). Organizations from South Asia (27%) and the Middle East (25%) were most likely not to have a clear coaching strategy.

Maturity of coaching strategy

Most coaching strategies were still in their infancy with 74% of respondents (that have a clear strategy for coaching) citing that their coaching strategy was less than 5 years old. And 16% said they were only just getting started.

Just under a third of all respondent organizations with an active coaching program said they were focused solely on immediate needs. Only 4% said they were not planning or thinking strategically about coaching. 57% said they were thinking and planning one to four years ahead.

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Formal program with clear strategy,formal endorsement and funding

A formal organizational programwith guidelines but no funding

Multiple activities - more or less supported by butnot organized or funded by the organization

Individual coaching activities - engaged inby individuals, not part of a formal program

How organizations define their coaching program:


Description of coaching strategies

Comments from respondents showed that some organizations have quite sophisticated and comprehensive coaching strategies in place, utilizing a blended approach of internal and external coaches and coaching skills programs:

“External Coaches for executives and high-grade employees. Internal Coaches for executives and all other employees. Supervisor training to teach some coaching skills for everyday use”

“We use 360s for our high potentials and they go through the Lominger/Korn Ferry Voices tool. We have certified employees internally to coach them. When we have executives that need coaching for development, we use external coaches that we have experience with and align with our values.”

“Individual executive coaching with senior and middle management managers integrated with a programme of training managers to become coaching managers themselves.”

“We have trained certified internal coaches, and give some training to managers to use coaching as one of their leadership styles.”

“3 different levels of internal coaching skills development: 1) Coaching Champions – extensive course, with follow-up, practice, supervision, etc. 2) Coaching skills for senior leadership members – one day course on coaching skills, with focus on high performance and enhanced development 3) 2 day course for all middle management on coaching skills to be used in the workplace”

“Multiple strategies across geographies. Leader as Coach is one of the prominent ones whereby leaders in the organization are trained as coaches by an external provider. They then take this back to their businesses and coach team members. There is also an Executive Coaching program whereby senior leaders of the organization are matched with an applicable coach and they have a formal coaching program set up that is monitored through performance. The external coaches are led by a ‘chief’ external coach and the coaches are kept up to date around the strategic priorities of the organization.”

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %

Not planning or thinking strategicallyabout our coaching programs

Thinking more than 5 years ahead

Thinking 3-4 years ahead


Just focused on immediate needs

How many years ahead are you planning or thinking strategically about your coaching programs?:

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %

$500,000 +

$250,000 - $499,999

$100,000 - $249,999

$50,000 - $99,999

$0 - $49,999

Coaching program investment in the past financial year:


Many commented on providing coaches to high potential populations:

“Use of internal and external coaches as part of our high potential programs; Heavy reliance on managerial coaching; combination of internal and external executive coaching to address ad-hoc coaching situations.”

“To have qualified key personnel trained as coaches, supporting high potentials at various levels within the organization.”

“Blend of internal and external coaching focused on development of HiPo leaders. Priority is individual coaching engagements followed by group/team coaching that supports executive development initiatives.”

“We support our people at key career transition points and offer coaching to special hi-potential populations.”

Coaching strategy was generally focused on performance, transition, culture and leadership. These were common themes throughout:

“Aiming for a coaching culture within the organization.”

“Focus: to develop technical, leadership and behavioral competencies at all levels of leadership in the organization. Key is adoption of a coaching style of leadership to promote a coaching culture.”

“The objective is to develop a coaching culture (especially by using listening and questioning skills) amongst all our client-serving people, so they can, in turn, use the same coaching skills to enhance relationships with their own clients”

“Individual development of top managers”

“Improve the performance of people in key organizational roles including leaders in transition, people managing change and people managing major projects. We’re currently examining ways to better incorporate coaching as a support for team leaders and managers who want to improve their ability to lead and manage others.”

“Coaching is the fundamental element for on the job development. 90% of employee development is on the job, therefore coaching plays a key role on it. Besides we use external coaching to support senior leaders in leadership development.”

How coaching programs link to business strategy

The responses from respondents showed that coaching programs were directly linked to growth, performance, productivity, retention and development of high potential employees, support for senior leaders and developing leadership capability:

“Growing talent pipeline to make sure sufficient and qualified leaders in place to support company business growth.”

“We coach our HiPo’s and senior executives to help them meet their current demands and get ready for the next challenge. We traditionally ask for a lot from our senior leadership and coaching is aimed at helping the to cope with these demands and excel.”

“Coaching is driven by KPIs – and we work very closely with Department Heads to ensure all coaching activities are aligned with Business Strategy.”

“It links to our OD strategy which ensure we have the knowledge, skills and ways of working to deliver our business goals and also to maintain employee engagement through change.”


“It ensures that we are able to maximize the contribution of every employee – resulting in a stronger, more consistent delivery of our customer value-proposition.”

“Coaching leads to greater success for franchisees in their business and personal situations – which flows on to business benefits for us. Our business strategy is to help them grow their business, coaching is the mechanism to help us achieve this.”

“Fundamental part of achieving business turn-around and growth. Coaching supports the training transfer and get people motivated about achieving higher levels of efficiency and effectiveness.”

Only a small amount said that coaching was not linked to their business strategy:

“At individual effectiveness level. No systematic alignment to business strategy beyond helping individual executives deliver against strategic plan

Coaching has not yet made it to the strategic level.”

Coaching strategy development

In relation to how their organization’s coaching strategy was developed, 41% of respondents (that have a clear strategy for coaching) said their strategy was created by someone internally, with no outside help.

Overall, organizations with 5,000 or more employees were more likely not to use outside help in creating their coaching strategy. 55% of the respondents who said they didn’t use outside help were from organizations with more than 5,000 employees.

At a regional level, Asian (54%), North American (51%) and European (45%) organizations were most likely to not use outside help to create their coaching strategy.

