culture characteristics in coaching companies t.l...

CULTURECHARACTERISTICSINCOACHINGCOMPANIES 1

Culture Characteristics in Coaching Companies

T.L. Cadorine University of Texas at Dallas


Abstract

Links between organizational culture and use of coaching is explored to identify

environmental factors that could support coaching effectiveness. Twenty-three

participants, solicited through social media, answered survey questions on culture and use

of coaching in their organization. Five of the survey respondents were then interviewed

for further insight on the connections between organizational culture and coaching use.

Culture definition is based on the organizational cultural profile characteristics and

factors as defined by O’Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell in the 1991 study, “Profile and

Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-

Organization Fit”. The findings of this study indicate that stable and people-oriented

cultures are the most likely to use coaching as a behavioral intervention tool and are also

more likely to apply coaching solutions effectively. Four specific actions coaches can

implement during a coaching engagement to establish a favorable environment for

success are provided. The findings are based on situational study, so best application at

this time is for coach practitioners and organizational users of coaching solutions. The

foundation of this study can be used to structure future social scientific studies in order to

create links between culture, coaching and organizational return-on-investment that, in

turn, will compel individuals and organizations to invest in coaching as a key behavioral

change tool.


Culture Characteristics in Coaching Companies When reading literature on coaching effectiveness and in my own personal

experience as a team member of a Fortune 500 company, coaching does not always have

a consistent advocacy in the corporate ranks. Some organizational leaders are strong

proponents of coaching, such as Eric Schmidt, formerly CEO of Google, and Bill Gates

(Jubelirer, 2013). Magazines, ranging from Psychology Today to Fortune, have had

articles in the last five years advocating hiring a coach. Titles such as “Why Every CEO

Needs a Coach” to “Why You Need to Hire a Coach in 2015” to “Coaching is hot. Is it

right for you?”, encourage people to explore the benefits of coaching for their personal

goal achievement and growth (Arruda, 2014; Elmer, 2011; Williams, 2012).

According to a 2016 study conducted in partnership between the Human Capital

Institute (HCI) and the International Coaching Federation (ICF), 55% of senior-level

executives work with an external coach practitioner compared to 23% at mid-level and

10% at entry-level (Filipkowski, Heverin, & Ruth, 2016). In this same work, we see that

coaching for mid-level and entry-level becomes much higher when we count coaching

done by internal practitioners and managers/leaders; however, these groups often include

activities such as training, directing, consulting and mentoring as coaching (Filipkowski

et al., 2016). For some reason, while there is popular opinion that coaching is a valuable

tool for learning and behavioral change, its use in organizations remains mostly tied to

the executive elite or diluted by other behavioral change approaches.

In this study we, (a) explore the contradiction between the value of coaching and

organizational use of coaching to establish what’s important in resolving the discrepancy;

(b) narrow the scope of study to an exploration of organizational culture, and; (c)


describe the method and the results of analysis. Upon conclusion, coach practitioners and

organizational users of coaching will gain insight to potential cultural characteristics and

factors of an organization that can better facilitate the effective use of coaching.

The Contradiction Between Coaching Value and Organizational Hesitation

Organizational leaders are widely rewarded on creation of stockholder value,

which is itself a result of optimizing profit and controlling costs (McClure, n.d.). Given

performance-based compensation, many organizational leaders need to see a value-over-

cost business case before investing in coaching as a behavioral change option for all team

members. Below is an explanation of both the value of larger scale availability of

coaching solutions in organizations and reasons why it is not available today.

Why everyone needs coaching. The deficiency of coaching accessibility at the

frontline of organizations matters for a host of reasons.

Concerns with frontline performance. First, according to a McKinsey survey

study, most companies’ senior executives and nonexecutive managers are unhappy with

frontline manager performance. They perceive that frontline leaders should be more

effective in, “making decisions, anticipating problems and coaching direct reports”

(Smet, McGurk, & Vinson, Looking ahead section, para 2); however, frontline managers

roles are structured to follow through on orders (Smet et al., 2010). In order for lower

levels of the organization to have the decision-making, skill-building and problem-

solving skills desired by senior leadership, training and coaching is needed. Training can

transfer the knowledge of processes that support these skills (Training, n.d.). In his book,

Coaching as a Leadership Style, Robert Hicks, PhD, described coaches supporting

frontline leaders by helping them envision what the skills look like specific to their role


(2014, p. 19). Coaching also helps participants stay motivated when the skills become

uncomfortable by refocusing coachees to the goals they created (Hicks, 2014, pp. 123 –

127). To summarize, training introduces a skill and a process behind a skill; whereas,

coaching strengthens the skill through contextual application and motivational support.

