James W Smither,  Manuel London,  Raymond Flautt,  Yvette Vargas,  Ivy
Kucine. (2003). Can working with an executive coach improve multisource
feedback ratings over time? A quasi-experimental field study. Personnel
Psychology, 56(1), 23-44. Retrieved , from ABI/INFORM Global database.
(Document ID: 321954181).

Subjects:       Studies,  Feedback,  Management reviews,  Mentors,  Impact
analysis,  Statistical analysis
Classification Codes    9190,  9130,  6100
Locations:      United States,  US
Author(s):      James W Smither,  Manuel London,  Raymond Flautt,  Yvette
Vargas,  Ivy Kucine
Document types: Feature
Publication title:      Personnel Psychology. Durham: Spring 2003. Vol. 56,
Iss.  1;  pg. 23, 22 pgs
Source type:    Periodical
ISSN/ISBN:      00315826
ProQuest document ID:   321954181
Text Word Count 5246
Document URL:
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=321954181&Fmt=4&clientId=52110&RQT=309&VN
ame=PQD

Abstract (Document Summary)
This study examined the effects of executive coaching on multisource
feedback over time. Participants were 1,361 senior managers who received
multisource feedback; 404 of these senior managers worked with an executive
coach (EC) to review their feedback and set goals. One year later, 1,202
senior managers (88% of the original sample) received multisource feedback
from another survey. Managers who worked with an EC were more likely than
other managers to set specific (rather than vague) goals (d = .16) and to
solicit ideas for improvement from their supervisors (d = .36). Managers who
worked with an EC improved more than other managers in terms of direct
report and supervisor ratings, however, the effect size (d = .17) was small.
 

Full Text (5246   words)
Copyright Personnel Psychology, Inc. Spring 2003
[Headnote]

This study examined the effects of executive coaching on multisource
feedback over time. Participants were 1,361 senior managers who received
multisource feedback; 404 of these senior managers worked with an executive
coach (EC) to review their feedback and set goals. One year later, 1,202
senior managers (88% of the original sample) received multisource feedback
from another survey. Managers who worked with an EC were more likely than
other managers to set specific (rather than vague) goals (d = .16) and to
solicit ideas for improvement from their supervisors (d = .36). Managers who
worked with an EC improved more than other managers in terms of direct
report and supervisor ratings, however, the effect size (d = .17) was small.
 

This study examines two interventions that have become increasingly
widespread in leadership development-multisource feedback and executive
coaching. Although multisource feedback had its origins many years earlier
(Klimoski & London, 1974), its popularity has soared in recent years (Hedge,
Borman, & Birkeland, 2001) and there have been an increasing number of books
(e.g., Bracken, Timmreck, & Church, 2001; Tornow & London, 1998; Waldman &
Atwater, 1998) and articles that address the process. The use of external
executive coaches is also an increasingly popular trend in corporations
(Graddick & Lane, 1998; Smither & Reilly, 2001). Despite the growing
popularity of these interventions in applied settings, they have received
relatively little attention in empirical research studies. Only a modest
number of longitudinal studies have examined the impact of multisource or
upward feedback on performance, and longitudinal research on the impact of
executive coaching is scarce.

This field study extends the current literature on multisource feedback and
executive coaching in several ways. The data represent the first test of
whether working with an external executive coach can improve multisource
feedback ratings over time. We also examine whether working with an
executive coach affects the goals that feedback recipients set and the
likelihood that feedback recipients will discuss their feedback with raters
to solicit ideas for improvement. In addition, we examine whether feedback
recipients' reactions to executive coaching are related to improvement in
multisource feedback ratings over time. These data are important from a
practical perspective because, as Hall, Otazo, and Hollenbeck (1999),
Hollenbeck and McCall (1999), and Harris (1999) have noted, organizations
that are implementing coaching on a large scale are becoming concerned about
cost. If the impact of executive coaching cannot be demonstrated, it could
be viewed by some organizations as too expensive and might be eliminated
when budgets get tight. These data also contribute to the emerging
literature on factors that might enhance the impact of multisource feedback
in organizations.

