2010 Exec Coaching Survey The Conf Board

research report The 2010 Executive Coaching Survey A Summary of Key Executive Coaching Practices

The 2010 Executive Coaching Survey A Summary of Key Executive Coaching Practices RESEARCH REPORT R-1464-10-RR by Mark Pomerleau, Henry Silvert, Lee WanVeer, Erica Desrosiers, and Marcel Henderson Contents 3 Introduction 4 Key Findings 5 External Coaching Engagements 9 Internal Coaching Practices 13 Coaching Fee Structures 16 Appendix: About the Survey Participants 17 About the Authors 17 About the Contributors

3 T h e 2 010 E x e c u t i v e C o a c h i n g S u r v e y w w w. c o n fe r e n c e - b o a r d . o r g Introduction The 2010 Executive Coaching Survey is the third in a of the organization’s coaching practices. Members of the series of bi-annual surveys that study how executive target audience were associate members of The Conference coaching is managed within organizations. The first Board who had shown interest in the structure, practice, Executive Coaching Survey, conducted in 2005 and and management of executive coaching. These included released in 2006, was designed to study trends in members of The Conference Board Council on Executive executive coaching. The 2008 survey was expanded in Coaching, participants in The Conference Board annual scope to include internal coaching and fee structures. Executive Coaching Conference, and participants of other The 2010 survey was broadened to focus more on both conferences and councils of The Conference Board linked external coaching practices and the growing use of to executive coaching, such as the Leadership Develop- internal coaching. ment Council and the Councils for Talent Management Executives. Also included in the target audience were Respondent organizations were generally large: 49 percent the respondents to the 2008 survey and the 2006 survey. had annual revenues of $10 billion or more in FY08; The target audience did not include vendors of executive 51 percent had 25,000 or more employees. The organiza- coaching services. tions were predominantly global—with 56 percent operating in more than 25 countries—and came from a wide range of This summary report provides insights into internal and industry segments. The survey targeted profit, nonprofit, external coaching practices, and the structure of coaching and government organizations.1 fees. Where meaningful, it includes comparisons to the surveys published in 2006 and 2008. The 2010 survey, which was fielded in 2009, was sent to individuals within an organization who are likely to Note: For all charts, values were rounded and therefore some be responsible for executive coaching or knowledgeable sets may not add up to 100 exactly. 1 For detailed information about the sample, see Appendix on page 16.

4 T h e 2 010 E x e c u t i v e C o a c h i n g S u r v e y w w w. c o n fe r e n c e - b o a r d . o r g Key Findings • Responsibilities for executive coaching are usually managed • Development coaching and assessment debriefings are at the enterprise level. the most common types of coaching done by both internal and external coaches. Onboarding coaching is the only type • Funding for external coaching engagements comes from that internal and external coaches perform at a relatively the business unit in 75 percent of cases. similar amount. • Monitoring the progress of engagements with an external • In choosing between an internal or external coach, there coach is common, but only half of companies surveyed use are two key deciding factors: the level of the coachee and a formal monitoring process. the type of development needed. • There appears to be a trend toward mid-range external • Larger companies are more likely to formally evaluate coaching engagements: since 2006, results have shifted external coaching. toward lengths between three and nine months, and away from less than 3 months or a full 12 month-long engagement. • Most respondents who set their payment rates on a variable structure do not base the rate on the results • Most internal coaches have one to four executive coaching of the coaching itself. engagements with a coachee each year. • Globally, coaching rates are mostly similar to U.S. rates, • Internal coaches are used by 63 percent of responding although some regional differences apply. organizations; most respondents plan to rely on internal coaches even more in the near future. • Since 2006, the similarity of coaching rates in South America to those of the United States has declined, with more • Most internal coaches spend 20 percent or less of their time organizations in South America paying less than the U.S. on coaching activities (76 percent). rate for coaching.