Both are needed for effective implementation of new skills.

Broader responsibility and more complex communication. Second, some

organizations have structured to become flatter or more matrixed. In these cases, a team

member’s job has become more complex as they have greater areas of responsibility and

more people with whom to communicate. These team members may not have a clear

boss or they may have many bosses. Relationship skills, relationship motivation,

decision-making, critical thinking and communication are very important in these types

of organizations (Meehan, n.d.). Training and coaching solutions create value for these

skills just as they improve skills needed for successful frontline performance.

Shift in ownership of employee development. Third, there is an emphasis today

about employees owning their future (Molina-Ray, 2013). Sixty-eight percent of

employees say their manager is not involved in their development (“When it Comes to

Career Development”, 2015). By 2020, it is estimated that 50% of the US workforce will

be an independent worker (Field Nation Videos, 2014). In order for freelance workers to

have a relevant skill set, they will need to be adept at identifying which skills are needed

and how to get them; otherwise, with an aging population, we may run into significant

skill shortages in our workforce (Sparshott, 2016). If we want people to blaze their own

career path, this requires new skills and thought processes that both the individual and


direct supervisors may be missing since companies no longer spend as many of their

resources on developing career paths for people (Cueni-Cohen, 2014).

People connecting with people is the solution to the problem of disheartened team

members lost in the structures of large, flat or matrixed organizations. Coaching is a tool

that can help change the story of what people expect from their employer, what they

expect from their supervisor, what they expect from themselves and how they go about

achieving their goals and dreams. It does not have to be the supervisor’s responsibility.

It does not have to be the responsibility of the training department or Human Resources;

however, if we want people to own their futures, we need to help them know what

ownership looks like and feels like. Since “coaches honor the client as the expert in his

or her life and work and believe every client is creative, resourceful and whole” (“What is

professional coaching”, n.d.), opportunities for development in the area of personal

ownership are an ideal match for a coaching solution.

Frontline responsibility to adapt and make decisions. Fourth, the foundation of

our economic system continues to evolve: e.g. agricultural economy, industrial economy,

information economy, services economy, and sharing economy (“Transformation in

Economics”, n.d.). Companies who want to survive in ever-evolving conditions must be

flexible. According to Peter Block in his groundbreaking book, Stewardship: Choosing

Service Over Self-Interest, the days where an organizational patriarch makes all the

decisions that trickle down through the hierarchy to workers who carry out orders is

becoming an extinct business model (2013, pp. 1-2). For maximum organizational

profitability and effectiveness, most members of an organization need to be able to act on

their own judgment on behalf of the organization’s vision (Senge, 2006, p. 192).


Aligning a personal vision to an organizational vision is an individual journey. Each of

us has different experiences and values that inform our beliefs and behaviors (Connors &

Smith, 1999, p. 21). Of the options available in the learning and development tool kit,

coaching is uniquely situated to align organizational members’ attitudes, beliefs and

actions to the organizational vision. Coaching provides a personal solution for the

personal journey to alignment.

Employee engagement value and transparency. Finally, according to a June

2015 release of Gallup engagement survey results, 30% of US employees and 13% of

workers worldwide are engaged (Royal & Sorenson, 2015). Two different meta-analysis

run on coaching studies show that coaching is significantly correlated to client well-

being, attitudes and relationships (Sonesh et al., 2015; Theeboom, Beersma, & van

Vianen, 2014). Coaching is a tool that improves the human experience at work and,

clearly, there is much room for improvement. In an age where team members can

anonymously and publicly review their employer, a consensus of poor experiences on

sites such as Indeed, LinkedIn and Glassdoor will make it harder for non-favored

employers to gain the best talent for their organization (Bersin, Agarwal, Pelster, &

Schwartz, 2015). Less talented workforce equals poorer outcomes. That is why in

Deloitte’s Global Human Capital Trends for 2015, 78% of survey respondents cited

culture and engagement as an important to very important issue, making it the most

important talent trend for organizations (Bersin et al., 2015).