Dalessio (1998) defines multisource feedback as evaluations gathered about a
target participant from two or more rating sources, which can include: self,
supervisor, peers, direct reports, internal customers, external customers,
and vendors/suppliers. Executive coaching can take a number of different
forms. Some executives use coaching to learn specific skills, others to
improve performance on the job or to prepare for advancement in business or
professional life, and still others to support broader purposes, such as an
executive's agenda for major organizational change (Witherspoon & White,
1996). Thus, executive coaching may involve a small number of meetings (as
in the current study) where the coach and a senior-level manager are focused
on a relatively narrow goal, or it may involve a longer relationship with
multiple and complex goals. Hall et al. (1999) state that executive coaching
is "a practical, goal-focused form of personal one-to-one learning for busy
executives. It may be used to improve performance, to improve or develop
executive behaviors, to work through organizational issues, to enhance a
career, or to prevent derailment." (p. 40)

The Impact of Multisource and Upward Feedback on Behavior Change
Although there has been considerable research on immediate reactions to
multisource feedback as well as to the level of agreement withinand
between-rater sources (Mount & Scullen, 2001; Murphy, Cleveland, & Mohler,
2001), less attention has been directed to the impact of multisource
feedback over time. Smither, London, Flautt, Vargas, and Kucine (2002)
summarized 13 longitudinal studies that examined whether performance (as
measured by subsequent feedback scores) improved following multisource or
upward feedback. They noted that, despite considerable variability in the
magnitude of effect sizes across studies, 11 of the 13 studies found
evidence of improvement over time for people receiving multisource or upward
feedback. Of the three studies that included a control group (Atwater,
Waldman, Atwater, & Cartier, 2000; Hegarty, 1974; Heslin & Latham, 2001),
two found that managers who received feedback improved more than managers
who did not receive feedback. Smither et al. (2002) concluded that managers
often (but not always) improve their performance (at least as reflected by
subsequent feedback) after receiving multisource or upward feedback, and
improvement is greatest among managers who initially receive the most
negative feedback or who initially overrate themselves.

The Emerging Literature on Executive Coaching Many recent articles approach
the topic of executive coaching from the perspective of counseling or
clinical psychology (e.g., multimodal therapy, psychodynamic theory or
psychotherapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing), and rely on
case studies or vignettes as illustrations or sources of evidence (Foster &
Lendl, 1996; Kilburg, 1996, 1997; Laske, 1999; Levinson, 1996; Richard,
1999; Rotenberg, 2000, Sperry, 1993). Hollenbeck and McCall (1999) described
a follow-up study of a coaching-based executive development process where
participants rated the process as very valuable (3.95 out of 5.00) and
reported that they changed (4.07 out of 5.00; Edelstein & Armstrong, 1993).
Hall et al. (1999) asked executives to rate the overall effectiveness of
their experiences with coaching and concluded that "the positive image of
coaching that is presented in the business media is supported by the
experiences of the people we interviewed."

Olivero, Bane, and Kopelman (1997) examined the effects of executive
coaching in a public sector agency where managers participated in a 3-day
management development program and then worked with an internal executive
coach for 8 weeks. The authors found that both the management development
program and coaching increased productivity with executive coaching
resulting in a significantly greater gain compared to the management
development program alone. McGovern et al. (2001) examined the impact of
executive coaching on 100 executives from 56 organizations. Coaching
programs generally ranged from 6 to 12 months in duration. Based on
interviews, they found that 86% of participants and 74% of stakeholders
(immediate supervisors or HR representatives) indicated they were very
satisfied or extremely satisfied with the coaching process. Participants
estimated that the return on coaching was nearly 5.7 times the investment in
coaching. However, these results relied on executives' estimates of impact,
as contrasted with input from other stakeholders.

