An article by Dr. Patsi Krakoff

For years most organizational pundits have known that it is not how much you know but how well you relate to other people in the organization that really matters.

Research by the Center for Creative Leadership has found that the primary causes of derailment in executives involve deficits in emotional competence. The three primary ones are:

1. difficulty in handling change
2. not being able to work well in a team
3. and poor interpersonal relations.

A study of 130 executives found that how well people handled their own emotions determined how much people around them preferred to deal with them (Walter V. Clarke Associates, 1997).

Effective coaching works with executives and others to develop their proficiency in working with change. It helps them identify when teamwork is important and to use their skills to foster it. Coaching builds skills and capacities for effective working relationships.

Coaching paves the way for decision makers to create higher levels of organizational effectiveness through dialogue, inquiry and positive interactions. Coaching creates awareness, purpose, competence and well-being among participants. Coaching is NOT another feel-good exercise based in soft skills that has no correlation to the bottom line.

In an article in the Harvard Business Review (Jan-Feb 1998) entitled "The Employee-Customer-Profit Chain at Sears" by Rucci, Kirn and Quinn, a model was developed indicating that 5 units increase of employee attitude led to 1.3 unit increase in customers' positive impression, resulting in 0.5% increase in revenue growth.

One study examined the effects of executive coaching in a public sector municipal agency. Thirty-one managers underwent a conventional managerial training program, followed by 8 weeks of one-on-one executive coaching. Training -- which included goal setting, collaborative problem solving, practice, feedback, supervisory involvement, evaluation of end-results, and a public presentation -- increased productivity by 22.4%. Training and coaching increased productivity by 88%, a significantly greater gain compared to training alone.

(Public Personnel Management; Washington; Winter 1997; Gerald Olivero; K Denise Bane; Richard E Kopelman)

Between 25 and 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies use executive coaches, according to the The Hay Group, an international human-resources consultancy. According to a survey by Manchester, Inc., a Jacksonville, Florida, career management consulting firm, about six out of ten organizations currently offer coaching or other developmental counseling to their managers and executives. Another 20 percent of companies said they plan to offer coaching within the next year.

Although it was once used as an intervention with troubled staff, coaching is now part of the standard leadership development training for executives in such companies as IBM, Motorola, J.P. Morgan Chase, Hewlett-Packard and many others. Companies such as Merrill Lynch, and sales-based organizations such as insurance firms use coaches to bolster performance of people in high-pressure stressful jobs.

In some cases, the coaching is geared toward correcting management behavior problems such as poor communication skills, failure to develop subordinates, or indecisiveness. More often, however, it is used to sharpen the leadership skills of high-potential individuals. Coaching can ensure the success, or decrease the failure rate, of newly promoted managers.

"People are in a legitimate state of doubt -- about galloping technology, globalization, heightened competition and increased complexity," says Warren Bennis, who teaches leadership at the University of Southern California. "They need someone to bounce ideas off of and to listen to their existential grousing."

Michigan-based Triad Performance Technologies, Inc. studied and evaluated the effects of a coaching intervention on a group of regional and district sales managers within a large telecom organization. The third party research study cites a 10:1 return on investment in less than one year.

The following business outcomes were directly attributed to the coaching intervention:

• Top performing staff, who were considering leaving the organization, were retained, resulting in reduced turnover, increased revenue, and improved customer satisfaction.
• A positive work environment was created, focusing on strategic account development and achieving higher sales volume.
• Customer revenues and customer satisfaction were improved due to fully staffed and fully functioning territories.
• Revenues were increased, due to managers improving their performance and exceeding their goals.

(www.coaching.com)

	Part 2: The Confusion Over What Coaching Is
	Back to Articles main page