Reason for Organizational Hesitation. Coaching seems like a panacea to

organizations’ challenges. Given all the valuable benefits of coaching to the person and

the business, it seems logical that organizations would flock to have this tool added to


their toolkits for organizational behavioral change; however, as we saw from the

McKinsey study earlier, this is not the case. I think the reason for this lack of

organizational adoption is because, as discussed earlier, coaching is an individual journey

and not an organizational journey. Outside of the coach-client relationship, the value of

coaching is not as clear. Table 1, copied from a study conducted through partnership

between Cambria Consulting and Babson College, clearly illustrates this issue (Schlosser,

Steinbrenner, Kumata, & Hunt, 2007).

Table 1: How Coach, Coachee and Manager Perceive Structure and Value of Coaching

Table 1 shows that both the coach and coachee involved in a coaching engagement

perceive the value of the coaching engagement higher than the manager. The manager

and coachee shared similar perceptions when the question was about the relationship with


the manager and the strategy and vision of coaching to the company. In summarizing

these findings, we see that whoever is more directly party to the relationship has a more

aligned point of view. Since coaching confidentiality ensures the coach-client

conversations are private (“Section 4: Confidentiality/Privacy”, n.d.), managers and

others in the organization outside of that direct relationship may never truly see the value

of these coaching conversations to the company as a whole.

Much of the information available on coaching effectiveness focuses specifically

on the relationship between the coach and the coachee. In fact, studies released by the

American Management Association in 2008 and echoed in findings released in

“Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice in 2015” show

coach-coachee relationships are significantly successful as self-reported by the coachee

(Thompson et al., 2008; Sonesh et al., 2015). Goal attainment, on the other hand, shows

statistically relevant correlation with performance indicators in only limited

circumstances (Thompson et al., 2008). So, coaching feels good, but may not visibly be

impacting the bottom line. Organizations will hesitate to invest in behavioral change

solutions where return-on-investment outcomes are unclear.

Resolving the Discrepancy - Coaching as both an Individual and Organizational

Advantage

In order to more clearly see the benefits of coaching organizationally, coaching

needs to move beyond the personal relationship of the coach and client. In an October

2016 interview with Dr. Jan Austin, MCC, she described what she sees as the most

important element to successful coaching within an organization, alignment of coaching

to business strategy (personal communication, October 11, 2016). In “Making Coaching


Work: Creating a Coaching Culture” the authors describe the different levels of coaching

culture. The levels, pictured in Figure 1, range from nascent, characterized by low

commitment to coaching, to embedded where coaching is tied into the company culture,

formal, informal and owned by everyone at every level within the organization

(Clutterbuck, & Megginson, 2005). When coaching is aligned to business strategy, the

client, the coach and the organization all have insight into what the coaching relationship

is about and what the relationship needs to achieve. In order for coaching to be

organizationally effective and available, the organizational decision makers need to be

able to draw lines to the business value of coaching.

Figure 1: Description of Coaching Culture at Each Level

McCarthy, 2014 p. 48

For coaches to be successful in an organizational context, they need to understand where

the organization falls on the spectrum of coaching culture. If the organization is at a

tactical stage, then the coach and coachee relationship may be successful, but will likely

not translate to organizational success because the coaching relationship may not be

clearly aligned to business strategy.

Coaches who understand organizational conditions conducive to impacting

desired business performance outcomes will help coaching professionals and the

coaching profession gain credibility with C-suite decision makers. It will help


organizations create better outcomes and give them another reliable behavioral change

tool to count on.

In addition, the more mainstream coaching becomes as a tool for behavioral

change at work, the deeper it will reach into organizational structures, and the more

people will be able to have the empowering experience of working with a true coach. It

becomes a virtuous cycle as pictured in Figure 2.

Figure 2: The Virtuous Cycle of Coaching Engagements with Strategic Alignment

In conclusion, to resolve the discrepancy between the benefits of coaching and

organizations’ not using coaching as a behavioral change solution, the benefits of

coaching need to have more transparency. This can be achieved by explicitly aligning

coaching engagements to the business objectives. The more an organization embeds

coaching in their organization’s strategic objectives, the more aligned they will be

between coaching engagements and business results. This relationship means that the

level of coaching culture has an important role to play in the success of coaching within

organizations.

Scope

Strategic alignment of coaching to business strategy best creates conditions for

organizational success as a result of coaching. Business strategy consists of many


dimensions including clarity of organizational values, defined organizational goals,

customer-value proposition, culture of the organization, and rewards & consequences.