In sum, preliminary evidence indicates that managers generally have a
favorable reaction to executive coaching, but very little attention has been
directed to examining the impact of executive coaching on behavior change
and performance improvement. It is especially noteworthy that none of the
studies cited above compared managers who received executive coaching with
managers who did not receive executive coaching. How Executive Coaches Might
Enhance the Impact of Multisource

Feedback
There are several ways that executive coaches may enhance the impact of
multisource feedback on behavior change. For example, a coach can help
feedback recipients acquire new skills (e.g., offering useful suggestions
about how feedback recipients can better manage subordinates with
performance problems). In addition, discussing the feedback with an
executive coach may increase the feedback recipient's sense of
accountability to use the feedback to guide behavior change (rather than
ignoring the feedback; London, Smither, & Adsit, 1997). Moreover, executive
coaches can help feedback recipients navigate through the stages of change
(Dalton & Hollenbeck, 2001; Prochaska, Norcross, & DiClemente, 1995).
In the current study, we also examine two specific ways that executive
coaches could affect the impact of multisource feedback. First, executive
coaches can help feedback recipients set appropriate goals based on the
feedback. Locke and Latham (1990) have shown that feedback alone is not the
cause of behavior change, instead, it is the goals that people set in
response to feedback. To the extent that executive coaches encourage and
help feedback recipients to set specific goals, they should enhance the
impact of the feedback on behavior change. Second, executive coaches can
encourage feedback recipients to share their feedback with and solicit
suggestions for improvement from raters. Walker and Smither (1999) found
that feedback recipients who met with direct reports to discuss their upward
feedback improved more than other feedback recipients, and feedback
recipients improved more in years when they discussed the previous year's
feedback with direct reports than in years when they did not discuss the
previous year's feedback with direct reports. In the current study, we
examine whether executive coaching affects the extent to which feedback
recipients set specific goals and discuss their feedback with raters. We
also examine whether goal specificity and discussing feedback with raters
partially mediate the relationship between executive coaching and
performance improvement.

Summary and Hypotheses
First, we hypothesize that feedback recipients who work with an executive coach will
be more likely than other feedback recipients to set specific (rather than
vague or general) goals. Second, we hypothesize that feedback recipients who
work with an executive coach will be more likely than other feedback
recipients to share their feedback with raters and solicit suggestions for
improvement. Third, we hypothesize that executive coaching will be
positively related to improvement in multisource ratings and, consistent
with the feedback and goal setting literature (Locke & Latham, 1990; London
& Smither, 1995; Walker & Smither, 1999), goal specificity and sharing
feedback/soliciting suggestions from raters will partially mediate this
relationship. Fourth, we hypothesize that the reactions of feedback
recipients to the executive coach and the coaching process will be
positively related to improvements in multisource ratings.

Method
Overview
The current study used a quasi-experimental pre-post control group
(executive coaching vs. no executive coaching) design. The key dependent
variable was improvement in multisource ratings over a 1-year period. We
also examined goal specificity and sharing feedback/soliciting suggestions
for improvement from raters. The subjects were 1,361 senior managers in a
large, global corporation who received multisource feedback in the autumn of
1999 (as part of a broader company-wide multisource feedback program). The
senior manager's supervisor also received a copy of the feedback report and
was allowed to use the results as input to the formal appraisal process.
(Raters were aware of this feature in the feedback process.) After receiving
their feedback, 404 (29.7%) of these senior managers worked with an external
executive coach (EC). After working with the executive coach, 286 (70.8%) of
these 404 senior managers responded to a brief online survey that gathered
their reactions to the executive coach and the coaching process.
In July 2000, the company administered a brief survey where raters evaluated
the extent of progress made toward individual goals set by each manager
based on the initial multisource feedback. At the same time, raters
indicated whether the manager had shared his or her feedback and solicited
suggestions for improvement from the rater. To participate in the survey,
each manager was first required to create one to three development goals
based on the initial multisource feedback. Of the 1,361 senior managers who
received multisource feedback in the autumn of 1999,1,229 (90.3%)
participated in the survey. Of the 404 senior managers who worked with an
executive coach, 400 (99%) participated in the survey. Of the 957 senior
managers who did not work with an executive coach, 829 (86.6%) participated
in the survey.