5 T h e 2 010 E x e c u t i v e C o a c h i n g S u r v e y w w w. c o n fe r e n c e - b o a r d . o r g External Coaching Engagements Coaching Responsibilities Source of Funding for External Coaching Most coaching responsibilities are managed at the enterprise While most coaching responsibilities are managed at the level, especially setting strategy (84 percent) and identifica- enterprise level, funding of external coaching engagements tion of coaches for the organization (77 percent) (Chart 1).2 is most often provided by the business unit (75 percent) Slightly less than one-third of responsibilities for vendor (Chart 2). This result is consistent with the surveys published contracting and matching coaches with coachees are in 2006 and 2008. Twenty-four percent of companies managed at the business unit level. Management at the surveyed, however, arrange funding for executive coaching human resources level and at the business unit level appear through a centralized budget center or corporate center. to have an equally active role in matching, monitoring, and evaluating coaching engagements. Chart 1 Chart 2 Where are the following What is your company’s coaching responsibilities primary source of funding for placed in your organization? external executive coaching? Most coaching responsibilities are Business units are the primary managed at the enterprise level. funding source for coaching. Enterprise level Other Manager/HR level Corporate center/ 2 Business unit level central budget center for coaching 84% Setting strategy 9% 24 22% 77 Business unit/ Identification of coaches for the organization 23 line of business 29 75% 72 Providing oversight 24 19 70 Evaluating engagement 38 41 70 Vendor contracting 22 29 60 Monitoring engagement 40 36 59 Matching coaches 41 with coachees 32 0 24 48 72 Note: Respondents were allowed to choose more than one option. 96 2 Note: For all charts, values were rounded and therefore some sets may not add up to 100 exactly.

6 T h e 2 010 E x e c u t i v e C o a c h i n g S u r v e y w w w. c o n fe r e n c e - b o a r d . o r g Length and Number of Engagements Types of Coaching More than 80 percent of external coaching engagements External coaches are most often engaged in development last between three and nine months (Chart 3). The least coaching and assessment debriefings. Seventy-two percent common time frames for this category are less than of external coaches conduct development-focused coaching, three months and 12 months or longer. These results are 64 percent perform 360 debriefings, and 58 percent do consistent with findings from the previous surveys.3 other forms of assessment debriefings (Chart 4). An equal However, in previous years, responses were more evenly amount of respondents (51 percent) conduct performance- divided between the different lengths of time. focused coaching and transition coaching. External coaches participate to a lesser extent in onboarding coaching More specifically, in 2006 the responses were nearly equal (26 percent) and group coaching (19 percent). between 6 months (27 percent), 9 months (28 percent), and 12 months (28 percent); but in 2008, results for the Chart 4 category of 6 months nearly doubled to reach 51 percent Which of the following types of coaching while 12 months fell 8 percentage points. This year, there do your external coaches perform? remains a significant concentration in the three to six and Development and assessments are six to nine month categories, and the responses for the most common for external coaching. longest and shortest time periods both fell—suggesting a trend toward mid-range engagements. Development-focused coaching 72% 360 debrief 64 Fifty-one percent of coaches have one to five engagements per year in a given organization, which is the majority Other assessment tool debriefs 58 (e.g., DISC, MBTI, Hogan) by far. Only 12 percent of external coaches have six to 15 engagements per year, and another 14 percent have 16 Performance-focused coaching 51 or more. These findings are similar to the results in the Transition coaching 51 2006 and 2008 surveys. Team coaching 40 The majority of organizations expect an external coach to Career coaching 36 work with a client between one and six hours per month, with three to four hours being the most common time frame Onboarding coaching 26 (33 percent). The results in prior surveys were similar. Group coaching 19 Chart 3 Other 1 What is the average length of time for a typical coaching 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 engagement with an external coach in your company? Note: Respondents were allowed to choose more than one option. Three to six months is the most common time frame for external coaching engagements. Less than 3 to 6 to 9 to 3 months < 6 months < 9 months < 12 months 2 42% 40 13 4 12 months or longer 0 3 Note: For this question in the 2006 and 2008 surveys, respondents chose between singular lengths of time (3 months, 6 months, 9 months, etc.) as opposed to the range options in the 2010 survey.

