In recent years there have been various independent studies conducted on the effects of coaching in the workplace. The following is a summary of their findings:
“Whether coaching is part of an ongoing programme of continuous improvement or used specifically to support an individual through a period of change, it has been shown to be extremely helpful” Bill Lucas, Chief Executive, Campaign for Learning
According to the CIPD's Learning and Development Survey 2009: the two greatest changes in learning and training methods over the last two years are the introduction of programmes to develop the role of line managers, and efforts to develop a learning and development culture across the organisation. The key role played by line managers in delivering successful learning is once again emphasised by the results of this survey which indicated that 47% of respondents believe that coaching by line managers is one of the most effective learning and development practices. At the other end of the scale only 7% deem e-learning to be one of the most effective.
The report goes on to state that Interpersonal (79%) and communication skills (74%) are viewed as the most important when recruiting new employees and that management and leadership skills (81%) are seen as the most important in meeting business objectives. The most widely used talent management activities are in-house development programmes (88%) and coaching (86%) and these are regarded as being effective by 35% (in-house programmes) and 50% (coaching) - the top two most effective activities. The least popular activities are external secondments and action learning sets.
Overall 69% or organisations use coaching, 78% in public sector agencies and 83% of larger organisations and 62% of respondents feel that coaching is seen as a positive development opportunity rather than a remedial intervention. Encouragingly 76% agree that 'learning and development in my organisation is seen as an important part of business improvement'.
Research conducted by the Chartered Management Institute has indicated that Coaching as a learning and development tool is growing. While 41% of small organisations undertook coaching activities in 1996 this had increased to 74% by 2000. The 2002 Coaching at Work survey carried out by the Chartered Management Institute supported by Lloyds TSB showed that 80% of large organisations had Coaching Programmes in place and the CIPD's Learning and Development Survey 2009 found that 83% of organisations now have coaching in place and that 86% see coaching the most effective and widely used talent management acftivity. The CMI study also showed:
The main reasons for using coaching are:
Supporting structural change
Staff motivation
Demand from managers
Retention of staff
80% of managers believe that they would benefit from coaching/more coaching in their place of work and 25% feel there is not enough time set aside for it.
93% of managers believe that coaching should be available to all employees regardless of seniority 85% believe that it enhances team morale
80% believe that coaching is good at generating responsibility on the part of the learner
80% feel that coaches should have training before they start to coach
Where as:
5% thought that coaching was just another fad
7% thought that there are more appropriate training methods and
3% felt it was a waste of resources
A study by Manchester (MPS) – a US leading career management consulting firm – surveyed 100 executives, mostly from Fortune 1000 companies who had received coaching. The results showed:
The programmes delivered an average return on investment of 5.7 times the initial investment in the coaching programme.
Among the benefits to companies that provided coaching to executives were improvements in:
Productivity (reported by 53% of executives)
Quality (48%)
Customer Service (39%)
Reducing Customer Complaints (34%)
Retaining Executives who received coaching (32%)
Bottom-line profitability (22%)
Among the benefits to executives who received coaching were improvements in:
Working relationships with direct reports (reported by 77% of executives)
Working relationships with immediate supervisors (71%)
Teamwork (67%)
Working relationships with peers (63%)
Job satisfaction (61%)
Conflict Reduction (52%)
Organisational commitment (44%)
A 2000 issue of The Industrial Society’s “Managing Best Practice” series focussed on Coaching. The report includes a survey of 5700 UK Human Resource specialists and showed:
The Main benefits of coaching to the recipient are:
Generates improvements in individuals’ performance/targets/goals (84%)
Increased openness to personal learning and development (60%)
Helps identify solutions to specific work-related issues (58%)
Greater ownership and responsibility (52%)
Developing self-awareness (42%)
Improves specific skills or behaviour (38%)
Greater clarity in roles and objectives (37%)
Corrects behaviour/performance difficulties (33%)
The main benefits of coaching to the organisation are:
Allows fuller use of individuals’ talents/potential (79%)
Demonstrates commitment to individuals and their development (69%)
Increased creativity, learning, and knowledge (63%)
Intrinsically motivates people (57%)
Facilitates the adoption of a new culture/management style (39%)
Improves relationships between people and departments (35%)
A 1997 survey on the effects of Coaching on productivity in a public agency showed that:
Training alone increased productivity by 22.4% and training followed by 8 weeks of one-to-one coaching increased productivity by 88%.
The study was based on 31 participants (top managers, mid-level managers and supervisors) at a US health agency. 8 managers where trained as coaches and the other 23 acted as participants who each had a project to measure their performance at a specific task before and after training and coaching. The results were compared to archival data on the benefits of training alone.
The report closes by drawing the conclusion that the benefits of managerial training will likely be sub-optimal if there is limited follow-up. Executive coaching is an important way of ensuring that knowledge acquired during training actually emerges as skills that are applied at work to improve performance.
A recent report worthy of particular attention on the subject of employee engagement was commissioned by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and conducted by David MacLeod acting as an independant reviewer. The report, known as the MacLeod review, covers a comprehesive review of business experience and academic research on the nature, application and benefits of an engaged workforce.