Of those that said they used outside help to create their coaching strategy:

n They had more support at the CEO level (75% compared to 52% across the full data set)

n They plan to increase their spend in coaching skills programs and internal coaching this coming year

n More were thinking long term and strategically (81% thinking 1 – 5 years ahead compared to 65% across all responses)

n They were much more likely to have one definition for coaching that is widely understood (51% vs. 28% across all responses)

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Our strategy was created in consultation withanother person/organization, not specific to coaching

or management consulting

Our strategy was created in consultation witha management consultancy

Our strategy was created in consultation witha coaching specific organization

Our strategy was created by an internal personor team with no outside help

How coaching strategy was developed:


n They were likely to provide an internal or external coach to more employees (46% provide coaches to 50+ employees compared to 34% across the full data set)

Coaching program support and management

Just over half (52%) of all respondent organizations that have an active coaching program had support for the coaching strategy at the CEO level.

Ownership of the coaching strategy mostly sits with HR or L&D with each gaining 33%. Only 5% of organizations had a dedicated team to manage the coaching strategy.

Investment in coaching

51% of organizations with an active coaching program had invested no more than $50,000 in coaching in the previous financial year.

Of those that said they had spent more than $250,000 in the previous financial year, 81% had 5,000 or more employees. They were also more likely to increase their spend across internal coaching and coaching skills programs in the coming financial year.

The majority of organizations (93%) with less than 1,000 employees invested under $100,000 in the previous financial year. 29% of organizations with 10,000 or more employees spent more than $250,000. The table below details the breakdown of investment by company size.

<$100K $100–250K $250K+

<1000 employees 93% 4% 3%

1000–5000 71% 19% 10%

5000+ 48% 23% 29%

Comments about coaching strategy

Final comments about coaching strategy from the respondents show how much coaching is still in its infancy in most organizations. While it is a part of most organizations and is seen as important, many comments indicate the obstacles of having a zero or limited budget, limited resource capacity, and/or a strategy for coaching that is ad-hoc or on an as needed basis.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %

Not planning or thinking strategicallyabout our coaching programs

Thinking more than 5 years ahead



Just focused on immediate needs

How many years ahead are you planning or thinking strategically about your coaching programs?:

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %

$500,000 +

$250,000 - $499,999

$100,000 - $249,999

$50,000 - $99,999

$0 - $49,999

Coaching program investment in the past financial year:


Trends in general coaching practicesThe questions asked in this section of the survey pertained to overall coaching activity within the organization, not specific to any modality of coaching.

Only respondent organizations with active coaching programs answered questions in the survey relating to this section (79% of all respondents).

Coaching definitions

The majority of organizations either have multiple or no clear/agreed definition of coaching (72%). Only 28% of organizations cited having one definition, widely shared and understood.

Of all regions, South Asia and Oceania appears the most progressive in defining coaching in their organizations. Only 17% and 22%, respectively, identified that they have no clear or agreed definition for coaching in the workplace (compared to 31% of all respondent organizations).

Some examples of the way organizations define coaching included:

“Unlocking a person’s potential to maximize their own performance.”

“Coaching is a customized form of leadership development that improves performance. Coaching is an experience that focuses on the leader’s thinking and helps her achieve what she really wants at work, in life and for her well-being.”

“Facilitating performance development in others.”

“Coaching is an ongoing professional relationship that helps people produce extraordinary results at work and in their life. Through the process of coaching, clients deepen their learning, improve their performance, and enhance their quality of life and the results at work.”

“Helping individuals reach their potential.”

“Coaching is defined as a systematically planned and direct guidance of an individual by a coach to learn and develop specific skills that are applied and implemented in the workplace, and therefore translates directly to clearly defined performance outcomes that are achieved over a specified period of time.”

“Formal or informal conversations designed to support and empower employees to achieve their goals. This is done by applying effective questioning, active listening skills, and offering encouragement and reinforcement – all built on a foundation of mutual trust. When combined with honest and constructive feedback, a manager can inspire and encourage others by providing useful information that helps them achieve their goals and develop their potential.”

How clear is the definition of coachingin your organization?:

No clear definitions 31%

Many definitions 12%

A couple of definitions 29%

One definition, widely shared and understood 28%


“Coaching is facilitating positive change by improving thinking.”

“Taking valued people from where they are to where they want to go. Coaching is a facilitated process, facilitated by a “focus and process” trained individual, with a strong movement to SMART actions. By applying process and structure to a conversation, we are able to expand a person’s capacity to take more effective actions.”

“Coaching is engaging people in meaningful conversations to facilitate their development. It requires a set of skills that include listening, questioning, challenging and advising. Coaching does not follow a standard process and does not need a written plan. A great coach challenges people in a positive way and enables them to find the resources they need within themselves to do the things they say they want to do and to enjoy doing them.”

“Coaching is a method as well as a working style by which people can help others to find perspective in order to grow to reach their full potential and extraordinary results.”

Types of coaching

Internal coaching for employees ranked highest amongst the types of coaching that organizations with active coaching programs are utilizing (58%), followed closely by internal coaching for managers/leaders below C-suite (57%) and external coaching for C-suite leaders (54%).

External coaching for groups/teams (17%) and external coaching for employees (18%) ranked the lowest.

Coaching program delivery

Most organizations with an active coaching program identified a blended approach of internal and external delivery of the various coaching programs (76%). And just over a third (38%) identified that they have 1 to 2 employees working on this as part of their job. Only 7% identified that they have a dedicated team to manage their coaching programs.

10 20 30 40 50 60 %

Internally delivered coaching skills trainingfor employees

Externally delivered coaching skills trainingfor managers and leaders

Internal coaching for groups/teams

External coaching for groups/teams

Internal coaching for employees

External coaching for employees

Internal coaching for managers/leaders(below C-Suite)

External coaching for managers/leaders(below C-Suite)

Internal coaching for leaders (C-Suite)

External coaching for senior leaders (C-Suite)

Types of coaching organizations are engaged in:

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %

Other

Dedicated team to manage coaching

It's part of HR - many people work on it aspart of their job

1 or 2 people working on it as part of their job

1 or 2 people working on it full time

Number of employees involved in delivering coaching programs:


Coaching program integration

When looking at their entire coaching programs (including all modalities of coaching), 75% of organizations with an active coaching program said the overall program was linked to talent development.

Some of the other initiatives or priorities that respondents commented on in the survey included: 360º feedback, mentoring, leadership assessments, retention, staff support, leadership development, team building and conflict management.