7 T h e 2 010 E x e c u t i v e C o a c h i n g S u r v e y w w w. c o n fe r e n c e - b o a r d . o r g Internal Certification, Orientation, and Monitoring and Evaluation Ongoing Training for External Coaches Monitoring progress of external coaching engagements Orientation prepares coaches for their role, and informs is often done informally through conversations with the them about the company, its strategy, and culture and principals involved. Ninety-three percent of respondents procedures. Informal training may be needed for specific indicate that they monitor external coaching engagements; company programs and tools. Slightly more than half of of those, 50 percent do formal monitoring through sub- the respondents (53 percent) report providing internal mitted deliverables such as progress reports and 43 percent certification or orientation programs for some or all of monitor through conversations with key stakeholders their external coaches (Chart 5a). Fewer organizations (Chart 6). (29 percent) offer ongoing training for their external coaches (Chart 5b). When asked if they evaluate the effectiveness of external coaches, 92 percent of respondents indicate that they did Companies that have a large global presence have a higher evaluate external coaches. However, most say that the likelihood of offering both orientation and ongoing process is conducted informally through conversations training for external coaches, according to survey data. with key stakeholders (54 percent). Only 38 percent indicate that evaluation of external coaches is a formal process. Chart 5a Chart 6 Prior to coaching executives Does your company monitor ongoing in your company, does your company Chart 5b external coaching engagements have external coaches participate Does your company offer in any way as they progress? in an internal certification or ongoing training of any kind Informal orientation program of any kind? to its external coaches? monitoring through Formal monitoring through the conversations with use of submitted deliverables key stakeholders only Yes 50% 43 7 29% 20 40 60 80 100 No Yes No 47 53% 71 No planned ongoing monitoring

8 T h e 2 010 E x e c u t i v e C o a c h i n g S u r v e y w w w. c o n fe r e n c e - b o a r d . o r g Chart 7 Does your company evaluate the effectiveness of external coaches it utilizes? Formal evaluation occurs more often in larger organizations. 78 74 63 57 50% 48 44 38% 41 41 38 29 21 22 18 13% 14 9 5 0 0 Less than $500 million to $1 billion to $5 billion to $10 billion to $20 billion to $40 billion $500 million < $1 billion < $5 billion < $10 billion < $20 billion < $40 billion or more We do not evaluate coaches We conduct informal evaluation through We conduct formal evaluation of conversations with key stakeholders only coach/engagement effectiveness Companies with less than $1 billion in annual revenue are Formal evaluation of coaching engagements presents more likely not to evaluate external coaches at all than challenges, according to survey respondents’ follow-up their larger counterparts, with the exception of companies comments. Accurately measuring return on investment is with revenue between $10 and $20 billion. Informal difficult, and evaluation is often viewed with skepticism evaluation is most common by far in companies with because improvements can be in areas that are difficult to annual revenue between $1 billion and $10 billion. quantify, such as behavioral change, relationship building, Although it is mostly the companies in the largest revenue listening skills, leadership presence, and communication categories that formally evaluate the effectiveness of their skills (see box below). external coaches, interestingly a significant amount of smaller companies with annual revenue totaling less than $500 million indicated that they also conduct formal evaluations (Chart 7). Evaluation of Executive Coaching The following are some of the follow-up comments provided by survey respondents. • “The reasons we don’t do formal evaluation of coaching is • “We only do aspirational coaching, not remedial coaching generally due to a lack of time and money and the lack of that attempts to change behavior. The person being coached perceived value in the return on the investment in evaluation.” evaluates the engagement, but not in a formal process.” • “There is difficulty in accurately measuring the return on • “At this point, executive coaching has only been conducted an investment in evaluation. Results are often anecdotal and at the very top of the house and no formal process had been frequently viewed with skepticism. Clients often report established until recently. Unfortunately, coaching has not significant improvements in areas which are critical but been embraced as developmental; and those who have a difficult to quantify, such as relationship building, influence, coach have not been eager to announce it. We are working listening, leadership presence, and communications.” to change that perception and to formalize the process.”