In the autumn of 2000, there was another administration of the company-wide
multisource feedback program. Of the 1,361 senior managers who received
multisource feedback in the autumn of 1999, 1,202 (88.3%) received feedback
from the autumn 2000 multisource feedback survey. Of those who worked with
an executive coach, 94.6% received feedback from the autumn 2000 multisource
feedback survey; of those who did not work with an executive coach, 85.7%
received feedback from the autumn 2000 multisource feedback survey (chi
square = 21.66, df = 1, p < .01).

The Executive Coaching Program
In the autumn of 1999, the company allowed the leader in each line of
business to decide whether to require all senior managers in the line of
business to use an EC. Some of these leaders required all senior managers to
work with an EC, some declined to participate, and some made the process
optional (that is, individual senior managers could decide whether they
wanted to work with an EC). In most instances, if the leader of the line of
business worked with an EC, their subordinate senior managers also worked
with ECs. Of the 286 senior managers who worked with an EC and completed the
online survey, 7.7% indicated that they were hesitant to work with a coach
but it was a requirement in their business unit, 79.6% indicated that they
welcomed the opportunity to work with a coach and it was a requirement in
their business unit, and 12.7% indicated that they requested a coach but it
was not a requirement in their business unit.

Those lines of business that elected to participate in the EC process agreed
to pay for 5 hours (and in a few instances 7 hours) of EC time for all
senior managers. For most ECs, the 5 hours were allocated to preparation
time (reviewing the senior manager's multisource feedback report and other
background material) and two or three in-person meetings with the senior
manager.

Identifying screening, and matching ECs. Several years earlier, the company
identified a small number of ECs who had previously worked with leaders of
the business. These ECs provided names of other potential ECs and still
other potential ECs were identified via word of mouth. Potential ECs were
asked to describe their philosophy and approach to coaching and specific
examples where they had worked as an EC. In addition, the corporate human
resource department checked references provided by each EC. The majority of
ECs had a master's degree with a smaller percentage having a doctorate. Most
had backgrounds in organization development, psychology, human resources, or
relevant industry experience.

Table 2 presents the correlations among the major variables. Ratings from
different sources were modestly correlated on the autumn 1999 survey and on
the autumn 2000 survey. Same-source ratings of autumn 1999 with autumn 2000
ratings were also moderately correlated. Senior managers who worked with an
executive coach (EC) did not differ from senior managers who did not work
with an EC in terms of their self-ratings, supervisor ratings, direct report
ratings, or peer ratings (all p > .50), thereby indicating there were no
preexisting differences between the two groups on the target behaviors.
 

TABLE 1

On the coaching effectiveness survey, 86.3% of the senior managers indicated
that they wanted to work with a coach again. Of these, 78.5% wanted to work
with the same coach. The mean of the coaching effectiveness scale was 4.04
(SD = .76). Taken together, these findings indicate that senior managers
generally had favorable reactions to their executive coach and the coaching
process.
Hypothesis One
Hypothesis 3 stated executive coaching will be positively related to
improvement in multisource ratings, and goal specificity and sharing
feedback/soliciting suggestions from raters will partially mediate this
relationship. In each analysis described below, improvement in ratings is
assessed by treating autumn 2000 ratings from a specific source as the
criterion and autumn 1999 ratings from the same source as a covariate
(Cronbach & Furby, 1970). To show mediation, four relationships must be
demonstrated (Baron & Kenny, 1986). First, the relationship between the
predictor (executive coaching) and criterion (improvement in multisource
ratings) must be significant. Second, the relationship between the predictor
and mediator variables (goal specificity and sharing feedback/soliciting
suggestions for improvement) must be significant. Third, the relationship
between the mediator variables and the criterion must be significant.
Fourth, a regression equation is examined in which the predictor and
mediator variables are used to predict the criterion. If the regression
weight of the predictor decreases or becomes nonsignificant and the mediator
remains significant, this serves as evidence of mediation.

