Build Performance Evaluation into the Coaching Process

К оглавлению
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 
136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 
153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 
170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 
187 188 189 190 191 192 

In the previous chapter, we followed the travails of the HR senior

VP at PharmaQuest. He initially viewed evaluation in terms of

schedule attainment and budget performance. The unsolicited and

positive comments by coaching clients were icing on the cake;

however, the COO had other ideas.What the COO was looking for

was evidence of the impact of coaching on the business. The question

of impact is answered through an evaluation process, and the

earlier this process is started, the greater the benefit to managing the

coaching initiative.

Wendy’s initial discussions with the coaching company centered

around the results that were expected.When Wendy got her marching

orders from senior leadership, she was also given clear expectations

for what the coaching initiative was to accomplish: accelerate

the development of leaders so they could more quickly assume added

leadership responsibilities. In consultation with the coaching company

project manager and agreement by the governance board, she

decided on conducting a pre/postassessment of all leaders according

to the competency model. Of the 100 leaders initially identified for

the coaching initiative, about 20 were not able to participate at that

time. This opened up the possibility of using this group of 20 as a

comparison group for the 80 or so who could participate in coaching

(statisticians might cringe here, given the unequal size of the two

groups and the nonrandom assignment of leaders to one of two

groups, but in the real world we make due). Arrangements were

made to conduct pre/postassessments and compare those who

received coaching with those who did not. If the evaluation issue had

Best Practices for Managing a Successful Coaching Initiative 155

not been addressed at the beginning of the initiative, the preassessments

would not have been conducted with the 20 people in the

comparison group. The earlier evaluation is considered, the greater

the options are for conducting a meaningful evaluation.

There are two other upsides to building evaluation methodology

into the coaching initiative early: (1) gaining greater discipline in

how the coaching initiative is managed and (2) reinforcing accountability

for results. Greater discipline comes from how evaluation

makes sure that all bases are covered. So many coaching initiatives

are launched like the one at PharmaQuest with little initial thought

given to leadership expectations, specific objectives that are tied to

business goals, and an acknowledgment of what success will look

like at the end. Evaluation cannot be done without answering these

questions.

Few people working in organizations today, especially large

organizations, feel they have the time to conduct these evaluation

activities. There is a time investment; however, there is also a

payback including time savings. How much time would the HR

senior VP at PharmaQuest have saved if he had made the effort to

understand the COO’s expectations upfront and taken the appropriate

actions? More to the point, how much more valuable to the

business would coaching (and other developmental activities) have

been if the HR senior VP had conducted the appropriate activities?

People cannot fairly be held accountable for outcomes for which

they are unaware. Following the evaluation methodology clarifies

expected outcomes and makes sure that everyone understands what

is expected of them. Wendy learned early that she was going to be

held accountable for reducing the time to develop leaders’ competencies.

As a result, she put in place a series of signposts to help

manage the initiative and developed an evaluation architecture to

demonstrate results. Not only was Wendy accountable, she had the

means to deliver on her accountabilities. Business leaders expect no

less from leadership development professionals and, therefore,

leadership development professionals should expect no less from

themselves.