A video of David MacLeod explaining the basis of the report and the approach taken can be seen by clicking here. (click back to return here)
A full copy of the report (MacLeod, 2009) in pdf format can be found by clicking here. (click back to return here)
In the forward to the report by Rt Hon Lord Mandelson Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, he says "This timely Report sets out for the first time the evidence that underpins what we all know intuitively, which is that only organisations that truly engage and inspire their employees produce world class levels of innovation, productivity and performance.
The lessons that flow from that evidence can and should shape the
way leaders and managers in both the private and public sectors think about the people who work for them. They should also shape the way employees approach their jobs and careers."
There is therefore a considerable learning, development and change process facing those organisations choosing to make the developmental shift from more traditional management styles to the flatter and more productive styles of engaged employees. There are many organisational leaders who wonder whether such a shift is possible, yet there are countless organisations that have already successfully made the transition and are reaping the benefits, so without doubt the shift is most certainly possible. It is the benefits of engagement that make management and leadership style a government issue - the productivity of the UK is not what it should be, and the competitiveness of our organisations is always going to be challenged by those who employ more effective and engaging styles of management.
So what actually is employee engagement. The following definitions are cited in the MacLeod review (MacLeod 2009, pp8)
“Engagement is about creating opportunities for employees to connect with their colleagues, managers and wider organisation. It is also about creating an environment where employees are motivated to want to connect with their work and really care about doing a good job…It is a concept that places flexibility, change and continuous improvement at the heart of what it means to be an employee and an employer in a twenty-first century workplace.” (Professor Katie Truss)
“A positive attitude held by the employee towards the organisation and its values. An engaged employee is aware of the business context, and works with colleagues to improve performance within the job for the benefit of the organisation. The organisation must work to develop and nurture engagement, which requires a two-way relationship between employee and employer.”
(Institute of Employment Studies)
“A set of positive attitudes and behaviours enabling high job performance of a kind which are in tune with the organisation’s mission.” (Professor John Storey)
According to MacLeod (2009) There are differences between attitude, behaviour and outcomes in terms of engagement. An employee might feel pride and loyalty (attitude); be a great advocate of their company to clients, or go the extra mile to finish a piece of work (behaviour). Or may achieve better outcomes such as lower accident rates, higher productivity, fewer conflicts, more innovation, lower numbers leaving and reduced sickness rates. But MacLeod reports that all three – attitudes, behaviours and outcomes – are part of the engagement story. There is a virtuous circle when the pre-conditions of engagement are met and these three aspects of engagement trigger and reinforce one another.
The report also found that although improved performance and productivity is at the heart of engagement, it cannot be achieved by a mechanistic approach which tries to extract discretionary effort by manipulating employees’ commitment and emotions. Employees see through such attempts very quickly; they lead instead to cynicism and disillusionment. By contrast, engaged employees freely and willingly give discretionary effort, not as an ‘add on’, but as an integral part of their daily activity at work.
But is employee engagement something new, or simply old wine (long-standing management approaches) in new (fashionable management-speak) bottles. Is it just the latest management fad? MacLeod reports that while it does have clear overlaps with analytical antecedents such as organisational commitment, ‘organisational citizenship behaviour’, job involvement and job satisfaction, there are also crucial differences.
In particular, engagement is two way: organisations must work to engage the employee, who in turn has a choice about the level of engagement to offer the employer. Each reinforces the other. As one employee put it 'employee engagement is when the business values the employee and the employee values the business'.
From our perspective the change to a more engaged culture requires careful facilitation and an understanding of the underlying psychological dynamics that are involved. With the greatest respect, this understanding is not commonplace in many organisations and this is testimony to the many failed attempts at increasing engagement which result in a resounding return to an even stronger form of controlling leadership.
According to the CIPD, employers want engaged employees because they deliver improved business performance. CIPD research has repeatedly demonstrated the links between the way people are managed, employee attitudes and business performance. For access to information about Employee Engagement on the CIPD wesite click here. (click back to return here)
The Institute of Employment Studies (IES) has concluded that the main driver of engagement is a sense of feeling valued and involved (ROBINSON, D., PERRYMAN, S. and HAYDAY, S. (2004) The drivers of employee engagement. Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.). The main components of this are said to be:
involvement in decision-making
freedom to voice ideas, to which managers listen
feeling enabled to perform well
having opportunities to develop the job
feeling the organisation is concerned for employees’ health and well-being.
According to the CIPD factsheet, given the clear association between engagement, job satisfaction, advocacy and performance, there is every incentive for managers to seek to drive up levels of engagement among the workforce. Employers should consider:
allowing people the opportunity to feed their views and opinions upwards is the single most important driver of engagement
keeping employees informed about what is going on in the organisation is critical
employees need to see that managers are committed to the organisation in order to feel engaged
having fair and just management processes for dealing with problems is important in driving up levels of performance.
Different groups of employees are influenced by different combinations of factors, and managers need to consider carefully what is most important to their own staff.
The CIPD have produced a report highlighting the concept of engagement from the perspective of business directors and in particular draws attention to the business case. To read the full CIPD report click here. (click back to return here)