Since coaching success is contingent on strategic alignment of coaching engagements to

business strategy, we could explore any one of these alignment opportunities to create

conditions for greater organizational effectiveness through coaching solutions.

In my 15 plus years experience as a Learning and Development practitioner, I

observed some teams were able to handle behavioral change initiatives more quickly and

with less pain than other groups. Those same groups were more likely to initiate change

and be more flexible than others. This applied at a team level, a department level, a

function level and an organizational level. Anecdotally, I further observed the groups

with better change adaption behaviors were at higher levels in their coaching culture,

either strategic or embedded, and that their leaders were skilled at coaching. Within these

groups, I felt a different energy from them. It was not just that they used coaching. The

values and mindset of the groups seemed to also be different. Given these observations,

I questioned if there was some cultural commonality between groups, outside of having a

strategic or embedded coaching culture, that effectively aligned coaching to strategy. If

so, these groups could be studied to give a set of criteria that all organizations could

implement within their overall culture to be more effective when using coaching as a

behavioral change solution.

In this study, I identified four cultural characteristics a coach practitioner or

organizational user can implement to potentially create more successful partnerships with

client organizations when using coaching solutions.


Method

Organizational culture is easily defined, but difficult to quantify. Webster defines

organizational culture as “the beliefs, customs . . . ways of life . . . way of thinking,

behaving, or working that exists in an . . . organization” (Culture, n.d.). For this research,

we needed more concrete criteria. According to Daniel Denison, creator of an

organizational culture assessment tool, “culture surveys are most appropriate when the

focus of investigation is at the level of observable and measurable manifestations of

culture . . . and when the research purpose calls for making comparisons across

organizations using the same set of culture concepts” (Denison, Nieminen, & Kotrba,

2014). Given that comparison across organizations is the goal with this research, a

survey seemed the best approach.

Identifying the Organizational Culture Profile Tool

I used Google Scholar Search to find scholarly studies frequently used as

reference. One article stood out from the Academy of Management Journal. In 1991, an

article emerged, “Profile and Organizational Culture: a profile comparison approach to

assessing person-organization fit.” In this article, the authors identified 54 organizational

characteristics. Based on a scree test, the 54 characteristics were bucketed into eight

categories. A scree test is a statistical validation test used to determine the number of

categories to retain. These eight categories were further validated because they tied into a

normal personality measure, which corroborated seven of the eight categories that arose

(O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). Today, these characteristics and categories

form the Organizational Culture Profile or OCP. A visual of the seven categories adapted

from the original O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell work is pictured in Figure 3.


Figure 3: Organizational Culture Categories from OCP

Anonymous, 2012

After a review of available instruments, the OCP was selected as the survey

instrument for this study. The OCP is considered a profiling survey with a subset

purpose of measuring fit (Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Petereson, 2000, p. 135). Profiling

surveys, as the name suggests, are intended to provide a profile of an organization’s

culture. Fit profiles have historically looked at congruence between individuals and an

organization with the intent of hiring the right people for a given organizational culture

(Ashkanasy et al., 2000). The OCP was chosen because it is “reported as reliable and

possessing consensual, construct and criterion validity” (Ashkanasy et al., 2000, p. 135).

Although this study does not specifically attempt to create a statistically relevant set of

data, it could be the basis for future study that does.

In addition, through review of other scholarly works on organizational culture,

learning culture and coaching culture, it does not appear that any specific organizational


culture survey tool is used with the intent of defining broad cross-organizational

characteristics that may precede effective organizational coaching engagements. A

profiling/fit survey type seemed best since the intent is to evaluate if coaching as an

organizational behavioral intervention fits some organizational cultural characteristics

more than others. Finally, the OCP was chosen because the questions used for this tool

and the logic for evaluating results are easily available and inexpensive.

The OCP questions were reduced and refined to eliminate perceived overlaps in a

study by Cable and Judge in 1997 (Cable, & Judge, 1997). In 2005, another study

revised the OCP to use a Likert scale evaluation system versus a Q-sort (Sarros, Gray,

Denston & Cooper). Both of these adjustments were used for this study to simplify and

shorten the survey process for respondents.