We examined this hypothesis by looking at whether improvement in ratings
from autumn 1999 to autumn 2000 was related to the number of conversations
senior managers had with the coach or to the senior manager's ratings of the
coach's effectiveness. The effectiveness of the coach as rated by the senior
manager (entered on the second step of each analysis) was unrelated to
improvement from autumn 1999 to autumn 2000 as rated by direct reports,
supervisors, or peers. These results fail to support Hypothesis 4.

Discussion
There may be no simple answer to the broad question of whether executive
coaching enhances performance. Instead, we believe that research should
examine how the impact of executive coaching is shaped by a variety of
factors such as its purpose (e.g., to facilitate use of multisource
feedback, to overcome behavior problems that limit career advancement, to
support a transition to a new leadership assignment), length (several
meetings over several weeks vs. many meetings over many months),
organizational context, and individual differences among coaches and among
those being coached. Ultimately, the goal is to identify situations where
the use of executive coaching is likely to have a positive impact versus
situations where executive coaching is likely to be less effective.

The current results are important because they provide the first data on the
impact of working with an executive coach as judged by other sources
(supervisors, direct reports, and peers). We found that managers who worked
with an EC were more likely than other managers to set specific (rather than
vague) goals (d = .16), solicit ideas for improvement from their supervisors
(d = .36), and receive improved ratings (d = .17) from direct reports and
supervisors. In addition, the small relationship between executive coaching
and improvement in ratings was not mediated by goal specificity and sharing
feedback/soliciting suggestions for improvement.

Practical Implications, Limitations, and Directions for Future Research
Practitioners may wonder whether the small, albeit positive, effect sizes
observed in the current study are sufficient to justify the investment in
executive coaching. Because the standard deviation of job performance in
dollars (SD^sub y^) is likely to be large for senior managers, even small
improvements in performance may be associated with meaningful economic
benefits. In the end, we think that judgments about the practical (e.g.,
economic) value of executive coaching must await further research. For
example, the generalizability of the results described here might be limited
because multisource feedback was shared with the feedback recipient's
supervisor, who could use the information to influence compensation,
promotion, and so on. This may have increased recipients' sense of
accountability to respond to the feedback even in the absence of executive
coaching (London et al., 1997). When accountability to act on the feedback
is already high, the incremental impact of working with an executive coach
may be limited. Future research should examine the impact of executive
coaches in an environment where accountability is relatively low (e.g.,
where multisource feedback is confidential).

Because research on executive coaching is in its infancy, there are many
other areas where additional research would be desirable. For example,
future research should examine the impact of longer term executive coaching
relationships. Another promising avenue for future research would be to
focus on individual differences in readiness for change (Prochaska,
DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992; Prochaska et al., 1995) or receptivity to
coaching and feedback (London & Smither, 2002).
In the current study, we know little about the nature or content of the
executive coaching conversations. Future research could examine whether the
effects of coaching are related to the coach's style. Moreover, we do not
know how the background of executive coaches (e.g., counseling psychology,
organization development) might affect the coaching process or the outcomes
of coaching. Executive coaches with specific backgrounds (e.g., counseling
psychology) may be well suited for some situations (e.g., helping a senior
manager overcome an aggressive or demeaning interpersonal style) but not for
others (e.g., helping a senior manager integrate organizational cultures
during a merger or acquisition). In addition, the match or "chemistry"
between the executive coach and the senior manager may be important. It
would also be desirable for future research to examine the effects of
executive coaching where participants are randomly assigned to conditions.