9 T h e 2 010 E x e c u t i v e C o a c h i n g S u r v e y w w w. c o n fe r e n c e - b o a r d . o r g Internal Coaching Practices Use of Internal Coaches When asked to rank the criteria on which internal coaches Internal coaches as a resource are increasing in importance. are selected for the role, responses indicate the candidate’s Of the survey respondents, 63 percent indicate that their credibility as a coach and the candidate’s prior training organizations employ at least some internal coaching, and experience in coaching are the most important factors. with two-thirds of them having used internal coaches for more than two years (Chart 8). Of the 38 percent of In terms of the number of internal coaches at an organiza- respondents not currently using internal coaching, half tion, 24 percent say they have three to five internal coaches; of them indicate they have plans to do so. 20 percent indicate they have as many as six to 10 coaches; and 18 percent have 11 to 15 internal coaches. Chart 8 Which of the following best describes the use When asked how they expect the use of internal coaches of internal coaches within your company? to change over the next one to three years, 61 percent More than 60 percent of organizations surveyed use internal coaches. of respondents say they expect to rely more heavily on We began internal coaches. Twelve percent indicate they do not utilizing expect their usage of internal coaches to change. We have been utilizing internal coaches We currently do not utilize internal coaches for within the internal coaches, but have plans 2 years or more last 2 years to consider/begin doing so Time Spent Coaching Coaching is a relatively small part of the job for most 42% 21 19 19 internal coaches. Nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of We do not utilize internal coaches, and have no plans to in the near future internal coaches spend 20 percent or less of their time on coaching activities; 48 percent spend less than 10 percent of their time coaching (Chart 9). These findings are consistent with results from the 2008 survey. Chart 9 What percent of time do these individuals devote to executive coaching? Nearly half of internal coaches spend less than 10 percent of their time coaching. 48% 26 13 3 5 4 1 1 0 0 Less than 10 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 61 to 70 71 to 80 81 to 90 More than 10 percent percent percent percent percent percent percent percent percent 90 percent

10 T h e 2 010 E x e c u t i v e C o a c h i n g S u r v e y w w w. c o n fe r e n c e - b o a r d . o r g Job Description Types of Coaching For 55 percent of internal coaches, coaching is considered Internal coaches are called upon to perform various types a formal part of the job for which they are held accountable of coaching. Development-focused coaching (44 percent), in performance reviews. Internal coaches for whom coaching 360 debriefs (40 percent), and performance-focused activities are a formal part of their job description spend coaching (30 percent) are the most common types of a larger percentage of their time coaching and have more coaching done by both internal and external coaches clients on an annual basis. (Chart 12). Onboarding coaching is the only type of coaching that is performed relatively equally by internal Internal coaches are exclusively human resource profes- and external coaches. sionals in 53 percent of cases, but may also be professionals from the within an organization’s operating units. Chart 12 In 85 percent of the cases, there is no charge back to the Types of coaching performed by client’s line of business for the use of an internal coach. external and internal coaches Development and assessment coaching are most commonly done by both internal and external coaches. Length and Number of Engagements External coaches Survey respondents report that slightly more than one-third Internal coaches (34 percent) of internal coaches work with one to two clients Development-focused coaching 72% per year, and slightly less than one-third (32 percent) 44% work with three to four clients per year (Chart 10). 360 debrief 64 40 These results are fairly similar to prior surveys. Other assessment tool debriefs 58 (e.g., DISC, MBTI, Hogan) 27 Fifty-six percent of internal coaches spend one to four hours per month with a client (Chart 11). Only 11 percent 51 Performance-focused coaching 30 spend 5 hours or more per month with a client. 51 Transition coaching 29 Chart 10 40 Team coaching 18 For the average internal coach within your organization, how many coachees do they work with per year? 36 Career coaching 22 Two-thirds of internal coaches work with 4 coachees or fewer. 26 Onboarding coaching 24 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 7 or more 19 Group coaching 34% 32 14 20 10 20 40 60 80 100 N/A Peer coaching 12 Chart 11 1 What is the average amount of time per month an Other 3 internal coach is expected to work with a coachee? More than half of internal coaches spend Note: Respondents were allowed to choose more than one option. 1 to 4 hours per month coaching. “Peer coaching” does not apply to external coaches. Unspecified 33 29% 23 7 5 1 3 0 Less than 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 7 to 8 More than Other 1 hour hours hours hours hours 8 hours

