Why executive coaching is worth $500 an hour

By Christopher Mims, December 15, 2013

in qz.com

The most comprehensive and rigorous meta-analysis of professional coaching ever conducted was just published in print, and the results are unambiguous: Coaching in a businesses context “has significant positive effects on performance and skills, well-being, coping, work attitudes, and goal-directed self-regulation.”

Writing in The Journal of Positive Psychology, Tim Theebooma, Bianca Beersmaa and Annelies E.M. van Vianena of the Department of Work and Organizational Psychology at the University of Amsterdam conclude that “In general… coaching is an effective tool for improving the functioning of individuals in organizations.” That’s good news, considering that, as the authors note, coaching is a $3 billion a year industry worldwide, and, as the Harvard Business Review estimated, the median rate for an executive coach is $500 an hour.

Theebooma et al. are so thorough in their analysis that they spend large sections of their paper outlining the flaws of many of the studies of the effectiveness of coaching, and their discursive style, while dense, yields a number of important takeaways.

But we don’t know why coaching works

Plenty of studies have established, to one degree or another, that coaching makes people measurably more effective at their jobs, yielding a quantifiable, positive return on investment for most investments in coaching. But there is a great deal of variability between studies in terms of how effective coaching can be. Is this because some coaches are better than others? Because some employees are more amenable to coaching or to different styles of coaching, than others? (There is even a term in the psychological literature for this trait: “coachability.”)

The authors elaborate: “Future research could investigate whether solution-focused coaching is indeed more effective than other coaching approaches and whether specific coaching effects also depend on significance and/or complexity of coaches’ problems.” By borrowing from fields with deep pools of literature, such as mentoring, training, therapy and education, the authors argue that professional coaches could begin to figure out which aspects of what they’re doing are particularly effective.

For example, effective coaching may be, like good therapy, primarily a product of the connection between the coach and coachee: “Recent work in the field of executive coaching indeed suggests that non-specific factors such as understanding, encouraging, and listening behaviors of the coach may be better predictors of coaching effectiveness than specific factors such as the coaching methodology.” 

Of course, coaching is a highly subjective experience, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The authors note that while many studies of the outcomes of coaching rely on self-reported results (versus evaluations by the coach or by others working with the person being coached) there is evidence from other areas of psychology that simply believing that a therapeutic intervention is working—whether that’s mentoring, teaching, psychotherapy or coaching—inspires a positive feedback mechanism that is key to the kind of deep, lasting, underlying behavioral change that is the goal of most coaching. So when choosing a coach, a good rule of thumb could simply be: Does this person make me feel more effective?

As President Obama's Executive Coach...

Had posted another post on what an Executive Coach will advise President Obama. Here's another good one - contentious, but interesting....

John MattonePresident, JohnMattonePartners, Inc.

As I travel the globe, meeting with senior executive teams, coaching CEOs and senior executives, and speaking to various management groups, it is clear to me that the world of business has very few outstanding leaders. Sadly, as I have observed President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner go "back and forth" in an apparent attempt to avoid the "fiscal cliff," I am left with the inescapable conclusion that the U.S. government likewise has fewoutstanding leaders.

Things always start with the chief executive. And, in this case, it starts with President Obama. In the world of politics and business, there are many very good leaders, as well as a vast supply of good leaders. The distribution of outstanding leadership, like anything else, follows the shape of a bell-shaped curve. I have always known this. Everyone has always known this. But, few of us really cared because being a good leader generally has been accepted as "sufficient" to keep a position -- or win reelection. Things are changing quickly, however -- very quickly. The bell-shaped curve representing the even distribution of leadership talent in any organization no longer can be accepted as "sufficient." It is mandatory that we -- as voters, employees, stakeholders, customers -- expect nothing short of consistent leadership greatness from our elected officials, including the President of the United States, CEOs and all leaders.

I had suspected the need for this critical distribution shift for a couple of years, but it became very clear in 2011 as I was interviewing CEOs as part of our Trends in Executive Development Research Study (Pearson, 2011). Beyond the actual research, an interesting qualitative note emerged. When I asked executives to identify a great leader in their lives -- someone who had a positive impact on them and helped shape their values and character -- roughly nine times out of 10, they mentioned a former teacher, coach, parent, grandparent, or friend, as opposed to a political or business leader. Unfortunately, the fact is that most of us whether we work in government or business, can identify the poor managers we have had much more quickly than we can the great ones. Why is this?