A final issue that will be important in future research is determining the
appropriate criteria for assessing the impact of executive coaching. For
example, in the current study, we examined changes in multisource ratings
over time. In other settings (e.g., where coaching is focused on working
with career transitions or on learning specific skills) different criteria
will be required. It is also possible that multisource feedback ratings
(collected before and after coaching) are simply too broad a measurement
tool to detect the impact of executive coaching. Future research could
examine more individualized criteria of behavior change (e.g., long-term
measures of progress toward specific goals set by each feedback recipient).
It would also be desirable to use retrospective pretests (Smither & Walker,
2001) to evaluate behavior change.

The process and outcomes of executive coaching are likely to be influenced
by many variables not measured here. The popularity of executive coaching,
coupled with the number of potentially relevant explanatory variables,
should make this an important area for future research. Such research can
enhance our theoretical understanding of executive development, feedback
processes, and behavior change while at the same time pointing to situations
in which executive coaching can and cannot provide a valuable return on
investment.
[Sidebar]

The authors thank Dick Reilly and three anonymous reviewers for their
helpful comments concerning an earlier draft of this paper.
 

[Reference]

REFERENCES
 

[Reference]

Atwater LE, Waldman DA, Atwater D, Cartier P (2000). An upward feedback
field experiment: Supervirs' cynicism, reactions, and commitment to
subordinates. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 53, 275-297.

Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Persona and Social Psydwlov, 51,1173-1182.

Bracken D, Timmreck C, Church A (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of multisource
feedback. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
 

[Reference]

Cronbach LU, Furby L. (1970). How should we measure "change"-or should we?
Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68-80.

Dalessio AT (1998). Using multisource feedback for employee development and
personnel decisions. In Smither JW (Ed.), Performance appraisal.t
State-of-the-art in pacrice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dalton MA, Hollenbeck GE (2001). After feedback: How to facilitate change in
behavior. In Bracken DW, Timmreck CW, Church AH (Eds.), The handbook of
mu&wurce feedback (pp. 352-367). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Edelstein BC, Armstrong DJ. (1993). A model for executive development. Human
Resource Planning 16(4), 51-64.

Foster S, Lendl J. (1996). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing:
Four case studies of a new tool for executive coaching and restoring
employee performance after setbacks. Consulting Psychology Journal. Practice
and Research, 48, 155-161.

Graddick MM, Lane P (1998). Evaluating executive performance. In Smither JW
(Ed.), Performance apmaisak State-of the-art in practice. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
 

[Reference]

Hall DT, Otazo KL, Hollenbeck GP (1999). Behind closed doors: What really
happens in executive coaching. Organizational Dynamics, 39-52.

Harris M. (1999). Practice network: Look, it's an I-0 psychologist... no,
it's a trainer... no, it's an executive coach! The Industrial-Organizational
Psychologist, 36(3), 38-42. Hedge JW, Borman WC, Birkeland SA. (2001).
History and development of multisource

feedback as a methodology. In Bracken D, Timmreck C, Church A (Eds.),
Handbook of multisource feedback. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hegarty WH. (1974). Using subordinate ratings to elicit behavioral changes
in managers. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 59, 764-766.

Heslin PA, Latham GP (2001, April). The effect of upward feedback on
managerial behavior. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.

Hollenbeck GP, McCall MW. (1999). Leadership development: Contemporary
practices. In Kraut Al, Korman AK (Eds.), Evolving practices in human
resource management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kilburg RR (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding and definition of
executive coaching. Consulting PsycholoV JournaL- Practice and Research,
48,134-144.
 

[Reference]

Kilburg RR- (1997). Coaching and executive character: Core problems and
basic approaches. Consulting Psycholog Journal. Practice and Research 49,
281-299.

Klimoski RJ, London M. (1974). Role of the rater in performance appraisal
Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 445-451.