Coaching culture versus OCP. Earlier, I reviewed levels of coaching culture

from a nascent level to an embedded level, pictured in Figure 1. You may be wondering

why we are then using a different organizational culture description, pictured in Figure 3.

The embedded coaching culture describes the immersion of coaching within an

organization; however, is not a culture by itself. For instance, it could be possible to have

an embedded coaching culture and also have a people-oriented culture. It could be

equally possible to have a nascent coaching culture and a people-oriented culture. They

are two organizational culture definitions describing different characteristics of an

organization.

I hypothesize that some cultures, such as people-oriented cultures will be more

likely to have embedded or strategic coaching cultures which will make them more

effective users of coaching solutions. Aggressive cultures are likely to be less effective


in using coaching as an organizational solution. If an organization’s strategy does not

advocate for a culture that is aligned to the conditions needed for coaching effectiveness,

then that organization would likely not benefit from an attempt to introduce embedded

coaching. Individuals within the organization still could benefit, so tactical coaching

solutions are still a possibility.

Understanding OCP factors that are more likely to correlate to coaching cultures

and therefore more likely to create strategic alignment and organizational effectiveness is

the goal of this study. If a coach practitioner understood the organization she was

entering did not have an environment conducive to success of the engagement to

organizational outcomes, she could have that conversation up front and incorporate

readiness activities into the implementation plan or revise expectations of her client

organization to be more tactical in nature. This would create more satisfied clients,

which delivers us back into the virtuous cycle pictured in Figure 2.

Methodology

SurveyMonkey was used to design the survey and collect results for analysis. See

Appendix for the survey. A solicitation to complete the survey was announced via

LinkedIn and Facebook. After three weeks of no response from initial solicitation, direct

contacts were solicited through personal emails and phone calls. In all, 23 people

completed the survey questions. Seven people completed via SuveyMonkey and 16

completed via a phone interview. Of those 23 respondents, five human resource

professionals were interviewed for additional insight on the culture and coaching link in

their organizations. The 23 people who completed represented different industries

ranging from hospitality, to insurance, to consulting to technology. The most known


respondents from any one industry were four people from the travel and hospitality

industry. Of the 23 respondents, 13 were from Human Resources, two from Information

Technology and nine were from other departments.

Once responses were obtained, the data was viewed by question and by category

for potential patterns between the use of coaching and the presence of a certain factor or

category. As a final step, interviews were conducted to gain clarity around some of the

results.

Findings

The survey data was analyzed on both a factor basis and a category basis.

Individual questions in the survey are considered a factor. Some of the individual factors

are further linked to one of the categories of organizational culture pictured in Figure 3.

Not all questions are linked to a category because in the initial O’Reilly study, some

questions did not show a statistically relevant correlation to any of the categories. I

included the questions, however, because the factors could still be tied to understanding

of an organization’s culture (O’Reilly et al., 1991).

Category Analysis Findings

First, we look at the category analysis. Findings are pictured in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Category Analysis


Ten of the surveys were for respondents whose organization did not use coaching.

Thirteen surveys are for respondents whose organization did, so the data pictured is fairly

evenly represented between coaching and non-coaching respondents. The neutral line

indicates that respondents scored a three on the Likert scale meaning the category was

neither characteristic nor un-characteristic of their organization. For instance, you can

see for the category of Stable, respondents whose organization did not use coaching

scored a three overall since the orange dot is on the neutral line. Respondents whose

organizations used coaching, showed the category of Stable as much more characteristic

as shown by the blue dot in the Stable column.

Using the Figure 4 view of the category outcomes, one can see that people

orientation and stability are the two categories with the widest disparity between

respondents whose organization used coaching and respondents whose organization did

not. Of the 13 respondents whose organizations used coaching, none of them currently

look at individual or group business results as a direct output of coaching. Success is

evaluated using reaction of the participant and observations of the direct supervisor

related to on-the-job behaviors. Two of the 13 respondents whose organization used

coaching indicated their organization was neutral for people orientation and slightly on

the characteristic side of stable. These 2 respondents surveys were against the trend, so I

interviewed them for greater clarity. What I found for these 2 respondent’s organizations

was a culture and business strategy in flux. Both organizations had new leadership who

were attempting to move the organization from rules and policies based culture to

empowered frontline decision-making culture. Prior to the transition, both respondents

felt their environments were people-oriented and stable; however, desired changes around


customer orientation and employee ownership made lines of responsibility unclear and

new skills required. The interviewees indicated that coaching was considered an

important factor for moving the organization forward and helping employees feel safe,

but unskilled supervisors and managers embedded in legacy cultures were holding back

the initiative. In these two cases, coaching was getting poor or neutral outcomes as

measured by coachee reaction and perceived behavioral changes motivated by coaching.