There is no clear answer; however, it is pretty clear that many people are promoted or elected into leadership roles before they are ready. They lack the experience or they have not been adequately coached, mentored or trained. More than anything else, I believe the speed and pace of change in business and the world, mounting financial pressure, rising debt, technology shifts, demographic shifts, and a more demanding operating environment -- not the least of which includes working successfully with a variety of constituent groups -- represent daunting challenges for most leaders, including President Obama. Frankly, only the very, very "best of the best" leaders in the world of politics or business possess the Leadership Intelligence (LI) required to drive true sustained greatness in their organizations. Leaders who possess a strong LI:

• Possess a strong "inner-core" capability (i.e., character, values, empowering thoughts and beliefs, emotions, maturity, and learning agility to adapt and adjust to an ever increasing complexity and variety of people and situations);
• Possess a strong "outer-core" capability (i.e., critical thinking, strategic thinking, decision-making, emotional intelligence, communication skills, team leadership, talent leadership, change leadership and drive for results; and
• They continuously execute their "inner-core" and "outer-core" capabilities while being vigilant to the impact they have on individuals, constituent groups, and their organizations; they also possess a passionate and diligent focus on continuous improvement through course correction.

Identifying CEOs and Executives who Possess Leadership Intelligence

Boards often ask me what they should look for in identifying their next CEO. My answer is always clear: They need to look for people who possess both a strong "inner-core" and "outer-core" capability. They need to identify people with strong Leadership Intelligence. The most critical thing to look for and measure, however, is character.

The essence of character is undoubtedly multifaceted and complex. When working with organizations to help them identify their next CEO, I look for evidence that they are, at a minimum, courageous. I look for leaders who have the guts to make the tough but ethical decision. I look for their willingness to sometimes stand alone, in the teeth of pressure (possibly even from their own managers) from others who may want to go in a counter, sometimes less ethical direction. I look for leaders who also have the guts to collaborate, concede, compromise, and who possess the humility to submit at times if it is in the best interest of the whole. This is one area that President Obama and I would explore in depth as it appears to be an area he needs to strengthen. When coaching CEOs, I explain that saying no to the easiest and most rewarding route, when that decision doesn't align with what you know is the correct one, may seem difficult. However, as soon as you begin flirting with such a decision -- that may yield better operating results, greater revenue, greater profits, greater support from constituents but clearly compromises the very essence of your ethical and moral identity -- you enter a world of agony and stress. Making such choices will lead you into a world of painful long-term consequences, not the least of which is an increased probability you will say yes to more insidious acts in time. This is exactly what happened to Dennis Kozlowski, years ago as CEO of TYCO. Great leaders -- truly great leaders -- have the courage to make the right decision every time.

Great leaders also possess the character elements of diligence, gratitude, honesty, modesty, and loyalty.

Now, with this background, as President's Obama's executive coach, this is what I would have done at the beginning of his first term:

• I would have assessed the strength and vibrancy of his "inner-core" and "outer-core" capabilities. I would have used a combination of in-depth interviews and objective assessments, including my own executive maturity assessment.
• I would have supplemented these assessments with 360-degree interviews involving key stakeholders and constituents. We would have identified from these assessments, President Obama's leadership strengths and development needs.
• We would have then prepared an initial leadership development plan and I would have encouraged President Obama to then get input from his stakeholder and constituent groups to help him finalize his leadership development plan.
• I would have then had President Obama meet with his stakeholders and constituent groups individually and collectively to share his drive and passion to become the best leader he can be and that he cannot achieve this goal without the input, support and guidance from them (this step is often the most challenging for CEOs).
• We would have then started executing this plan and I would have his stakeholders and constituents provide quarterly feedback to President Obama on the progress he is making on his leadership development plan.
• I would have worked with President Obama on implementing powerful change strategies that would have leveraged his considerable leadership capability while also strengthening his considerable leadership development opportunities--coaching him on first strengthening his "inner-core" as a foundation to strengthening his "outer-core" leadership skills.

You get the picture, right? If President Obama had been coached years ago using these steps and strategies, I am confident we would have avoided the "fiscal cliff" and been much further along as a nation. This is not a political comment; rather this is a comment on President's Obama's need, as our nation's CEO, to strengthen his Leadership Intelligence (LI).

Coaching Vs. Mentoring: a Common Confusion, Explained.

Post by Anirban Bhattacharya

8th November 2012

I often hear this - "Mentoring helped me deliver on my goals at 110% last year..." Or: "My coach helped me understand the value of developing a well-rounded personality..."