10 20 30 40 50 60 %

Internally delivered coaching skills trainingfor employees

Externally delivered coaching skills trainingfor managers and leaders

Internal coaching for groups/teams

External coaching for groups/teams

Internal coaching for employees

External coaching for employees

Internal coaching for managers/leaders(below C-Suite)

External coaching for managers/leaders(below C-Suite)

Internal coaching for leaders (C-Suite)

External coaching for senior leaders (C-Suite)

Types of coaching organizations are engaged in:

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %

Other

Dedicated team to manage coaching

It's part of HR - many people work on it aspart of their job

1 or 2 people working on it as part of their job

1 or 2 people working on it full time

Number of employees involved in delivering coaching programs:

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %

Other

Training (follow up)

Onboarding

Outplacement

Performance management

Derailment risks

Change management

Succession planning

Talent development

Performance appraisal

How coaching programs are linked to other initiatives:


Formal coaching engagements

66% of organizations with an active coaching program responded that they provide coaches (either internal or external) to less than 50 people within their organization.

23% of organizations with more than 10,000 employees that have an active coaching program were providing a coach to 300 or more employees. A further 23% were offering coaches to between 100 and 300 employees.

The table below details the breakdown of the number of employees who are provided with a coach (either internal or external) by company size.

<50 50–100 100–300 300+

<1000 employees 87% 9% 2% 2%

1000–5000 66% 13% 11% 9%

5000+ 54% 12% 17% 17%

Comments about general coaching practicesThroughout the comments about general coaching practices within their organizations, the common theme was that coaching was still in its infancy and was still quite ‘ad-hoc’:

“Coaching practices are not formally organized or sanctioned by the organization. Coachees tend to seek coaching for themselves.”

“Infant steps moving from one model for familiarity to another one for masterful practice. Maturity of practices yet to set in.”

“Experimental stage yet, began with GROW model, now onto Ericksonnian model.”

“Still too new, only one certified coach, leaders got 2 day basic training on the concept, we still have long way to have it as part of the culture.”

“There are some internal coaches in the organization but not formerly organized, rather enthusiasts with no knowledge transfer.”

How many employees are given a coach:

300+ 14%

100-299 9%

50-99 15%

Less than 50 62%


Although, some organizations described more mature, well-organized coaching programs in place or in development:

“Currently working to cascade coaching throughout our organization. Assist leadership teams to hold better conversations with direct reports.”

“We use a proprietary coaching management system so all coaches can see what other coaches are saying about their coaching work inside the organization.”

“Coaching has historically been more of a reaction to 360-feedback administration, but beginning in 2011, we’ll be instituting more of a systematic coaching program related to the new business strategy.”

“Budget is intentionally not held centrally, but strategy is determined at the corporate level and carried out in each sector of the corporation. Clients pay for external coaches from departmental budget. Internal coaches are provided at no charge within their sector.”

Some also commented on the challenges of their coaching program:

“External coaching is not easily quantifiable in the organization and tends to be at the executive/senior manager level on an ‘as-needs’ basis rather than as a program. The internal program is structured and funded/supported but with internal coaches who essentially act as volunteers and provide coaching in addition to their regular job. These internal coaches are not necessarily in HR roles (although they tend to be either in HR or manager roles).”

“Good training for coaches, but erratic engagement with coachees. Not always as well coordinated as I would like.”

“There are some geographical differences with greater up take in Anglo Saxon countries; slower uptake in Latin countries and it’s quite new in Asia.”

“This is an area for focused improvement – I do not believe our HR/L&D people really understand how to use executive or internal coaching programs.”


Trends in coaching skills programsCoaching skills programs involve short skills programs for managers and leaders to use coaching skills in everyday workplace interactions with their staff.

More organizations have coaching skills training as part of their coaching strategy than any other modality of coaching (internal coaching, external coaching etc), with 72% of respondents identifying that they currently run them.

Please note: The remaining 28% who do not have coaching skills training as part of their active coaching program did not answer any other questions relating to coaching skills programs and are excluded from the percentages provided within this section.

The regions most likely to have coaching skills programs as part of their overall coaching strategy were Africa (77%), Oceania (76%) and Europe (76%). The regions least likely to have coaching skills programs as part of their overall initiative were South Asia (58%), Latin America (64%) and North America. Only 66% of respondents from North America said that coaching skills programs made up a part of their overall coaching strategy.

Purpose of coaching skills programs

In relation to the purpose of their coaching skills programs, around half commented that it was to improve leadership or management capability through more effective communication. This was mostly to increase team/individual performance and to develop employees. A small amount commented that their coaching skills programs were tied to culture change, increasing motivation, improving engagement, retention and career planning.

Vendors and models

About half the organizations (52%) were using just one vendor and one model of coaching in their coaching skills programs, with a further 41% using between two and four vendors/models. Organizations were more likely to use just one vendor and one model for coaching skills programs than either internal coaching and external coaching.

Volume

While many organizations have instituted a coaching skills program for their managers and leaders, that hasn’t necessarily equated to the delivery of those skills across the organization. A significant number (59%) of respondents indicated that less than 100 managers and leaders had undertaken a coaching skills training program. 13% said that 500 or more managers had undertaken training.

Of those that said they had trained less than 100 managers in coaching skills, 44% had more than 5,000 employees and 40% had less than 1,000 employees.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %

No

Yes

Percentage of organizations that offer coaching skills programs as part of their coaching strategy:

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %

More than 2000

1000 - 2000

500 - 1000

100 - 500

Less than 100

Number of managers and leaders who have undertaken a coaching skills training program:


The table below details the breakdown of the number of managers or leaders who have been trained in coaching skills by company size. Please note that the company size is in the left hand column. The number of managers or leaders trained runs along the top.

<100 100–500 500–1000 1000–2000 2000+

<1000 employees 87% 12% 0% 0% 0%

1000–5000 55% 45% 0% 0% 0%

5000+ 48% 28% 10% 3% 12%

However, organizations were much more ambitious when looking at their total target population for future coaching skills training programs. Approximately a third planned to train more than 500 managers and leaders, whilst another third planned to train between 100 and 500 managers and leaders.

The table below details the breakdown of the target number of managers or leaders to undertake a coaching skills program sometime in the future by company size.