Based on these findings, the patterns emerging around organizational culture

categories are that stability and people-orientation cultures are most likely to precede

successful coaching engagements.

Factor Analysis Findings

In order to understand which factors most contributed to the difference between

respondents whose organization used coaching and those that didn’t, further analysis was

done at the factor/question level. The average score was calculated for each question

based on group: using coaching versus not using coaching. A rating of one means the

factor was most characteristic of an organization. A rating of five means the factor was

least characteristic of an organization. The difference was then calculated between the

two groups. A difference of greater than 1.5 points was flagged for interview

exploration. Figure 5 shows how each question was evaluated based on group. Factors

with a difference of greater than 1.5 points are highlighted. The highlighted questions

also show the cultural category so that we can tie the factor analysis and the category

analysis together when relevant. NSA under the Category column means the question is

Not Statistically Aligned to any of the culture categories.


Figure 5 Factors Comparison

Eight of the questions showed a difference of greater than 1.5 points when

comparing the survey responses for those who used coaching versus those who did not.

Interestingly, the factor around Being Reflective, which is not statistically tied to an


organizational culture category, showed the greatest difference. Interviewees indicated

this as a time management and prioritization difference. Based on interviewee feedback,

organizations that used coaching interventions created space, support and accountability

for continuous improvement: organizational, departmental and personal. Organizations

who did not use coaching came across as more reactive in the interviews. Said one of the

interviewees not using coaching, “My organization doesn’t give me time to reflect, good

or bad. It’s all about responding to today’s fires. If I want to reflect or be more strategic,

I’m going to have to work more hours to do it and I’m already tired.”

Unsurprisingly, three of the eight questions with the biggest difference were

related to the people-oriented cultural category: being supportive, fairness and sharing

information freely. Based on this sample, respondents whose organization used coaching

have implemented support systems for their team members that are perceived as more

people-oriented than those respondents whose organization has not. In the interviews, the

support devices were mentioned in juxtaposition with outcome orientation for both

groups of respondents. Examples of interview feedback are

• Interviewee whose organization is using coaching and scored positive on stable

and people-oriented said, “My organization wants us to achieve goals, but they

also want to make sure you have the tools and resources to do it. Coaching is one

example of that.”

• Interviewee whose company is not using coaching and scored negatively on

people-oriented said, “[Company] is all about the bottom line. I wish we had

more support and things were more fair, but we are so hard driving, there isn’t

always time. I don’t see that as bad, though. It’s just who we are.”


• Interviewee whose organization is using coaching and scored neutral on people-

oriented said, “We used to be more open with our communication, but there is a

lot going on and it feels more chaotic. Coaching is supposed to help with that.

We need to make changes fast. It’s on [Leader’s] goals and he expects us to get

there.”

The factor scores for the two interviewees whose organizations who are using coaching

unsuccessfully are neutral, neither characteristic nor uncharacteristic, for the people-

oriented factors of fairness, sharing of information and supportiveness.

Being team oriented and developing friends at work also saw differences of

greater than1.5 points between respondents whose organizations use coaching and

respondents whose organizations do not. While these are not tied to the same culture

category, I grouped them together based on interview feedback. The interviews for the

non-coaching organizations reflected a view of people as a commodity.

• “Everyone’s replaceable and I don’t need friends at work. My family is what gets

me going in the morning.”

• “Team oriented is just another way of saying some people will do nothing while I

do all the work. Just kidding. But, really, sometimes a team approach just slows

things down.”

• “Team oriented seems like a good idea, but often it creates indecision. I would

like team oriented as long as it doesn’t keep me from getting stuff done on time.”

In the organization that uses coaching and still is stable, her feedback here is a lot

different.


“I understand why people can feel frustrated by team-based work, and sometimes,

going to happy hour seems like a job all by itself! That being said, at the end of a

day or a project, or a toast at On the Border, it means a lot more to me to share the

moment with someone who has been there with me and who I care about.”

Organizational cultures that make opportunities for people to be together as people and

not just as cogs in the corporate wheel appear to have greater effectiveness in creating

conditions that nurture coaching effectiveness.

