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
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
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
• 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
Setting strategy 9%
77 Business unit/
Identification of coaches
for the organization 23 line of business
Providing oversight 24
Evaluating engagement 38
Vendor contracting 22
Monitoring engagement 40
0 24 48 72
Note: Respondents were allowed to choose more than one option.
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
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
(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
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 indi-
cate 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
orientation program of any kind? to its external coaches? monitoring through
Formal monitoring through the conversations with
use of submitted deliverables key stakeholders only
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
Does your company evaluate the effectiveness of external coaches it utilizes?
Formal evaluation occurs more often in larger organizations.
38% 41 41
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
per year, and slightly less than one-third (32 percent) 44%
work with three to four clients per year (Chart 10). 360 debrief
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
spend 5 hours or more per month with a client.
Chart 10 40
For the average internal coach within your organization,
how many coachees do they work with per year? 36
Two-thirds of internal coaches
work with 4 coachees or fewer. 26
1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 7 or more
34% 32 14 20 10
20 40 60 80 100
What is the average amount of time per month an Other
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.
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
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
• “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
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
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
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.
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.
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
Minus 99% Minus 75% Minus 50% Minus 25% Same as Plus 25% Plus 50%  Plus 75%  Plus 100%
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
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
How are coaches compensated for travel time in your company?
Most coaches are compensated for travel time,
but the means of compensation varies.
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%
experience, training, certifications
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
of executive being coached
Upon specified milestones
Variable rates based 9
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
the results achieved
100 percent at the beginning 2
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
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.
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
$1 billion $5 billion $10 billion
30.0 28 29
to to to
< $1 billion $5 billion $10 billion $20 billion > $20 billion 22.5 17 16
17 18 19
5.0 13 14
0 31% 12 19 12 26 8%
< 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.
17% 17 16 18 32 Chart 22
In how many countries does your company operate?
20 40 60 80 100
$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
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 manage-
ment development at PepsiCo. She is responsible for the company’s
global 360 feedback process, as well as for developing the com-
pany’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 organiza-
tional 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.
Publishing Director Chuck Mitchell
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
The Conference Board, Inc.
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022-6600
Tel + 1 212 759 0900
Fax + 1 212 980 7014
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
9 Jianwai Street
Beijing 100600 P.R. China
Tel + 86 10 8532 4688
Fax + 86 10 8532 5332
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
Tel + 91 9987548045
The Conference Board of Canada
255 Smyth Road
Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8M7
Tel + 1 613 526 3280
Fax + 1 613 526 4857