<100 100–500 500–1000 1000–2000 2000+

<1000 employees 69% 22% 9% 0% 0%

1000–5000 30% 52% 12% 3% 3%

5000+ 20% 33% 17% 10% 20%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %

No

Yes

Percentage of organizations that offer coaching skills programs as part of their coaching strategy:

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %

More than 2000

1000 - 2000

500 - 1000

100 - 500

Less than 100

Number of managers and leaders who have undertaken a coaching skills training program:

Target number of managers and leaders to undertake a coaching skills training program:

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 %

More than 3000

2000-3000

1000-2000

500-1000

100-500

0-100


Coaching skills training and development

In measuring the breadth of the programs 43% of organizations identified that their coaching skills training programs were three days or more. 57% identified that their training was 1–2 days in length.

In comparing the outsourcing of programs for coaching skills for leaders versus the development of internal coaches, 50% identified that of their managers are trained by an external consultant/company, compared to only 35% for similar programs for internal coaches; 39% indicated that their managers/leaders are trained in coaching skills by someone internally.

The majority of organizations noted that they have no formal development plans in place for skill retention (42%).

Of those that did note development plans for building and maintaining the coaching skills level of their managers and leaders, they were most likely to have set up peer support networks where managers and leaders can connect and learn from one another (32%). 28% said they hold regular skills refresher programs throughout the year, and 23% said they hold new training programs regularly to build on their skills.

Other tools for continuing skills development also included: providing participants with their own coach (post-training) and providing access to e-learning tools.

Integration with existing organizational priorities

Over half of the respondents said that their coaching skills training programs were partially integrated into other leadership development and learning initiatives (55%). 17% identified that coaching skills training was a stand-alone initiative and 28% identified that it was fully integrated. This is the highest percentage across the three types of coaching measured in this study.

Of those that identified that their coaching skills training programs were fully integrated into existing leadership development and learning initiatives:

n 22% were from North America and 19% were from Asia

n They were generally larger organizations, with 62% identifying they had more than 5000 employees (compared to 44% for all respondents)

n They were more likely to be measuring the impact more deeply (only 19% identified that they were not measuring the impact at all compared to 29% across all respondents)

Measuring coaching skills programs:

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Other

Measuring full return on investment

Measuring business impact in detail

Against individual performance metrics

Measuring changes in organizational metrics

Through observation only

Currently not measuring impact

Maintaining coaching skill level of managers and leaders:

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Other

No formal development plans are in place

Regularly assess their skills

New training programs regularly to build on their skills

Provide opportunities where participants of the programcan connect and learn from one another

Participants are provided with mentors

Skills refresher programs throughout the year


n They were more likely to have formal development plans in place for skills retention and development (only 23% said they had no formal development plans in place compared to 42% across the full data set)

n They were more likely to have trained more people and have a much larger target audience than those that said the coaching skills training was stand-alone or only partially integrated.

Organizations also identified which (if any) individual or organizational priorities their coaching skills programs were linked to. These are how they ranked (from highest to lowest):

1. Performance management 67%

2. Talent development 66%

3. Performance appraisals 53%

4. Succession planning 44%

5. Training (follow up) 42%

6. Change management 36%

7. Onboarding 15%

8. Derailment risks 12%

9. Outplacement 5%

Additional priorities that respondents noted were linked to their coaching skills training programs included: 360º feedback, culture change, engagement, sales performance and retention.

Measuring impact

The respondent organizations use varying approaches and degrees to measure the impacts of their coaching skills programs. 41% indicated they only use a broad observation-based approach to measurement, 31% utilize more specific individual performance metrics and 29% indicate they currently do not use any measurement approach.

Measuring coaching skills programs:

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Other







Maintaining coaching skill level of managers and leaders:

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Other

No formal development plans are in place


New training programs regularly to build on their skills

Provide opportunities where participants of the programcan connect and learn from one another

Participants are provided with mentors

Skills refresher programs throughout the year


Trends in internal coachingInternal coaching refers to formal coaching engagements carried out by employees within an organization.

67% of respondents indicated that they have internal coaching as part of their coaching program.

Please note: The remaining 33% who do not have internal coaching as part of their active coaching program did not answer any other questions relating to internal coaching and are excluded from the percentages provided within this section.

The regions with the highest response were Africa (82%), North America, Oceania and Asia (all with 71%). The regions least likely to have internal coaching as part of their coaching strategy were Latin America (45%), Middle East (50%) and Europe (57%).

Purpose of internal coaching programs

Relating to the purpose of internal coaching, 92% responded with true or somewhat true for ‘internal coaching is being used to improve individual performance’. The lowest responses were to internal coaching being used as a sounding board for senior leaders (45%) and for the statement ‘internal coaching has a behavioral focus for problem employees’ (50%).

Organizations were more likely to be using internal coaching than external coaching as a strategy to improve employee engagement and retention. There was a 17–18% difference in favor of internal coaching for improving engagement and retention when comparing the data.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %

No

Yes

Percentage of organizations that have internal coaching as part of their coaching strategy:

Purpose of internal coaching programs: percentage of organizations that responded with very true or somewhat true:

0 20 40 60 80 100 %

Sounding board for senior leaders

Has a behavioural focus

Increase retention

Support leaders in transition

Improve engagement levels

Develop high potentials

Improve overall business performance

Improve individual performance

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %

No

Yes

Percentage of organizations that have internal coaching as part of their coaching strategy:

Purpose of internal coaching programs: percentage of organizations that responded with very true or somewhat true:

0 20 40 60 80 100 %



Increase retention







Vendors and models

Around half of respondents (49%) cited that they have one vendor and one model for internal coaching. A further 38% identified that they were using two – four vendors and models for internal coaching.

Volume

60% responded by saying that they have fewer than 10 internal coaches delivering formal coaching engagements in addition to their primary responsibilities, or as a stand-alone role. Only 17% of respondents said they had more than 50 internal coaches within their organization.

Of the 9% of respondents that identified they had more than 100 internal coaches operating, 40% were from South East Asia, 20% were from Australia and 13% were from the United States.

These organizations were generally larger; with 93% identifying they had more than 10,000 employees, and 80% identifying they operate in more than 50 countries.

The table below details the breakdown of the number of internal coaches operating by company size.