Conclusions

Organizational Culture as defined by O’Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell appears to

have some bearing on whether an organization also uses and is effective with coaching

solutions. Stable and people-orientated cultures seem to precede successful coaching

engagements; therefore, as a coach practitioner, if you are engaged to help an

organization shift their culture, it is important to ensure that stability and people

orientation are part of the change management process. Either an organization needs to

implement processes, communications and accountability that create these conditions or

the organization needs to make sure these important cultural dimensions do not break

during the shift.

Based on the findings around the factors, four specific actions would align

coaching engagements to cultural conditions that are more conducive to organizational

success in addition to individual success: (a) set up time for reflection as part of the

coaching agreement with the individual, individual’s manager and the sponsor of the

project; (b) assess supportiveness, fairness and sharing information freely prior to onset

of coaching engagement. If these factors are not present, include these as topics in the


coaching agreement with the individual, individual’s manager and organizational

sponsor; (c) set up group coaching in addition to individual sessions to create a team-

oriented environment; and (d) build bonding observances into the coaching agreement

that allow time for connection outside of the task at hand.

Recommendations for Future Research

This data, while interesting and potentially beneficial, is not statistically relevant.

In addition, the sample group did not have measurable performance objectives tied to

coaching; therefore, the primary purpose of engaging organizations in the behavioral

intervention solution of coaching through a convincing analysis of business outcomes

was not met. I recommend structuring a statistically relevant study that ties OCP culture

analysis to business results as well as coaching outcomes. A larger audience will be

needed for a statistically relevant study.

Recommended solutions are based on my personal knowledge of actions that

support communication and team building. Further investigation could provide a more

complete list of recommendations supported by both quantitative and experiential studies.

Finally, a good number of the survey respondents were from Human Resources or

Learning and Development. I noticed these groups’ responses had higher overall

Characteristic ratings for all questions than other respondents. Based on this outcome,

further research would likely benefit from using the original Q-sort methodology versus

the Likert scale which would force the data to normalize.


References Anonymous. (2012). Measuring Organizational Culture. In Creative Commons.

Retrieved from http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/management-principles-

v1.0/s12-02-measuring-organizational-cultu.html

Arruda, W. (2014, December 9). Why You Need to Hire a Coach in 2015. Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williamarruda/2014/12/09/why-you-need-to-hire-a-

coach-in-2015/#7aa119104de3

Ashkanasy, N.M., Wilderom, C.P., & Peterson, M.F. (2000). Handbook of

Organizational Culture & Climate. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications,

Inc.

Austin, J. (2016, October 11). Personal interview.

Bersin, J., Agarwal, D., Pelster, B., & Schwartz, J. (2015). Global Human Capital Trends

2015. Leading in the new world of work. Deloitte University Press.

Block, P. (2013). Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-Interest, 2nd edition. San

Francisco, CA. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.


Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers' perceptions of person-organization fit

and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 546-

581.

Clutterbuck, D., & Megginson, D. (2005). Making Coaching Work: Creating a Coaching

Culture. London. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Coaching FAQ’s. What is professional coaching? (n.d.). In International Coaching

Federation FAQ’s. Retrieved December 9, 2016, from

http://coachfederation.org/need/landing.cfm?ItemNumber=978&_ga=1.19040568

.1669164914.1475526763

Connors, R., & Smith, T. (1999). Journey to the Emerald City. Achieve a Competitive

Edge by Putting the Oz Principle to Work. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Prentice Hall

Press.

Cueni-Cohen, J. (2014, March 19). Who’s in Charge of Career Development? Retrieved

from http://www.hreonline.com/HRE/view/story.jhtml?id=534356842

Culture. [Def. 5c] (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved December 7, 2016, from

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture


Denison, D., Nieminen, L., & Kotrba, L. (2014). Diagnosing Organizational Cultures: A

Conceptual and Empirical Review of Culture Effectiveness Surveys. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 23(1), 145-161.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.713173

Elmer, V. (2011, August 29). Coaching is hot. Is it right for you? Retrieved from

http://fortune.com/2011/08/29/coaching-is-hot-is-it-right-for-you/

[Field Nation Videos]. (2014, November 10). The New American Workforce. [Video

file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/lUn3RaivEcU

Filipkowski, J., Heverin, A., & Ruth, M. (2016, September 21). Building a Coaching

Culture with Managers and Leaders. Human Capital Institute in partnership with

International Coaching Federation. Retrieved from

http://coachfederation.org/about/landing.cfm?ItemNumber=3674&navItemNumb

er=3675

Hicks, R.F. (2014). Coaching as a Leadership Style: The Art and Science of Coaching

Conversations for Healthcare Professionals. New York, New York: Taylor &

Francis.