11 T h e 2 010 E x e c u t i v e C o a c h i n g S u r v e y w w w. c o n fe r e n c e - b o a r d . o r g Choosing between internal and external coaches Chart 13 In choosing whether to employ an internal or external If your company is using internal coaches now, coach, respondents indicate that the two major deciding how does your organization decide when to use an external coach versus an internal coach or vice versa? factors were the level of the executive and the type of development needed (Chart 13). Client preference is not Type of development and level of coachee are the most common criteria. a major factor, according to the survey results. Type of development needed 56% In follow-up comments, respondents mentioned that external coaches are often assigned to work with senior- Level of coachee 56 level executives and internal coaches are reserved for Availability of coach 24 mid-level executives. In addition, respondents suggested that external coaches may be used when confidentiality is Budget savings 23 an issue or for specific functional expertise. Others said that external coaches typically have more experience with Coachee preference 18 a wider range of assessment tools, while internal coaches Other 10 are sometimes selected because they understand the 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 business context (see box below). Choosing between Internal and External Coaches The following are some of the follow-up comments provided by survey respondents. • “We use the manager’s level to determine use of an internal • “Effectiveness correlates to skill and experience and or external coach. Our senior leaders work with external isn’t a factor of internal versus external. To control bias, coaches; middle leaders work with internal coaches.” our internal coaches don’t coach people they have known previously.” • “For behavioral and leadership development challenges, internal coaches are fine. But we go outside for specific • “Our external coaches typically have more experience functional expertise, such as strategic and organizational with a wider range of assessment tools; internal coaches development coaching, presentation coaching, and have more experience understanding the company- coaching executive presence.” specific assessments.” • “Internal coaches have an advantage in knowing the business. There are no differences in their ability to do assessments, except that most internal coaches are not trained as licensed psychologists to interpret certain assessments.”

12 T h e 2 010 E x e c u t i v e C o a c h i n g S u r v e y w w w. c o n fe r e n c e - b o a r d . o r g Training and Certification How Coaching Data Is Used Initial training and/or certification are provided to internal Data from coaching engagements is generally not used coaches in 79 percent of cases (Chart 14). By comparison, outside of the coaching process itself. In the majority 53 percent of external coaches are provided orientation of cases, information gathered and developed during and/or certification, and 29 percent ongoing training coaching engagements is kept out of the performance (see Charts 5a and 5b, p. 7). management and succession planning processes (66 percent) (Chart 15). This is true especially in large organizations, Survey data also indicate that orientation, certification, according to survey data. and/or training programs for both external and internal coaches are more likely provided by organizations with Chart 15 a larger number of employees. How is the information gathered by the coach (or their resulting impressions) used by your organization in the performance management Chart 14 or succession planning process? Does your company provide initial training Coaching information is generally and/or certification for internal coaches protected from other use. prior to assigning them to coachees? The data is protected and kept strictly out of the performance management No The data may be used as an input and/or succession processes 21 into the performance management and/or succession processes Yes 79% 66% 23 6 5 The data is explicitly and purposefully brought into the performance management Other and/or succession processes