0–10 10–25 25–50 50+

<1000 employees 86% 5% 4% 5%

1000–5000 60% 16% 19% 6%

5000+ 47% 13% 13% 27%

Internal coach population

Those employees delivering the coaching were mostly a mix of HR and line managers (45%).

31% said that their internal coaching team was made up of HR/training/OD people exclusively and 14% said that their internal coaching team was made up of only line managers/leaders.

Most internal coaches are senior leaders and executives, with the majority being between 1 and 4 levels down from the C-suite. 27% identified that some of their internal coach cadre were C-Suite.

Number of internal coaches operating:

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 %

100+

50-100

26-50

10-25

5-10

2-4

1

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Other

A mix of HR and line managers

100% line managers / leaders

100% HR / training / OD people

Who are the internal coaches?:


Training and development of internal coaches

14% of respondents identified that their internal coaches had no formal training. Approximately a third indicated that their coaches had between 1 and 4 days of learning and 28% identified their coaches had 13 or more days of learning in total.

Of the North America respondents, 23% identified their internal coaches were given no training at all and 40% said that their coaches were given 13+ days of training. Most other regional trends were very similar to the global figures.

Approximately one third of organizations with internal coaching programs utilized an external consultant or company to train their coaches. Another third of organizations identified a blended approach of utilizing external and internal facilitators to train their coaches.

Asia (40%) and South Asia (50%) were more likely to use internal people exclusively to train their coaches, compared to 21% globally. African organizations were least likely to use internal people exclusively to train their coaches (6%).

About half of the respondents (49%) cited that the skill level of their organization’s coaches was not assessed.

Those that said they did not assess the skill level of their coaches:

n Had a similar number of internal coaches in operation when compared to all respondents*.

n Were more likely to not provide any training for their internal coaches at all (25% compared to 14% across all respondents*)

n Were more likely to not be supervising their coaches in any way (40% compared to 25%)

n Were more likely to have an unstructured approach to their internal coaching engagements (32% compared to 20%)

n Were most likely to be just offering one-off sessions as needed as opposed to formal coaching engagements (31% compared to 19%)

n Were more likely not to be measuring the impact of internal coaching (40% compared to 24%)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 %

Other

Coaches are trained by both internal andexternal people

Coaches are trained by an externalconsultant or company

Coaches are trained by someone internally

Who conducts the training?:

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Other

All our coaches are assessed bythe International Coach Federation (ICF)

The coach is assessed bysomeone external to our organization

The coach is assessed bysomeone internally

There is no formal skills assessment

Assessing the skill level of internal coaches:

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %

Other

No formal development plansfor our coaches


New training programs regularlyto build on their skills

Provide opportunities where internal coachescan connect and learn from one another

Internal coaches are providedwith mentors

Skills refresher programsthroughout the year

Maintaining skill level of internal coaches:

* refers to all respondents who have internal coaching programs in operation within their organization.


Only 6% of organizations with internal coaching programs identified that their coaches were assessed by the International Coach Federation (ICF).

38% identified that there were no formal development frameworks in place to ensure consistent skill development. 38% also identified that there were frameworks in place where internal coaches can connect and learn from one another. Only one quarter were holding skills refreshers throughout the year.

Internal coaching supervision

20% of organizations with internal coaches operating indicated they had formal frameworks in place for supervising them. Approximately half of the respondents noted that there were only informal frameworks in place and another 25% cited that there is no supervision of coaching at all.

Those who said they had formal supervision frameworks in place:

n Have their internal coaches working with more coachees on average

n Generally have well-structured coaching engagements (with a defined number of sessions and goals)

n Are more likely to have integrated internal coaching into other leadership development and L&D initiatives

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 %

Other





0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Other






0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %

Other








0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 %

Other





0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Other






0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %

Other









n Are much more likely to be measuring the impact via changes in organizational metrics, individual performance metrics, ROI and business impact (only 8% said they were not measuring at all)

n Have more sophisticated development plans in place for their coaches (through providing mentors, regular skills assessments and further training)

Internal coaching engagements

76% of responding organization’s coaches are working with between 1 and 5 coachees at any one time. Only 12% identified that their coaches were coaching an average of 11 or more employees at once.

Generally, coaching engagements taking place in responding organizations are quite unstructured. Only 32% of these organizations noted that their coaching engagements were well structured with a defined number of goals and sessions.

The majority (42%) identified that the coaching engagements last between 3 and 12 months in length, with 19% identifying that internal coaching is only one-off sessions as needed.


Respondents were less likely to have their internal coaching programs fully integrated into other leadership development and learning initiatives than coaching skills for managers and leaders programs. 21% of organizations identified their internal coaching was fully integrated (compared to 28% for coaching skills programs).

57% identified that the internal coaching initiative was only partially integrated into other leadership development and learning initiatives.

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

More than 15 coachees

11 - 15 coachees

6 - 10 coachees

3 - 5 coachees

1 - 2 coachees

Number of coachees each coach is working with at any one time:


The organizational priorities that internal coaching programs are linked to are (ranking highest to lowest):

n Talent development 76%

n Performance management 59%

n Performance appraisal 48%

n Succession planning 47%

n Change management 41%

n Training (follow up) 39%

n Onboarding 23%

n Derailment risks 16%

n Outplacement 6%

In relation to how internal coaching was working with other L&D initiatives, it was evident that internal coaching is not replacing classroom training completely. 58% of respondents said that internal coaching was being used in conjunction with classroom training. 3% said it was replacing classroom training and a further 39% said that neither of these was occurring.

It was also found that internal coaching is generally not replacing mentoring. Only 14% of responding organizations said it was replacing mentoring. 26% identified that it was replacing other formal development programs. However, many comments made showed internal coaching was not replacing other things necessarily, just supplementing.

Measuring internal coaching:

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %

Other






Currently not measuring internal coaching

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %

Other

Replacing other learning initiatives (eg. online learning)

Replacing other formal development programs?

Replacing mentoring?

Internal coaching vs other L&D initiatives:

Is internal coaching...


Measuring impact

24% of respondents are not measuring the success of their internal coaching programs. Of those that are, the majority appear to be measuring by observation only (39%) or measuring against individual performance metrics (37%). Only 4% identified that they were measuring their return on investment.