While the mentor or the coach in question may very well have done these, and helped the coachee/mentee achieve all that he/she wanted/needed to, these statements can be a tad confusing. And often, when working with corporate sponsors, we are asked to help "mentor" a "coachee", an arrangement that is a tad conflicting at basic levels.

So, what is Mentoring, and how is it different from what we do - Coaching? The difference, at one level, is quite simple - something like the difference between a benevolent uncle and a math tutor. Both may have the ward's (sorry for the archaic term) mathematics prowess in mind, but while the former is likely to be focused on the child's overall development and progress in life, the latter is expected to have a more specific goal-focus - to make the child do well in the next term exam...

Let me put it in another way. Mentoring is often delivered by someone who is an expert in the field and who offers advice, often, but necessarily, on a larger context. Coaching, on the other hand, avoids any advice and instead encourages independent thinking through questioning, with a specific goal in mind.

So, if coaching is more Pep Guardiola, mentoring is Shifu.

Or if mentoring is Robin Williams in 'Good Will Hunting', coaching is Denzil Washington in 'Training Day'... kapish?

Let me switch the above simple example. If the same child went to a teacher, who was mentoring him, and asked for the best way to deliver a lesson; the mentor would give some ideas and suggestions. If the same question was asked of a coach, the coach would ask a series of questions to get him to try and solve the issue himself. Not general guiding principles, but specific plans, steps, tools, inputs, to deliver on specific goals...

If one needs to see the differences in greater detail, there would be about five key aspects where the two processes differ.

1. Coaching is task oriented. Mentoring is relationship oriented. 

Coaching focus is on concrete issues, such as managing more effectively, speaking more articulately, and learning how to think strategically. 

Mentoring, on the other hand, seeks to provide a safe environment where the mentee shares whatever issues affect his or her professional and personal success. Although specific learning goals or competencies may be used as a basis for creating the relationship, mentoring's focus can go beyond to include things, such as work/life balance, self-confidence, self-perception, and how the personal influences the professional.

2. Coaching is short term. Mentoring is always long term. 

A coach can successfully be involved with a coachee for a shorter period of time, as long as is needed, depending on the purpose of the coaching relationship. Coaching relationships, therefore, are more concrete, clearly contracted, with predefined outcomes. In our practice, an average coaching assignment lasts 4-6 months, extended based on need.

For mentoring to work, the process requires time to go deeper and look at issues and challenges beyond specific problems. Relationship building, while important in coaching, is far more critical in mentoring, and the relationship covers much more than identified performance-related issues. Successful mentoring relationships last nine months to a year.

3. Coaching is performance driven. Mentoring is development driven.

The purpose of coaching is to improve the individual's performance on the job. This involves either enhancing current skills or acquiring new skills. Once the coachee successfully acquires the skills, the coaching agreement should cease, and may get renewed to cover other specific needs.

Mentoring looks to develop the individual not only for the current job, but also overall, with an eye on life in general and the future. 

This is the most important distinction, and also differentiates the role of the mentee's immediate manager and that of the mentor, thereby avoiding conflicts.

4. Coaching does not require design. Mentoring requires a design phase

This is somewhat of an artificial distinction, but can be true in cases. In some cases, based on the mandate, coaching can be conducted almost immediately on any given topic. In most cases, an amount of design is involved in order to determine the competency area, expertise needed, and assessment tools used, but this does not necessarily require a long lead-time to actually implement the coaching program. However, in our practice, most coaching assignments have lead-times to build on trust, comfort and credibility, as well as get necessary information from managers, peers, partners and other key relationships.

In mentoring, in order to determine the strategic purpose of the intervention, the design phase is critical, to build on of the relationship, the specific mentoring models, and the specific components that will guide the relationship, especially the matching process. 

5. The coachee's immediate manager is a critical partner in coaching. In mentoring, the immediate manager is indirectly involved. 

The sponsor in the coaching assignment is required to provide the coach with feedback on areas in which his or her employee is in need of coaching. This coach uses this information to guide the coaching process. This can be structured feedback, or general inputs.

Although she or he may offer suggestions to the employee on how to best use the mentoring experience or may provide a recommendation to on what would constitute a good match for the mentee, the manager has no direct link to the mentor and they do not communicate at all during the mentoring relationship. This helps maintain the mentoring relationship's integrity.

So, at the end, mentoring is more focused on general and overall development of an employee. Coaching, or, as in our case, Executive Coaching, is more specific and time-bound, with clearly set objectives and goals, with greater measurability of results.

Sources: Inputs from Management Mentors (www.management-mentors.com) and other sources.