13 T h e 2 010 E x e c u t i v e C o a c h i n g S u r v e y w w w. c o n fe r e n c e - b o a r d . o r g Coaching Fee Structures Global Rates Interestingly, in Africa, coaching rates generally rose. The coaching rates that organizations pay do not vary Africa had been paying below the U.S. rate for executive significantly on an international basis, although there are coaching 43 percent of the time and the same as the regional differences. According to the responses in the United States 57 percent of the time in 2008 (50 percent 2010 survey, European coaching rates were similar to the and 50 percent in 2006, respectively). Now Africa pays U.S. rate 56 percent of the time (Chart 16), compared to the same as the U.S. rates 63 percent of the time—more 65 percent of the time in 2008 and 40 percent in 2006. comparable to most other regions. Unlike in previous The pattern of variation in coaching fees in Asia compared surveys where no amount of executive coaching in Africa to the United States over the years is similar to that of was paid at rates higher than the United States, six percent Europe (in Asia, 54 percent of coaching rates were the of coaching rates in Africa registered higher than the same as in the U.S.; in 2008, that number was 63 percent; United States in 2010. and in 2006, 40 percent) while in South America the similarity to the U.S. in fees steadily declined over time In Europe, slightly more than one-third of organizations (in the 2010 survey, 59 percent of coaching rates were surveyed pay up to 25 percent more than the U.S. rate. the same as in the U.S.; in 2008, 68 percent were; and In Australia and New Zealand, 78 percent of organizations in 2006, 75 percent).4 pay a rate comparable to the U.S. rate, and only 6 percent pay more. In other areas, coaching rates are more often less than the U.S. rate: in Asia, 36 percent of organizations say they pay below the U.S. rate; and in both Latin America and South America, 39 percent and 40 percent, respectively, pay less than the U.S. rate. Chart 16 To what extent do your executive coaching fees vary internationally in your company? In most regions, coaching rates are at or slightly below the U.S. rate. 78 61 63 59 56% 54 35% 28 26 27 13 13 13 12 10 6% 7 6 4 6 6 3% 2 2 2 4 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Europe Asia Latin America South America Australia/ Africa New Zealand Minus 99% Minus 75% Minus 50% Minus 25% Same as Plus 25% Plus 50% [0] Plus 75% [0] Plus 100% U.S. rates 4 Note: In the 2008 and 2006 surveys, Latin America was not a separate category for this question as it was in the 2010 survey.

14 T h e 2 010 E x e c u t i v e C o a c h i n g S u r v e y w w w. c o n fe r e n c e - b o a r d . o r g Compensation Travel time Materials Thirty-six percent of companies say coaches are not Costs for assessments and materials are included in the compensated additionally for travel time (Chart 17). coach’s stated fee, according to 47 percent of respondents; Companies incorporate travel time into the coach’s overall while 39 percent indicate coaches are paid separately fee 31 percent of the time. For the remaining companies, for these. In previous surveys, 55 percent of respondents travel time is paid at either a standard rate, at the full hourly considered these materials added costs (2008) and in 2006 rate, or either at a reduced hourly or reduced standard rate. 39 percent did so. In the 2008 survey, only 32 percent of respondents indicated that travel time was compensated.5 Chart 17 How are coaches compensated for travel time in your company? Most coaches are compensated for travel time, but the means of compensation varies. 36% 31 12 8 7 6 Coaches Travel time Travel time Travel time Travel time Other are not is incorporated is paid is paid is paid compensated into the overall separately at separately at separately at extra for their fee paid for a reduced rate the coach’s a standard rate travel time coaching (e.g., 50 percent full hourly/ we use for of daily rate) daily rate travel time 5 This question was not part of the 2006 survey.

15 T h e 2 010 E x e c u t i v e C o a c h i n g S u r v e y w w w. c o n fe r e n c e - b o a r d . o r g Rate Structures Payment schedules Responses were widely dispersed on the structure of Most organizations report paying coaches throughout the rates for executive coaching in general. Most respondents engagement; either monthly, as services are rendered, or who chose variable rates base their rate on a coach’s split between the beginning and end of the engagement experience or the level of the executive being coached (Chart 19). Few organizations pay the entire fee at the (Chart 18). Variable rates can also be based on the beginning or at the end of the engagement. One-fourth geographic location or on a coach’s stated fee, but the say they process invoices monthly; one-fourth process results of the coaching itself are not a major factor in that invoices as services are rendered; 26 percent pay in split structure. Of the choices for a standard rate structure, payments of either one-half or one-third; and 9 percent a specific rate per engagement is more prevalent than pay at specific milestones. fixed hourly or daily rates. Chart 18 Chart 19 How are your company’s rates structured? When are coaching invoices processed by your company? The structure of coaching rates varies widely. The majority of invoices are processed Standard rate per engagement 25% throughout the engagement. Variable rates based on coach’s As services are rendered 25% 17 experience, training, certifications Monthly 25 Standard fixed rates by hour or day 16 50 percent at the beginning Variable rates based on level 18 and 50 percent at the end 16 of executive being coached Upon specified milestones Variable rates based 9 or deliverables 14 on coach’s stated fee 33 percent in the beginning, Variable rates based on 33 percent in the middle, 8 5 33 percent at the end location of client or coach Variable rates based on 100 percent at the end 3 1 the results achieved 100 percent at the beginning 2 Other 7 Other 11