Comments made by respondents showed that generally, internal coaching as an L&D strategy was still in the development phase:

“Over the past 2–3 years it has been very ad-hoc.”

“In process of making internal coaching robust and linked to business strategy.”

“Needs much improvement and structure.”

Many said that while it’s called coaching, it’s not really coaching. It more resembled training or mentoring:

“Internal coaching is very new and very limited. There are a few HR leaders that engage in informal and/or one-off coaching but it isn’t even called coaching.”

“It’s called coaching but it’s not real coaching, just a word used for reps to spend time with lower tier reps for informal training and/or recognition of numerical goal achievement.”

Measuring internal coaching:

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %

Other






Currently not measuring internal coaching

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %

Other

Replacing other learning initiatives (eg. online learning)

Replacing other formal development programs?

Replacing mentoring?

Internal coaching vs other L&D initiatives:

Is internal coaching...


While relatively new and undefined, some comments showed that there are organizations with quite advanced and sophisticated coaching programs:

“Four Master Coaches (selected by senior management for their experience and advanced training) oversee the ongoing development of our internal coaches.”

“Our internal coaching program began in mid-2010, and is focused on key leaders identified through succession management. Participation in the internal coaching program is determined and prioritized by the CEO and the C-Suite leaders.”

“We are call centre. We have a Coach Manager, 4 full time coaches (1:75 ratio). Managers request coaching for individuals on their teams based on metrics and performance. We coach for period of 4-6 weeks (methods and frequency depends on individual needs). We supplement full time coaching with Rotational Coaches where we need language specific coaching.”

Other comments indicate promise for the future of internal coaching programs:

“Internal coaching is being conducted by OD professionals with prior experience therefore training hasn’t been relevant at this stage. If the organization support increasing the number of internal coaches, it will likely use an accredited, externally delivered coaching program.”

“Requires a co-ordinator role (not full time) to manage coach-coachee matching, support coach development, maintain information channels and provide opportunities for coaches to learn informally or formally from each other. Without this role and a formal program, previous organizational experience has shown that the benefits are not realized.”

“Are seen as a way to save money right now; once metrics are in place, impact will be emphasized and hopefully coaching will be integrated into more HR programs and technical projects.”


Trends in external coachingExternal coaching refers to the hiring of coaches that are not employees of the organization to deliver formal coaching engagements.

66% of respondents cited that their organization offers external coaching as part of their coaching program.

Please note: The remaining 34% who do not have external coaching as part of their active coaching program did not answer any other questions relating to external coaching and are excluded from the percentages provided within this section.

The regions most likely to have external coaching as part of their strategy were Latin America (83%), Oceania (76%) and North America (75%). The regions least likely were South Asia (33%), Asia (48%) and the Middle East (50%).

Purpose

The most common purpose for external coaching cited by responding organizations with external coaches operating was ‘to improve individual performance’ (95%). The next highest response was to the statement ‘external coaching is being used to develop high potentials’ (76%). The statements that had the highest ‘untrue’ or ‘somewhat untrue’ responses were for external coaching having a behavioral focus for problem employees (35%) and external coaching being used to increase retention (26%).

Here is how the purposes ranked (from highest to lowest):

Of those that responded with ‘very true’ to the statement ‘external coaching has a behavioral focus for problem employees’, 28% were from the United States and 18% were from Brazil.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %

No

Yes

Percentage of organizations that have external coaching as part of their coaching strategy:

Purpose of external coaching programs: percentage of organizations that responded with very true or somewhat true:

0 20 40 60 80 100 %

Increase retention








0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %

No

Yes

Percentage of organizations that have external coaching as part of their coaching strategy:

Purpose of external coaching programs: percentage of organizations that responded with very true or somewhat true:

0 20 40 60 80 100 %

Increase retention









Vendors and models

The majority of respondents (76%) cited that they were using less than five different vendors and coaching models in their external coaching strategy. Just under a third (32%) stated that they were using only one vendor and one model. When comparing this to internal coaching, it’s evident that there is more variation in use of different vendors and models for external coaching than internal coaching, where almost half of the respondents indicated they were only using one vendor and one model.

Volume

The majority of organizations with external coaching programs appear to be using between 1 and 10 external coaches (74%). Only 3% stated they were using more than 50 coaches.

The majority of organizations appear to be providing external coaches to less than 100 employees (84%). Only 13% of organizations identified that they were providing coaches to more than 100 people.

Of those that were providing coaches to more than 100 employees, they were most likely to be driving performance (96%) and/or supporting leaders in transition (88%). Not surprisingly, the majority of organizations providing coaches to more than 100 employees had more than 10,000 employees worldwide (70%).

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

More than 100

10 -100

1 - 10

Number of employees being given an external coach:

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %

More than 50

10 - 50

1 - 10

Number of external coaches:

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

More than 100

10 -100

1 - 10

Number of employees being given an external coach:

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %

More than 50

10 - 50

1 - 10

Number of external coaches:


The table below details the breakdown of the number of employees being provided with an external coach by company size.

0–1 10–100 100+

<1000 employees 72% 28% 0%

1000–5000 54% 35% 11%

5000+ 34% 48% 18%

Selection criteria

Ranking the importance of selection criteria for external coaches, it was found that organizations ranked the following criteria as ‘very important’ in the following order (most to least common):

1. Proven results with past clients in a similar role to the coachee (44%)

2. Coaching qualifications (42%)

3. Recommendations from peers (41%)

4. Assessment of the coach’s skills (37%)

5. Previous experience in a role similar to the coachee (18%)

6. University qualifications (17%)

7. Previous experience within the same industry as your organization (10%)

8. Background in psychology or counselling (8%)

This data shows that what is most important for organizations when selecting an external coach is that the coach has a demonstrated track record of good results with similar coachees.

In the comments about selection criteria, most reinforced that word of mouth, track record and recommendations were very important. Also a good ‘fit’ with the culture and the coachee was very important. Surprisingly, only a few commented that cost was a factor in selecting coaches.

External coaching engagements

49% of organizations identified that their external coaching engagements were well structured, with a defined number of sessions and/or number of goals.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %

More than 1 year in length

3 - 12 months

1 - 3 months

One off sessions as needed

Average length of external coaching engagements:

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Well-structured, with a defined number ofsessions and/or number of goals

Somewhat structured

Unstructured - coaching sessionsoccurs as needed

Structure of external coaching engagements:


The majority stated that external coaching engagements typically lasted 3–12 months (59%). 27% said that external coaching engagements lasted 1–3 months.

