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

Global trends in the use of coaching in the workplace
Research study, prepared by Matt Rule and Dr. David Rock
www.neuroleadership.com
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Trends in external coaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Vendors and models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Selection criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
External coaching engagements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Trends in coaching strategy 6
Integration with existing
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
High-level definition of coaching programs 6

organizational priorities 31
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Maturity of coaching strategy 6

External coaching supervision 31
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Description of coaching strategies 7

Measuring impact 31
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
How coaching programs link

to business strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Comparing the three modalities
Coaching strategy development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 of coaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Coaching program support Choice of modality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
and management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Investment in coaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Comments about coaching strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Vendors and models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Number of coaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Trends in general coaching practices 11
Coaching supervision 36
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coaching definitions 11
Structure of engagements 36
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Types of coaching 12
Training and development 37
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coaching program delivery 12

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coaching program integration 13

organizational priorities 38
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Formal coaching engagements 14

Measuring impact 40
.........................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comments about general

coaching practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Key findings from the whole study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Key findings about coaching strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Trends in coaching skills programs 16
Coaching skills programs 42
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose of coaching skills programs 16

Internal coaching 42
...........................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vendors and models 16

External coaching 43
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Volume 16
The value of partnering with
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coaching skills training and development 18

an external resource 43
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
organizational priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Measuring impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Trends in internal coaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Purpose of internal coaching programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Vendors and models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Internal coach population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Training and development
of internal coaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Internal coaching supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Internal coaching engagements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
organizational priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Measuring impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Introduction
Background
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
© NeuroLeadership Group 2011 3

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.
Regions:
Europe 26%
North America 22%
Oceania 16%
Asia 11%
Latin America 8%
Africa 7%
Middle East 5%
South Asia 5%
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.
4 Global trends in the use of coaching in the workplace

Human Resources 53%
Other 14%
Executive/C-Suite 11%
Other countries represented included: Austria, Barbados, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Kenya, Niger,
Operations 8%
Pakistan, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Slovakia, Switzerland and Turkey.
Sales 6%
Over half of the respondents worked in the Human Resources department of their organization. The other
Administration 3%
47% were a mix of people who worked at the Executive/C-Suite level or worked in Learning and Development,
Organizational Development or Operations.Marketing 2%
IT 2%
The industry in which the respondents operated in was quite varied. The four largest being: Professional,
Finance 1%
Scientific and Technical Services (17%), Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (14%), Manufacturing (14%)
and Government and Education (13%).
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
Manufacturing
Government, Education
Other
Communications, Utilities
Retail, Wholesale
Health Care
Agriculture, Mining
Construction
Internet
Nonprofit
0 5 10 15 20 %
The majority of organizations that took part operated in 1–15 countries (62%) and had more than 10,000
employees (30%).

Trends in coaching strategy
Respondents 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.
How organizations define their coaching program:
Individual coaching activities - engaged in

by individuals, not part of a formal program
Multiple activities - more or less supported by but
not organized or funded by the organization
A formal organizational program
with guidelines but no funding
Formal program with clear strategy,
formal endorsement and funding
0 10 20 30 40 50 %
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.

How many years ahead are you planning or thinking strategically about your coaching programs?:
Just focused on immediate needs
Thinking 1-2 years ahead
Thinking more than 5 years ahead
Not planning or thinking strategically

about our coaching programs
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %
Description of coaching strategies

Coaching program investment in the past financial year:
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
$0 - $49,999
skills programs:
$50,000 - $99,999
“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”
$100,000 - $249,999
“We use 360s for -our

$250,000 high potentials and they go through the Lominger/Korn Ferry Voices tool. We
$499,999
have certified employees internally to coach them. When we have executives that need coaching for
development, we$500,000
use external
+ coaches that we have experience with and align with our values.”
“Individual executive coaching

0 with senior
10 and middle
20 management
30 managers
40 integrated
50 60 %
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.”