16 T h e 2 010 E x e c u t i v e C o a c h i n g S u r v e y w w w. c o n fe r e n c e - b o a r d . o r g Appendix About the Survey Participants Industries surveyed Global operations Manufacturing companies represented the largest seg- The companies surveyed reflect a widespread global ment of respondents (40 percent). Other responses came presence. Forty-one percent of companies operate in from organizations in business and professional services, more than 50 countries (Chart 22). financial services, and government and non-profit. Response rate Size of companies surveyed The response rate for the 2010 survey was 18 percent. Just over half (51 percent) of responding organizations By comparison, the average response rate for surveys generate annual revenue between $1b and $20 billion, and conducted by The Conference Board is 12 percent. approximately one-third (34 percent) accrue more than There were 156 responses to the 2010 Survey, an increase $20 billion annually (Chart 20). Responding organizations over previous years: there were 82 responses to the 2008 are predominantly large: 38 percent employ between survey and 31 responses to the 2006 survey. 10,000 and 50,000 people, and 33 percent employ more than 50,000 people (Chart 21). Chart 20 Chart 21 What was your company’s total 60.0 How many full-time equivalent (FTE) employees annual revenue, in U.S. dollars? 52.5 were in your company on December 31, 2008? 45.0 2006 2008 2010 2006 35 36 37.5 $1 billion $5 billion $10 billion 30.0 28 29 to to to 22 < $1 billion $5 billion $10 billion $20 billion > $20 billion 22.5 17 16 20 17 18 19 5.0 13 14 11% 0 31% 12 19 12 26 8% 7.5 3% 0.0 < 1,000 1,000 to 10,000 to 25,000 to 51,000 to 100,000 2008 10,000 25,000 50,000 100,000 or more $1 billion $5 billion $10 billion to to to Note: For this question, the category of 100,000 or more was not included < $1 billion $5 billion $10 billion $20 billion > $20 billion in the 2006 and 2008 surveys. 0 0 17% 17 16 18 32 Chart 22 In how many countries does your company operate? 20 40 60 80 100 2010 2006 $1 billion $5 billion $10 billion 0 1 –5 6 – 10 11 – 25 26 – 40 41 – 50 > 50 Less than to to to $40 billion $500 million < $5 billion < $10 billion < $20 billion or more 32% 11 7 21 4 25 20 40 60 80 100 9% 7 20 16 15 12 22 2008 $500 million 20 40 60 $20 billion80 100 1– 5 6 – 10 11 – 25 > 50 to to 0 < $1 billion < $40 billion 34% 12 15 6 6 27 20 40 60 80 100 26 – 40 41 – 50 2010 1 country 2– 5 6 – 10 11 – 25 26 – 40 More than 50 13% 10 10 12 12 3 41 20 40 60 80 100 41 – 50

