There is currently limited research on either coaching in organisations or executive coaching in Planned Radical Organisational Change (PROC). The research that does exist on these subjects focuses primarily on whether coaching is considered efficacious, and there has been no research on the obstacles preventing the adoption of executive coaching to assist divisional, functional and central leaders during PROC as part of change implementation programmes. The primary aim of this research was to uncover the reasons why executive coaching is not used in these situations, including whether some senior PROC leaders may block such investment because they are Machiavellian or not change-ready. The research uses a mixed-method design. Two hundred and sixty-two high-ranking executives were surveyed on their attitude towards executive coaching, their Machiavellianism and their change-readiness. Details about their previous roles in PROC, their rank and current employer were also collected. Nearly half of these leaders were in organisations with more than 10,000 employees and over three-quarters in organisations of more than 1,000. Over three-quarters were chief officers or directors. Hierarchical regression was used to create three models to understand the relationship of these variables with the attitude of senior executives towards coaching. Quantitative analysis informed the next step of the sequential mixed method, and 12 executives were interviewed. These were systematically chosen from the survey respondents, based on their Machiavellianism score and role in PROC. These semi-structured interviews examined the results from the survey analysis and other potential issues relating to the procurement of coaching. Qualitative analysis was used to uncover underlying themes from interview transcripts. The quantitative and qualitative elements were then synthesised. A key qualitative finding was the belief among senior executives that, although coaching was valuable for an individual, its benefits for the organisation could not be quantified and, thus, any predicted return on investment was not reliable or credible. They found it impossible, therefore, to put forward or approve business cases for significant coaching investment as a routine part of change programmes. Another key finding, in both the quantitative and qualitative results, was that Machiavellianism and low levels of change readiness in PROC leaders are associated with less favourable attitudes towards executive coaching in PROC. This research adds to the discussion by finding that, although coaching is often considered efficacious by executives, as suggested by previous coaching researchers, there are still significant obstacles to its widespread adoption in PROC. This research contradicted the prevailing view that return on investment is either not relevant to coaching or has been accepted as having been proved sufficiently for those people preparing or approving business cases. It enhances the theoretical knowledge of executive coaching during PROC by producing a diagram of the obstacles to executive coaching procurement in PROC situations. This research has particular relevance to coaching practice, including to Executive Coaches and HR directors. With an increasing number of organisations restructuring following disruptions caused by technology changes and the recent pandemic, overcoming obstacles, including more coaching in change programmes and improving the PROC success rate are important to individual companies and the economy. This research had further value due to the involvement of very senior business executives, a population not greatly researched in large sample sizes in the coaching field, due to the difficulties in gaining access on this scale.
Permanent link to this resource: https://doi.org/10.24384/ep54-dq31
The fulltext files of this resource are currently embargoed.Embargo end: 2024-07-25
Graynoth, Terence
Supervisors: Ehrlich, Christian; Myers, Adrian
Oxford Brookes Business School
Year: 2022
© Graynoth, Terence Published by Oxford Brookes UniversityAll rights reserved. Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.