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.
How coaching strategy was developed:
Our strategy was created by an internal person

or team with no outside help
Our strategy was created in consultation with
a coaching specific organization
a management consultancy
another person/organization, not specific to coaching
or management consulting
0 10 20 30 40 50 %
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)

n They were likely to provide an internal or external coach to more employees (46% provide coaches
How to 50+
many employees
years ahead are compared
you planningto
or 34% across
thinking the full
strategically data
about set)
your coaching programs?:
Coaching program
Just focused on support and management
immediate needs
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
Thinking morehad
than a5 dedicated
years ahead team to manage the coaching strategy.
Not planning or thinking strategically

Investment in coaching
about our coaching programs
51% of organizations with an active

0 coaching
5 program
10 had
15 invested
20 no 25
more than
30 $50,000
35 in coaching
40 %
in the previous financial year.
Coaching program investment in the past financial year:
$0 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $249,999
$250,000 - $499,999
$500,000 +
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %
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.

Trends in general coaching practices
The 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.
How clear is the definition of coaching
in your organization?:
One definition, widely shared and understood 28%
A couple of definitions 29%
Many definitions 12%
No clear definitions 31%
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.”

“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.
Types of coaching organizations are engaged in:
External coaching for senior leaders (C-Suite)
Internal coaching for leaders (C-Suite)

External coaching for managers/leaders
(below C-Suite)
Internal coaching for managers/leaders
(below C-Suite)
External coaching for employees
Internal coaching for employees
External coaching for groups/teams
Internal coaching for groups/teams

Externally delivered coaching skills training
for managers and leaders
Internally delivered coaching skills training
for employees
10 20 30 40 50 60 %
Coaching program delivery

Number of employees involved in delivering coaching programs:
Most organizations with an active coaching program identified a blended approach of internal and external
delivery of the
1 or 2 people various
working on itcoaching
full time 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
1 or 2 people working on
to manage it ascoaching
their part of theirprograms.
job
It's part of HR - many people work on it as

part of their job
Dedicated team to manage coaching
12 Other Global trends in the use of coaching in the workplace
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %
10 20 30 40 50 60 %
Number of employees involved in delivering coaching programs:
1 or 2 people working on it full time
1 or 2 people working on it as part of their job
It's part of HR - many people work on it as

part of their job
Dedicated team to manage coaching
Other
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %
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.
How coaching programs are linked to other initiatives:
Performance appraisal
Talent development
Succession planning
Change management
Derailment risks
Performance management
Outplacement
Onboarding
Training (follow up)
Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %
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.

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.
How many employees are given a coach:
Less than 50 62%
50-99 15%
100-299 9%
300+ 14%
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 practices

Throughout 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.”

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 programs
Coaching 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.
Percentage of organizations that offer coaching skills programs as part of their coaching strategy:
Yes
No
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %
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
Number of managers and leaders who have undertaken a coaching skills training program:
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.
Less than 100
Purpose of coaching
100 - 500skills programs
In relation to the purpose of their coaching skills programs, around half commented that it was to improve
500 - 1000
leadership or management capability through more effective communication. This was mostly to increase
team/individual performance
1000 - 2000and 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. More than 2000
Vendors and models 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %
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 %
Number of managers and leaders who have undertaken a coaching skills training program:
Less than 100
100 - 500
500 - 1000
1000 - 2000
More than 2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %
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.
Target number of managers and leaders to undertake a coaching skills training program:
0-100
100-500
500-1000
1000-2000
2000-3000
More than 3000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 %
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%

Currently not measuring impact
Through observation only
Measuring changes in organizational metrics

Coaching skills training and development
Against individual performance metrics
In measuring the breadth of the programs 43% of organizations identified that their coaching skills training
programs were threeMeasuring
days or business impactidentified
more. 57% in detail that their training was 1–2 days in length.
Measuring full return on investment

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
Other
only 35% for similar programs for internal coaches; 39% indicated that their managers/leaders are trained in
coaching skills by someone internally. 0 10 20 30 40 50 %
The majority of organizations noted that they have no formal development plans in place for skill retention (42%).
Maintaining coaching skill level of managers and leaders:
Skills refresher programs throughout the year
Participants are provided with mentors
Provide opportunities where participants of the program

can connect and learn from one another
New training programs regularly to build on their skills
Regularly assess their skills
No formal development plans are in place
Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 %
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)

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:
Measuring business impact in detail
Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 %
Maintaining coaching skill level of managers and leaders:

Skills refresher programs throughout the year
Trends in internal coaching
Internal 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%).
Percentage of organizations that have internal coaching as part of their coaching strategy:
Yes
No
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %
Purpose of internal coaching programs

Purpose of internal coaching programs: percentage of organizations that responded with very true or somewhat true:
Relating toofthe
Percentage purpose that
organizations of internal coaching,
have internal 92%
coaching responded
as part with true
of their coaching or somewhat true for ‘internal
strategy:
Improve individual performance
coaching is being used to improve individual performance’. The lowest responses were to internal coaching
being used
Improve asbusiness
overall a sounding board for senior leaders (45%) and for the statement ‘internal coaching has a
performance
behavioral focus for problem employees’
Yes (50%).
Develop high potentials
Organizations were more likelyNoto be using internal coaching than external coaching as a strategy to improve
employee Improve engagement
engagement andlevels
retention. There was a 17–18% difference in favor of internal coaching for
improvingSupport
engagement and retention
leaders in transition
0 when
10 comparing
20 the
30data. 40 50 60 70 80 %
Increase retention
Purpose of internal coaching programs: percentage of organizations that responded with very true or somewhat true:
Has a behavioural focus
Improveboard
Sounding individual performance
for senior leaders
Improve overall business performance

0 20 40 60 80 100 %
Improve engagement levels
Support leaders in transition
Increase retention
Sounding board for senior leaders
0 20 40 60 80 100 %

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.
Number of internal coaches operating:
2-4
5-10
10-25
26-50
50-100
100+
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 %
Who are the internal coaches?:

Of the 9% of respondents that identified they had more than 100 internal coaches operating, 40% were from
South East Asia, 20%
100% were from /Australia
HR / training OD peopleand 13% were from the United States.
These organizations100%
were generally larger; with 93% identifying they had more than 10,000 employees, and
line managers / leaders
80% identifying they operate in more than 50 countries.
A mix of HR and line managers
The table below details the breakdown of the number of internal coaches operating by company size.
Other
0–10 10–25 25–50 50+
<1000 employees 86% 0 5% 10 20 4% 30 405% 50 %
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.

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.
Who conducts the training?:
Coaches are trained by someone internally
Coaches are trained by an external

consultant or company
Coaches are trained by both internal and
external people
Other
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 %
Assessing the skill level of internal coaches:

Asia (40%) and South Asia (50%) were more likely to use internal people exclusively to train their coaches,
compared tono21%
There is globally.
formal African organizations were least likely to use internal people exclusively to train
skills assessment
their coaches (6%).
The coach is assessed by
someone internally
About half of the respondents (49%) cited that the skill level of their organization’s coaches was not assessed.
someone external to our organization
Those that said they did not assess the skill level of their coaches:
All our coaches are assessed by
nthe International
Had a similarCoach Federation
number (ICF)
of internal coaches in operation when compared to all respondents*.
Other
n Were more likely to not provide any training for their internal coaches at all (25% compared to 14%
across all respondents*)
0 10 20 30 40 50 %
n Were more likely to not be supervising their coaches in any way (40% compared to 25%)
Maintaining skill level of internal coaches:
n Were more likely to have an unstructured approach to their internal coaching engagements (32%
comparedSkills
to 20%)
refresher programs
throughout the year
n Were most
Internallikely to be
coaches just offering one-off sessions as needed as opposed to formal coaching
are provided
with mentors
engagements (31% compared to 19%)
Provide opportunities where internal coaches
n Were more likely not to be measuring the impact of internal coaching (40% compared to 24%)
New training programs regularly
to build on their skills
No formal development plans

for our coaches
* refers to all respondents who have internal coaching programs in operation within their organization.
Other
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %
Who conducts the training?:
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 %
Coaches are trained by someone internally
AssessingCoaches are trained

the skill level by ancoaches:
of internal external
consultant or company
Coaches
Thereare
is trained by skills
no formal both assessment
internal and
external people
Other
someone internally
someone external to our organization 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 %
All our coaches are assessed by
the International Coach Federation (ICF)
Assessing the skill level of internal coaches:
Other
There is no formal skills assessment
The coach is assessed by 0 10 20 30 40 50 %