Laske OE. (1999) An integrated model of developmental coaching. Consuichogy
Journal. Practice and Research, 51, 139-159.

Levinson H. (1996). Executive coaching. Consulting Psychology JournaL
Practice and Research, 48,115-123.

Locke EA, Latham GE (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

London M, Smither JW. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and
the longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management
Review, 12(1), 81-101.

London M, Smither JW. (1995). Can multisource feedback change perceptions of
goal accomplishment, self-evaluations, and performance-related outcomes?
Theorybased applications and directions for research. msowm PsYCHoLooy, 48,
803839.
 

[Reference]

London M, Smither JW, Adsit DJ. (1997). Accountability: The Achilles heel of
multisource feedback. Group and Organization Management, 22,162-184.

McGovern J, Lindemann M, Vergara M, Murphy S, Barker L, Warrenfeltz R
(2001). Maximizing the impact of executive coaching: Behavioral change,
organizational outcomes, and return on investment. The Manchester Review,
6(1), 1-9.

Mount MK, Scullen SE. (2001). Multisource feedback ratings: What do they
really measure? In London M (Ed.), How people evaluate others in
organizations (pp. 155176). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Murphy Kit, Cleveland JN, Mohler CJ. (2001). Reliability, validity, and
meaningfulness of multisource ratings. In Bracken DW, Timmreck CW, Church AH
(Eds.), The handbook of multisource feedback The comprehensive resource for
designing and implementing MSF processes (pp. 130-148). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Olivero G, Bane KID, Kopelman RE. (1997). Executive coaching as a transfer
of training tool: Effects on productivity in a public agency. Public
Personnel Management, 26, 461-469.
 

[Reference]

Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC. (1992). In search of how people
change: Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologis;
47,1102-1114.

Prochaska JO, Norcross JC, DiClemente CC. (1995). Changing forgood. New
York: Avon Books.

Richard JT. (1999). Multimodal therapy: A useful model for the executive
coach. Consulting Psychology JournaL Practice and Research, 51, 24-30.

Rotenberg Cr (2000). Psychodynamic psychotherapy and executive
coaching-overlapping paradigms. Journal of the American Academy of
Psychoanalysis, 28, 653-663.
 

[Reference]

Smither JW, London M, Flautt R, Vargas Y, Kucine I. (2002, April). Does
discussing multisource feedback with raters enhance performance improvement?
Paper presented at the 17th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, lbronto, ON.

Smither JW, Reilly SP (2001). Coaching in organizations: A social
psychological perspecfive. In London M (Ed.), How people evaluate others in
organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Smither JW, Walker AG. (2001). Measuring the impact of multisource feedback.
In Bracken D, Timmreck C, Church A (Eds.), Handbook of mudre feedback. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sperry L (1993). Working with executives: Consulting, counseling, and
coaching. Individual Psychology: Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research and
Practice, 49, 257-266.
 

[Reference]

Tbmyow WW, London M (Eds.). (1998). Maximizing the value of 360-degree
feedback: A proce. for successful individual and organizational development.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Waldman DA, Atwater LE. (1998). The power of 360-deg.d feedback How to
leverage perfomance evaluations for top productivity. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Walker AG, Smither JW. (1999). A five-year study of upward feedback: What
managers do with their results matters. mRsomim PsYcHou)GY, 52, 393-423.

Witherspoon R, White RP (1996). Executive coaching A continuum of roles.
Consulting Ps,dwI/oV ouma Practice & Research, 48, 124-133.
 

[Author Affiliation]

JAMES W. SMITHER

Management Department La Salle University
 

[Author Affiliation]

MANUEL LONDON

Harriman School of Management and Policy State University of New York-Stony
Brook

RAYMOND FLAUTT, YVETTE VARGAS, IVY KUCINE

JP Morgan Chase
 

[Author Affiliation]

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to James W.
Smither, Management Department, La Salle University, Philadelphia, PA 19141;
Smither@lasalle.edu.
 