It appears less likely that external coaching is used on an ‘ad-hoc’ basis (11%) than internal coaching (19%).


Around one third of organizations with external coaching programs responded that external coaching was a stand-alone initiative, while half said it was only partially integrated into existing leadership development and learning initiatives. 19% identified that external coaching was fully integrated. Of those who said their external coaching was fully integrated it was found that:

n 41% of the organizations had more than 10,000 employees (compared to 30% with that many employees across all respondents)

n 25% were from Brazil, and another 25% were from the USA

n 46% had formal frameworks in place for managing external coaching (compared to only 28% with similar structures across all respondents who answered this question)

n 20% were not measuring the impact at all (similar to 22% for all respondents) and 49% said they were measuring coaching against individual performance metrics (compared to 37%)

In responding organizations with external coaching programs, it was found that the coaching is commonly linked to many other individual or organizational priorities. The following outlines the percentage of organizations who said that it was linked to the priority, ranking from highest to lowest:

Talent development 75%

Succession planning 51%

Performance management 49%

Change management 40%

Performance appraisals 31%

Training (follow up) 24%

Derailment risks 23%

Onboarding 17%

Outplacement 8%

External coaching supervision

Responding organizations are more likely to be supervising external coaching than internal coaching with 28% indicating they have formal frameworks in place for external coaching supervision (compared to 20% for internal coaching).

26% said they do not supervise external coaching at all. This was similar to the figure for internal coaching (25%).


Measuring impact

Indications of external coaching measurement were very similar to those of internal coaching. 22% of organizations with external coaching programs identified that they do not measure the impact at all, and 41% only measure through observation.

37% identified that they measure against individual performance metrics while only 18% measure against changes in organizational metrics.

Measuring external coaching:

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Other








Comparing the three modalities of coachingIn this section we will compare data from the three different modalities of coaching measured in this study – internal coaching, external coaching and coaching skills programs for managers and leaders.

Choice of modality

Overall, coaching skills for managers and leaders is the most popular modality used within organizations. 72% of organizations that have an active coaching program indicated they have coaching skills training as part of their strategy, compared with 67% for internal coaching and 66% for external coaching.

Regionally, these percentages varied greatly. The graph below shows the regional breakdown:

Some key insights into overall coaching strategy at a regional level:

n Coaching skills for managers and leaders programs are less popular in North American organizations than formal coaching programs (internal and external)

n External coaching formulates a much larger part of coaching strategy for Latin American organizations than any other modality

n Coaching skills training programs are not used widely used in South Asia

n Internal coaching is more widely used than external coaching in Africa and Asia

n There is relatively equal use of all three modalities in coaching strategy for organizations in Oceania

n Internal coaching is used much less than coaching skills programs and external coaching in Europe

0 20 40 60 80 100 %

Coaching Skills Internal Coaching External Coaching

Global

North America

Latin America

Oceania

Asia

South Asia

Europe

Middle East

Africa


Purpose

When comparing the responses from organizations relating to the purpose of their internal coaching and external coaching programs, it was found that:

n Overall, internal and external coaching was being used to drive individual and business performance and to develop high potentials

n Internal coaching is more commonly used than external coaching to improve overall business performance and increase retention and engagement levels.

n External coaching is utilized more than internal coaching as a sounding board for senior leaders

Investment

The majority of respondent organizations with an active coaching program plan to spend more or at least the same amount across all modalities. Coaching skills for leaders and internal coaching show the most planned investment increases, at 41% and 38% of respondents, respectively, while executive coaching investment increases were at only 22%. Similarly, investment decreases in the coming financial year were noted more commonly for executive coaching (15%) as compared to 9% for coaching skills for managers and leaders programs and 5% for internal coaching.

40 60 80 100 %

Improve individualperformance

Improve overall businessperformance

Increase retention

Improve engagementlevels

Support leadersin transition


A sounding board forsenior leaders


Internal CoachingExternal Coaching


Vendors and models

Respondents generally have more vendors and models for external coaching than any other modality. However, the majority across all three modalities is still less than five vendors and models.

Number of coaches

When comparing the number of coaches delivering coaching within the organization, there are significantly more internal coaches than external coaches operating.

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Not applicableDecrease our spendSpend about the sameIncrease our spend

External Coaching

Internal Coaching

Coaching Skills

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %

Internal coachesExternal coaches

More than 50 coaches

10 - 50 coaches

1 - 10 coaches

Number of coaches - external vs internal:


Coaching supervision

External coaches are more likely to be more supervised than internal coaches, with 28% of organizations indicating they have formal frameworks for external coaching compared to 20% for internal coaching.

Structure of engagements

Almost half (49%) of the respondents with an active coaching program indicated that their external coaching engagements are well structured, while only 32% indicated the same for their internal coaching engagements. In contrast, almost half of the respondents indicated their internal coaching engagements were instead “somewhat structured”.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %

Other

Formal frameworksin place

Informal frameworksin place

No supervision at all


Coaching supervision - external vs internal:

10 20 30 40 50 %

Well structured - with adefined number ofsessions and/ornumber of goals

Somewhat structured

Unstructured -coaching sessionsoccur as needed


Coaching structure - external vs internal:

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %


3 - 12 months

1 - 3 months



Length of coaching engagement - external vs internal:


Similar to the structure, external coaching engagements also typically appear to be longer in duration than internal coaching:

Training and development

In relation to who conducts the training of managers and leaders in coaching skills programs vs. training internal coaches, coaching skills programs are much more likely to be delivered exclusively by someone internally (39%) than internal coaching (21%).

In relation to how organizations build and maintain the skills of their internal coaches and managers/leaders who have undertaken a coaching skills program, it was indicated that:

n Organizations are less likely to have formal plans in place for participants of coaching skills programs than internal coaches

n Providing opportunities for participants or coaches to connect with one another and share learning is the most popular form of development

n Organizations are much more likely to provide mentors to internal coaches than those who completed a coaching skills training program

10 20 30 40 50 %

Well structured - with adefined number ofsessions and/ornumber of goals

Somewhat structured

Unstructured -coaching sessionsoccur as needed


Coaching structure - external vs internal:

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %


3 - 12 months

1 - 3 months



Length of coaching engagement - external vs internal:



The graph below shows that coaching skills programs are more likely to be fully integrated into existing leadership development and learning initiatives than internal or external coaching programs. External coaching programs are more likely to be stand-alone when compared to the other two modalities.