someone internally
Maintaining skill level
Theof internal
coach coaches:by
is assessed
Only 6%someone external to our
of organizations organization
with internal coaching programs identified that their coaches were assessed by the
Skills refresher programs
InternationalAllCoach Federation
our coaches (ICF).by
are assessed
throughout the year
the International Coach Federation (ICF)
Internal coaches are provided
38% identified that there were no formal development frameworks in place to ensure consistent skill
with mentors
Other
development. 38% also identified
Provide opportunities where internal coachesthat 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.
New training programs regularly 0 10 20 30 40 50 %
Maintaining skill level of internal coaches:
No formal
Skillsdevelopment plans
refresher programs
for our coaches
throughout the year
Internal coaches are provided
Other
with mentors
Provide opportunities where internal coaches
can connect and learn from one another 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %
New training programs regularly
No formal development plans

for our coaches
Other
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %
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

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.
Number of coachees each coach is working with at any one time:
1 - 2 coachees
3 - 5 coachees
6 - 10 coachees
11 - 15 coachees
More than 15 coachees
0 10 20 30 40 50 %
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.

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.
Internal coaching vs other L&D initiatives:

Is internal coaching...
Replacing mentoring?
Replacing other formal development programs?
Replacing other learning initiatives (eg. online learning)
Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %
Measuring internal coaching:
Currently not measuring internal coaching
Other
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %
Replacing mentoring?
Replacing other formal development programs?

Measuring impact
Replacing other learning initiatives (eg. online learning)
24% of respondents are not measuring the success of their internal coaching programs. Of those that are,
Other by observation only (39%) or measuring against individual performance
the majority appear to be measuring
metrics (37%). Only 4% identified that they were measuring their return on investment.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %
Measuring internal coaching:
Currently not measuring internal coaching
Other
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %
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.”

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 coaching
External 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%).
Percentage of organizations that have external coaching as part of their coaching strategy:
Yes
No
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %
Purpose
Percentage of organizations that have external coaching as part of their coaching strategy:
The most common purpose for external coaching cited by responding organizations with external coaches
Purpose of external coaching programs: percentage of organizations that responded with very true or somewhat true:
operating was ‘to improve individual
Yes 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’ Noresponses were for external coaching having a behavioral focus for problem
employees Develop
(35%) and external coaching being used to increase retention (26%).
high potentials
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %
Here isoverall
Improve how business
the purposes ranked
performance (from highest to lowest):

Purpose of external coaching programs: percentage of organizations that responded with very true or somewhat true:
Increase retention
0 20 40 60 80 100 %
Increase retention
0 20 40 60 80 100 %
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.

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.
Number of external coaches:
1 - 10
Number of external coaches:

10 - 50
More than 50
1 - 10
10 - 500 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %
More than 50
The majority
Number of organizations
of employees being given anappear
external to be providing
coach: external coaches to less than 100 employees (84%).
Only 13% of organizations
0 10 identified
20 that
30 they40
were providing
50 coaches70to more
60 80than%100 people.
0
Number of employees being given an external coach:

1 - 10
10 -1000
More than1100
- 10
10 -1000 10 20 30 40 50 %
More than 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 %
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%).

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.
Structure of external coaching engagements:
Unstructured - coaching sessions

occurs as needed
Somewhat structured
Well-structured, with a defined number of

sessions and/or number of goals
0 10 20 30 40 50 %
Average length 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.
Measuring external coaching:
Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 %
37% identified that they measure against individual performance metrics while only 18% measure against
changes in organizational metrics.

Comparing the three modalities of coaching
In 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:
Africa
Middle East
Europe
South Asia
Asia
Oceania
Latin America
North America
Global
0 20 40 60 80 100 %
Coaching Skills Internal Coaching External Coaching
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

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
A sounding board for
senior leaders
Support leaders
in transition
Improve engagement
levels
Increase retention
Improve overall business
performance
Improve individual
performance
40 60 80 100 %
External Coaching Internal Coaching
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.