17 T h e 2 010 E x e c u t i v e C o a c h i n g S u r v e y w w w. c o n fe r e n c e - b o a r d . o r g About The Conference Board About the Authors Council on Executive Coaching Mark Pomerleau is a program director at The Conference Board, A group of corporate leaders representing their different where he manages the Investor Relations Council and the industries and perspectives, whose members are responsible Council for Division Leaders - Financial Executives. He has also for executive coaching and/or leading executive coaching authored several Conference KeyNotes for The Conference Board. practices. This council is dedicated to its members learning Pomerleau has more than 25 years of corporate experience in about, sharing, creating, and implementing executive coaching finance, sales and operations management, public affairs, investor best practices and protocols that will drive business results and relations, communications, and executive speech writing. develop individuals within organizations, while also evolving executive coaching as a practice. Henry Silvert, Ph.D. is survey associate and statistician at The Conference Board, specializing in research and survey design and quantitative analysis. Silvert contributes to regular reports of The Conference Board Consumer Internet Barometer. He is also co-author of the Mid-Market CEO Challenge and reports on risk management and workforce readiness. His survey research includes business and education, the maturing workforce, leadership, and talent development. Lee WanVeer is vice president of learning at Prudential Financial, where he is responsible for the executive coaching practice and leadership development of the global company. WanVeer is also chair of The Conference Board Council on Executive Coaching. He brings more than 20 years of leadership development, training, and organizational development experience to his current roles. Erica Desrosiers, Ph.D. is director of organization and management development at PepsiCo. She is responsible for the company’s global 360 feedback process, as well as for developing the company’s coaching practice. She is on the executive committee of The Conference Board Council on Executive Coaching and recently completed a chapter on executive coaching in organizations to be published in Advancing Executive Coaching: Ingredients for Successful Leadership Coaching. Marcel Henderson is an assistant vice president of organizational development at Assurant. She is responsible for managing the enterprise’s executive coaching practices and provides support for talent and succession planning at the enterprise level. In 2009, she was an executive committee member of The Conference Board Council on Executive Coaching. Publications Team Publishing Director Chuck Mitchell Contributor Director, Consumer Research Center Lynn Franco Michael Tuller is a third-year graduate student at the University of Connecticut, where he is pursuing his Ph.D. in industrial/ Research Assistant Allen Li organizational psychology. Currently he is working at PepsiCo Council Manager Ruth Kennedy-Mountjoy as an intern in the organization and management development Editor Megan Manni group, and his work focuses on the employee survey and the Designer Peter Drubin 360-degree feedback process. Production Andrew Ashwell

To Order Publications, register for a meeting, The Conference Board creates and disseminates or to become a member: knowledge about management and the marketplace to help businesses strengthen their performance Online www.conference-board.org and better serve society. Email orders@conference-board.org Working as a global, independent membership organization Phone customer service at +1 212 339 0345 in the public interest, we conduct research, convene conferences, make forecasts, assess trends, publish Benefits to members of The Conference Board information and analysis, and bring executives together to learn from one another. Free reports Download publications free of charge. Find this research report at www.conference-board.org The Conference Board is a not-for-profit organization and holds 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt status in the United States. Go paperless Update your member preferences to receive reports electronically. Just login to your account To help senior executives make the right strategic decisions, and click Review Your Preferences. The Conference Board provides big-picture insights within and across our four knowledge areas: Personalize your preferences and get the information you want. Specify your areas of interest and receive only Corporate Leadership those publications relevant to you. Change your preferences at any time and get the valuable insights you need delivered Economy, Markets & Value Creation right to your desktop. High-Performing Organizations Human Capital www.conference-board.org © 2010 by The Conference Board, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A. ISBN No. 0-8237-0986-8. The Conference Board and the torch logo are registered trademarks of The Conference Board, Inc.

The Conference Board, Inc. 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022-6600 United States Tel + 1 212 759 0900 Fax + 1 212 980 7014 www.conference-board.org www.conference-board.org The Conference Board Asia-Pacific 22/F, Shun Ho Tower 24-30 Ice House Street, Central Hong Kong, SAR Tel + 852 2804 1000 Fax + 852 2869 1403 The Conference Board China Beijing Representative Office 7-2-72 Qijiayuan, 9 Jianwai Street Beijing 100600 P.R. China Tel + 86 10 8532 4688 Fax + 86 10 8532 5332 www.conference-board.cn (Chinese) The Conference Board Europe Chaussée de La Hulpe 130, box 11 B-1000 Brussels Belgium Tel + 32 2 675 5405 Fax + 32 2 675 0395 The Conference Board India 701 Mahalaxmi Heights, A Wing Keshav Rao Khadye Marg Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 011 India Tel + 91 9987548045 The Conference Board of Canada 255 Smyth Road Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8M7 Canada Tel + 1 613 526 3280 Fax + 1 613 526 4857 www.conferenceboard.ca

http://www.impactcm.co.uk	131
http://www.lmodules.com	7
http://www.consultspringboard.com	3
http://dev.genratec.com	2
http://www.incite.co.uk	1

2010 Exec Coaching Survey The Conf Board

by Leda Karabela

Accessibility

Upload Details

Usage Rights

5 Embeds 144

Statistics