The graph below shows which individual and organizational development priorities that each coaching modality is linked to:

10 20 30 40 50 60 %

Stand alone

Partially integrated

Fully integrated


Integration into other leadership development and learning initiatives:

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %

Performance appraisals

Talent development

Succession planning

Change management

Derailment risks

Performance management

Outplacement

Onboarding

Training (follow up)



This comparison appears to indicate that:

n Overall, talent development is the most popular priority across all three modalities of coaching

n Coaching skills programs are much more likely to be used to manage employee performance when compared to external and internal coaching

n Internal coaching is being used for onboarding new employees more than the other two modalities

n External coaching is being used more for derailment risks than any other modality

n Coaching skills programs are being used to drive performance appraisals more than internal coaching and external coaching

One fifth of organizations identified that internal coaching is replacing the hiring of external coaches. 39% said that internal coaching in their organization is provided to different communities (or employee groups) than is external coaching.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %

Not applicable

Being provided to different communities(employee groups) than external coaching?

Supplementing external coaching to thesame communities (employee groups)?

Replacing external coaching?

Average length of external coaching engagements:Is internal coaching...


Measuring impact

There are only small variances between the results of how organizations measure their coaching programs. Across all types, approximately a quarter of organizations do not measure the impact at all.

Across all modalities, around one in five organizations measure against organizational metrics and only one in ten measure business impact.

0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Currently notmeasuring impact


Changes inorganizational metrics

Against individualperformance metrics

Business impact in detail

Full return on investment



Key findings from the whole study363 respondents qualified and completed the survey. 79% of these had a coaching program in operation.

The breakdown of respondents by region was Europe (26%), North America (22%), Oceania (16%), Asia (11%), Latin America (8%), Africa (7%), Middle East (5%) and South Asia (5%). The majority of respondents (30%) had more than 10,000 employees.

Key findings about coaching strategy

55% of responding organizations have a clear strategy for coaching. Of these, 74% indicate their coaching strategy is less than 5 years old and 16% less than one year old.

n 66% of respondents provide coaches (either internal or external) to fewer than 50 people in their organization.

n 51% of all respondents invested no more than $50,000 in coaching programs in the previous financial year. About a third spent between $50,000 and $250,000 on coaching. Only 16% spent more than this amount.

n 28% of respondents have one definition of coaching that was widely shared and understood.

n 7% indicated that they have a dedicated team to manage their coaching programs.

Across all modalities of coaching, approximately a quarter of all respondents do not measure the impact of coaching at all. From those that are, around one in five measure against organizational metrics, and only one in ten measure business impacts.

North America

Europe

Oceania

Latin America

Asia

Africa

South Asia

Middle East

0 10 20 40 50 60 %30

The following chart shows, by country, the percentage breakdown for respondents with coaching strategies:


Coaching skills programs

n 72% of respondents offer some form of coaching skills training, however 59% of these organizations have trained less than 100 managers each.

n 81% of respondents plan to maintain or increase their level of spending on coaching skills training.

n Of those organizations with coaching skills training programs, 57% have programs of one to two days in length and 43% have programs of three days or more.

n 42% of respondents have no formal plans for coaching skills training retention or development, post training.

Internal coaching

67% of respondents utilize internal coaching as part of their coaching strategy. Those respondents indicate that they use internal coaching to:

n 60% have fewer than ten internal coaches delivering formal coaching engagements as part of what they do, or as a stand-alone role.

n In North America, 23% of internal coaches are given no training at all.

n Approximately half of the respondents cited that they do not assess the skill level of their internal coaches. Only 6% of respondents indicated their coaches are assessed by the International Coach Federation.

n 76% of coaches are working with between one and five coachees at any one time.

n One in five organizations indicated that they have formal frameworks in place for supervising internal coaching.

n One in five of the organizations indicated that internal coaching is replacing the hiring of external coaches in their organization.

n 77% of respondents plan to increase or maintain their level of spending on internal coaching.






Increase retention

Focus on behavioral improvement

Help the thinking of senior leaders

0 20 40 80 100 %60

The following chart shows, by country, the percentage breakdown for respondents with coaching strategies:


External coaching

The majority of organizations were using between one and ten external coaches (74%) and were providing external coaches to less than 100 employees (84%).

n 66% of respondents offer external coaching as part of their coaching program.

n 70% of respondents plan to increase or maintain their level of spending on external coaching.

The value of partnering with an external resource

41% of respondents said that their coaching strategy was created internally. Respondents who used external resources to create their coaching strategy:

n Had more support at the CEO level (75% compared to 52% across all the respondents).

n Were thinking more long term (81% thinking one to five years ahead compared to 65% across all responses).

n Were nearly twice as likely to have one definition for coaching that is widely understood (51% vs. 28% across all responses).

n Provide an internal or external coach to more employees (46% provide coaches to 50+ employees compared to 34% across all responses).

Conclusions

Despite increased interest in the use of coaching, it is still largely reserved for the top. Investment in coaching is surprisingly low, which may be linked to the fact that coaching is not being managed strategically or measured well. With the increased pressure on leadership and learning, finding cost-effective solutions to provide coaching more broadly across organizations is more important than ever.


AcknowledgementsSeveral people contributed to this study in different ways. Special thanks to the survey development team – Suzan West, Mark Mclean, Nicola Jones (all from Hydro Tasmania) and Ruth Donde from the NeuroLeadership Group for their contributions to build of the survey.

A very special thanks to Christine Williams, Director, Systems Engineering Leadership Development NASA and David Clutterbuck, one of Europe’s most prolific and well-known management writers and thinkers for their invaluable feedback on the survey and study.

And finally, a special thanks to Garrett Weiner from the NeuroLeadership Group for his assistance in reviewing the final paper.

www.neuroleadership.com

Documents

Global Trends in the Use of Coaching in the Workplace (2011)