Coaching Skills
Internal Coaching
External Coaching
0 10 20 30 40 50 %
Increase our spend Spend about the same Decrease our spend Not applicable
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.
Number of coaches - external vs internal:
1 - 10 coaches
10 - 50 coaches
More than 50 coaches
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %
External coaches Internal coaches

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.
Coaching supervision - external vs internal:
No supervision at all
Informal frameworks
in place
Formal frameworks
in place
Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %
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”.
Coaching structure - external vs internal:
Unstructured -
coaching sessions
occur as needed
Somewhat structured
Well structured - with a
defined number of
sessions and/or
number of goals
10 20 30 40 50 %
Length of coaching engagement - external vs internal:

One off sessions as needed
number of goals
10 20 30 40 50 %
Similar to the structure, external coaching engagements also typically appear to be longer in duration than
internal coaching:
Length of coaching engagement - external vs internal:
One off sessions as needed
1 - 3 months
3 - 12 months
More than 1 year in length
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %
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

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.
Integration into other leadership development and learning initiatives:
Fully integrated
Partially integrated
Stand alone
10 20 30 40 50 60 %
The graph below shows which individual and organizational development priorities that each coaching
modality is linked to:
Training (follow up)
Onboarding
Outplacement
Performance management
Derailment risks
Change management
Succession planning
Talent development
Performance appraisals
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 %

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.
Average length of external coaching engagements:

Is internal coaching...
Replacing external coaching?
Supplementing external coaching to the

same communities (employee groups)?
Being provided to different communities
(employee groups) than external coaching?
Not applicable
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %

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.
Full return on investment
Business impact in detail
Against individual
performance metrics
Changes in
organizational metrics
Currently not
measuring impact
0 10 20 30 40 50 %

Key findings from the whole study
363 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.
The following chart shows, by country, the percentage breakdown for respondents with coaching strategies:
North America
Europe
Oceania
Latin America
Asia
Africa
South Asia
Middle East
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %
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.

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:
The following chart shows, by country, the percentage breakdown for respondents with coaching strategies:
Increase retention
Focus on behavioral improvement
Help the thinking of senior leaders
0 20 40 60 80 100 %
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 Approximatelyhalf 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.

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 Werenearly 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.

Acknowledgements
Several 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

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global trends in the use of coaching in the workplace

Research study, prepared by Matt Rule and Dr. David Rock

High-level definition of coaching programs 6

Maturity of coaching strategy 6

Description of coaching strategies 7

How coaching programs link

Coaching program delivery 12

Coaching program integration 13

Formal coaching engagements 14

Comments about general

Purpose of coaching skills programs 16

Vendors and models 16

Coaching skills training and development 18

Integration with existing

Trends in internal coaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

This paper outlines the findings from the study.

n Quantify the impact each form of coaching is having

n General coaching practices

n Coaching skills for managers and leaders programs

n Information about the respondent and their organization

© NeuroLeadership Group 2011 3

North America 22%

Oceania refers to Australia and New Zealand.

4 Global trends in the use of coaching in the workplace

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

© NeuroLeadership Group 2011 5

High-level definition of coaching programs

How organizations define their coaching program:

Individual coaching activities - engaged in

Maturity of coaching strategy

6 Global trends in the use of coaching in the workplace

Just focused on immediate needs

Thinking 1-2 years ahead

Thinking 3-4 years ahead

Thinking more than 5 years ahead

Not planning or thinking strategically

Description of coaching strategies

“We use 360s for -our

“Individual executive coaching

“3 different levels of internal coaching skills development: 1) Coaching Champions – extensive

© NeuroLeadership Group 2011 7

“Aiming for a coaching culture within the organization.”

“Individual development of top managers”

How coaching programs link to business strategy

8 Global trends in the use of coaching in the workplace

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

Coaching strategy development

How coaching strategy was developed:

Our strategy was created by an internal person

© NeuroLeadership Group 2011 9

Not planning or thinking strategically

51% of organizations with an active

Coaching program investment in the past financial year:

<$100K $100–250K $250K+

Comments about coaching strategy

10 Global trends in the use of coaching in the workplace

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.

“Facilitating performance development in others.”

“Helping individuals reach their potential.”

“Formal or informal conversations designed to support and empower employees to achieve

© NeuroLeadership Group 2011 11