[Appendix]

APPENDIX
 

[Appendix]

Autumn 1999 Items
 

[Appendix]

Partnership/Teamwork (M, P, D)

Client skills/Customer focus (M, P, D)

Technical skills (M, P, D)

Responsiveness/Dependability (M, P, D)

Judgment/Decision making (M, P, D)

Management (M, P, D)

Leadership (M, P, D)
 

[Appendix]

Quickly assesses the "big picture" in complex situations and identifies what
is critical. (M)

Recognizes patterns and connections in information from different sources
and their business implications. (M)

Creates simple, compelling messages and few key priorities that guide and
focus the efforts of others. (D)

Simplifies complex projects or situations by focusing on key issues,
activities and goals. (M, D)

Delegates detailed oversight and responsibility to those with the necessary
skills and information. (D)
 

[Appendix]

Provides dear goals, written performance appraisals and follow-up
discussions annually. (D)

Provides coaching and feedback to improve performance. (P, D)

Negotiates realistic resources to achieve results. (M)

Respectfully confronts problematic behavior. (M, P, D)

Encourages and is open to feedback and coaching from others. (M, P, D)

Stands firm in the face of opposition/disagreement from influential others
when appropriate. (M, P, D)
 

[Appendix]

Makes tough choices and decisions in a timely fashion. (M, D)

Invests time and resources to enhance the effectiveness of management team.
(M, D)

Responds to others' needs to balance personal and work demands. (M, D)

Seeks out and listens to customers' and colleagues' views to establish their
concerns. (M, P, D)

Involves those who are directly affected by decisions in the decision-making
process. (D)
 

[Appendix]

Gains cooperation by explicitly addressing others' interests and concerns.
(P, D)

Accurately assesses the impact of own behavior and decisions on others. (M,
P, D)

Accurately identifies own strengths and weaknesses and works to overcome
weaknesses. (M, P, D)

Treats people respectfully regardless of personal views, disagreements, or
level. (M, P, D)

Takes calculated risks needed to achieve results. (M)
 

[Appendix]

Demonstrates technical expertise to resolve business issues. (M, P)

Maintains composure and positive attitude during stressful situations. (M,
P)

Proactively seeks new experiences and knowledge. (M)

Quickly adjusts in response to changing situations. (M, P, D)

Looks for ways to do things better, faster and more cost efficient. (M, P,
D)

Shows by his or her actions a strong commitment to diversity. (M, P, D)

Overall rating (M, P, D)

(M = Rated by supervisors, P = Rated by peers, D = Rated by direct reports)
 

[Appendix]

Autumn 2000 Items
 

[Appendix]

Demonstrates technical expertise to resolve business issues.

Gains cooperation by explicitly addressing others' interests and concerns.
Seeks out and listens to customers' and peers' views to establish their
concerns. Sets a strong personal example by consistently and visibly
demonstrating the Chase Values.
 

[Appendix]

Provides clear goals, written performance appraisals, coaching and feedback.

Takes calculated risks needed to achieve results.

Maintains composure and positive attitude during stressful situations.

Takes a view on issues and constructively stands behind them.
 

[Appendix]

Makes tough choices and decisions in a timely fashion.

Builds strong partnerships with colleagues and customers.

Shows by his or her actions a strong commitment to diversity.

Looks for ways to do things better, faster, and more cost efficiently.
 

[Appendix]

Simplifies complex projects or situations by focusing on key issues,
activities and goals.

Treats people respectfully regardless of personal views, disagreements, or
level.

Responds to others' needs to balance personal and work demands.

Demonstrates passion and commitment in order to continually drive change.
 

[Appendix]

Uses vision and creativity to develop innovative approaches to business
challenges.

Takes the lead in understanding and applying internet thinking.

Consistently takes initiative to make things happen.

Client driven in all interactions with customers and colleagues.

Please provide a rating based on your general impression of XXX: Overall
rating (1-5)

SCROLL