[Jubelirer, Jim]. (2013, November 1). "Everyone needs a coach" Bill Gates & Eric

Schmidt. [Video File]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLF90uwII1k

McCarthy, G. (2014). Coaching and Mentoring for Business. London. SAGE

Publications, LTD.

McClure, B. (n.d.). A Guide to CEO Compensation. Retrieved from

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/04/111704.asp

Meehan, C. (n.d.). Flat Vs. Hierarchal Organizational Structure. Retrieved from

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/flat-vs-hierarchical-organizational-structure-

724.html

Molina-Ray, C. (2013). Are We Playing the Same Game? Employee vs. Manager

Perceptions of Education and Career Development. University of Phoenix in

partnership with EdAssist. Retrieved from

http://www.edassist.com/~/media/bh/edassist/resources-media/research-reports-

webinars/education-career-development-perceptions/uopx-edassist-career-

development-report.ashx


O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J. A., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational

culture: A profile comparison approach to person-organization fit. Academy of

Management Journal, 34, 487-516.

Royal, K., & Sorenson, S. (2015, June 16). Employees are Responsible for Their

Engagement Too. Retrieved from

http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/183614/employees-responsible-

engagement.aspx

Sarros, J.C., Gray, J., Densten, I., & Cooper, B. (2005, June). The Organizational Culture

Profile Revisited and Revised: An Australian Perspective. Australian Journal of

Management, 30(1), 159-182. doi: 10.1177/031289620503000109

Schlosser, B., Steinbrenner, D., Kumata, E., & Hunt, J. (2007). The Coaching Impact

Study: Measuring the Value of Executive Coaching with Commentary,

International Journal of Coaching in Organizations. 5(1), 140-161. Retrieved from

http://www.cambriaconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/whitepapers/53609-

coaching-impact-commentary.pdf

Section 4: Confidentiality/Privacy. (n.d.). In International Coaching Federation Code of

Ethics. Retrieved December 9, 2016, from

http://www.coachfederation.org/about/landing.cfm?ItemNumber=854&navItemN

umber=634


Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization.

United States of America. Doubleday.

Smet, A., McGurk, M., & Vinson, M. (2010, February). How companies manage the

frontline today: McKinsey Survey results. Retrieved from

http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/how-

companies-manage-the-front-line-today-mckinsey-survey-results

Sonesh, S.C., Coultas, C.W., Lacerenza, C.N., Marlow, S.L., Benishek, L.E., & Salas, E.

(2015): The power of coaching: a meta-analytic investigation, Coaching: An

International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 8(2), 73-95.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2015.1071418

Sparshott, J. (2016, April 19). The U.S. Occupations at the Greatest Risk of Labor

Shortage. Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/04/19/the-u-s-

occupations-at-greatest-risk-of-a-labor-shortage/

Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & van Vianen, A.E. (2014) Does coaching work? A meta-

analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an

organizational context, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1-18.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.837499


Thompson, H.B., Bear, D.J., Dennis, D.J., Vickers, M., London, J., & Morrison, C.L.

(2008). Coaching: A Global Study of Successful Practices. New York, New York.

American Management Association

Training. [Def. 2] (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved December 7, 2016, from

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/training

Transformation in Economics. (n.d.) In Wikipedia. Retrieved November 14, 2016, from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_in_economics

When it Comes to Career Development, Employees are on their Own. (2015, June 8). In

Association for Talent Development. Retrieved from

https://www.td.org/Publications/Magazines/TD/TD-

Archive/2015/06/Intelligence-When-It-Comes-to-Career-Development-

Employees-Are-on-Their-Own

Williams, R. (2012, August 13). Why every CEO Needs a Coach. Retrieved from

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201208/why-every-ceo-

needs-coach


Appendix – Survey


Path if Answer to Number 8 is Yes


Path if Question to Number 8 is No or I’m not Sure

culture characteristics in coaching companies t.l...

Documents