The Findings
In this part I would like to discuss the most important aspect, the analysis of the results using the consolidated result spread sheet attached to this report as appendix II. I received 28 responses. Most of the respondents have answered all the questions, except for four who have not answered one or more questions. In the consolidated result spread sheet the first tab shows the answers of the first 12 questions. Answers of question 2, 3 and 4 are codified for better representation and comparison. The codes are described in the second tab of the spread sheet. The answers and analysis of the question 13, 14 and 15 are given in the next three tabs.
As mentioned earlier the first five questions are about the respondents. In my quest for respondents, I had approached groups of people who are either getting into coaching or have attended some coaching related training or are in leadership position in HR either now or in the past. As a result 19 out of 28 have at least 20 or more years of experience while 23 of 28 have professional or higher qualifications. 17 of the respondents had senior managerial experience excluding one person who has not answered this question. Consistent to their profile most of the respondents are quite content with their achievements and 20 of them have rated themselves more than 7 and above in a scale of 10, excluding one respondent who has not answered this question.
As mentioned earlier questions 7 to 10 are the most important. Of the 28 respondents, only six had a coach. Others did not have any coach. The responses for both groups appear to be very similar in nature. The data suggests that the folks who had direct coaching experience have given scores which are little more conservative compared to ones who did not have one. This is quite understandable as folks who had a coach had done the scoring on the basis of practical experience while others looked at ideal coaching scenario to do their scoring. As the difference between the two groups was not really significant our assumption that one could fairly project the effect that coaching would have brought to their career or life appears to be reliable. It is extremely heartening to see that 80% respondents found that coaching can bring in significant to huge benefit to ones career or life beyond work. There seems to be no specific dependence of the effectiveness of coaching score on individual fulfillment of ambition, or years of experience or qualification. The answers to question 11 also did not show any apparent pattern leading to the conclusion that in the overall analysis collectively we are not able to identify any specific types of folks who are better suited for being coached.
For analyzing the responses of last three questions following steps are used:
- The statements which are similar are grouped together. This is called affinity grouping.
- Two / three top popular groups are identified
- The grouped statements then get converted to a single representative statement expressing the flavour of the grouped statements.
For question 13 the process was very simple as most people identified with two reasons given in the questionnaire so the third step of the process outlined above was not necessary.
They are:
- Lack of commitment and drive
- Lack of follow up
For question 14 it was little more difficult as people defined the strength of coaching in their own different ways. So affinity grouping exercise was little more challenging. Biggest strength identified of the process is it being ‘self driven action oriented to leverage one’s own potential’. While second identified strength is that the process is totally ‘individualized and personalized’ and third strength is it ‘brings in holistic improvements’.
Question 15 tries to address the basis of selecting a coach. There are 3 strong themes which are emerging from the analysis. The first is the ‘experience and credibility’ of the coach. It means that one needs to be patient in order to build a coaching practice and folks who are starting it with lesser experience in other walks of life might need to be little more patient or may need to be put in little more effort. The second is of course the ‘coaching related skills and capabilities’. So training and practice and skill building is very crucial. And that over a period of a time also builds the credibility which is part of the reason number one for coach selection. And the third thing to look for is the compatibility. It seems that the coaching relationship will thrive best when the coach and the coachee are compatible. So while selecting a coach, folks may look for an initial interaction to gauge the compatibility.
Conclusions
In conclusion we can specify the following:
1) Coaching can bring in significant to huge improvement in work performance as well as in life beyond work
2) Folks of all kind may get benefited from coaching
3) Coaching can help people change the outlook, refine their behaviour and improve capability
4) The most popular reasons for ineffective coaching are less follow up and less commitment and drive
5) Strength of the Coaching process are seen as follows:
- Self driven action oriented to leverage one’s own potential
- Individualized and personalized
- Brings in holistic improvements
6) The topmost selection criteria for a coach are:
- Experience and credibility
- Coaching related skills and capabilities
- Compatibility between the coach and the coachee
What do all these findings mean? It is clear that coaching has lot to offer in enhancing one’s performance and managing one’s own life better. This can help people from all walks of life. The coaching can be more effective with sustained follow up and high level of commitment. The biggest appeal of coaching is its individualistic, self driven holistic approach towards improvement. Of course experience and credibility and skills of the coach matter but it is also important to look for compatibility.
Further Research
This questionnaire framework can be used for doing a more in depth and more elaborate study to find out more definitively about the correlation between the respondents’ age, gender, education level etc and his / her view on coaching effectiveness. Such study could throw far more light on the answers to the questions which were raised in the beginning of this research paper.
Acknowledgments
Dr Hari Iyer – For teaching me how to set up these kinds of questionnaires.
Mr Ram Ramanathan – For his overall guidance and sharing his paper using similar modalities which work as a model for my paper.
Gayatri Krishnamurthy – For ironing out many a long winded expressions in the write up.