How can the Coaching ROI® methodology change paradigms in terms of getting a payback on training programs ?
The Coaching ROI methodology offers daring perspectives for individuals and organizations seeking to to obtain effective and lasting ROI on training budgets. A recent case study (CROI Executive Statement_HTCo2016 – JC Normand, December 2016) supports evidence that coaching sessions in the footsteps of a learning or training program can really make a difference in getting a measurable business impact.
Coaching ROI is based on a 4-phase process, each step requiring validation before moving on to the next one. In Phase I (“Engage”), it is essential that the coachee commit himself to the partnership with the coach: accountability, resolve and ownership of the coaching program. At stake are the time and effort required for the change process to happen. Phase II (“Invest”) is the operating time of the coaching. It includes the goal setting part: usually there is both a quantitative (hard facts) and a qualitative aspect (soft skills) such as managing priorities more quickly, taking risks/assertiveness (reinforcing leadership), staying focused on key issues (awareness). Phase III (“Evaluate”) includes a formal 360 evaluation with feedback obtained from peers and manager and the delivery of a documented report converting results to monetary value and the subsequent calculation of an effective Coaching ROI. Finally Phase IV is a communication phase designed to encourage further the process.
The case study covered the post-training coaching of a middle manager responsible for the development team of a new information system and secured communication network for hi-tech industries. The coaching was focused on the development of his transverse management skills.
The 360 evaluation after 3 months coaching indicated significant progress in 4 behavioral criteria : accountability, assertiveness, effectiveness and prioritization. The ROI calculation on the impact of the coaching was validated by the coachee at 135% i.e. for very 1€ invested in training and coaching, the organization saved 0,35€.
We need to reconsider in depth how we consider the effectiveness of training programs. If we continue to focus just on the content and the experience of the facilitator, we may well continue to fall short of the investment paybacks expected. By directly merging coaching to learning programs, we are placing the focus on the implementation rather than the comprehension phase. We are nurturing the trainees sense of responsibility and hyping his/her motivation to apply the learnings and be able to generate effective progress. If we can promote on a wider scale this deeper version of blended learnings, we could be very close to a major shift in training and educational strategies. Simply because effective and measurable results would finally be available to support both fundings and motivation of trainees.