- Peer coaching and leadership development
Based on their own professional experience as career scholars and leadership development professionals, researchers suggest that peer coaching is “more focussed than general peer learning” because it has a specific orientation toward helping peers develop their career experiences and opportunities. Researchers also identify five “critical qualities” of peer coaching, including: equal status of partners; focus on personal and professional development of both peers; integration of reflection on practice to identify critical incidents for focus; emphasis on process as well as content that facilitates leadership development; differentiating between dialogue and conversation; accelerating career learning.
Researchers reported positive outcomes among participants with regard to both professional and personal learning. These outcomes included increased self-confidence and empowerment, success in dealing with change and development of soft-skills. Likewise, Ladyshewsky (2006) reported “powerful learning effects,” particularly enhanced critical thinking and meta-cognition. In addition to reporting the perceived learning outcomes of peer coaching programs, some scholars have examined the process of peer coaching and specifically the factors influencing learning outcomes.
Ladyshewsky (2006, p. 77), for example, reported that each person in the peer coaching relationship had to feel a sense of commitment and responsibility to it. In addition, peer coach partners had to have “adequate knowledge and experience to complement or enhance” their partner’s knowledge base.
Slater and Simmons (2001) found that there may be benefits for being paired with people outside of the individuals’ fields of expertise in order to enhance the diversity of learning opportunities. Ladyshewsky (2006) also found that there is a need for “neutrality or independence” in the peer coaching relationship.
“Neutrality” or “independence” was understood as having partners who would not be impacted by each other’s actions or had not been so in the past. The researchers’ study identified another important success factor was the need for formality in the peer coaching relationship “to avoid slippage into being overly friendly in a way that compromises the distance required for an effective coaching role.”
The centrality of “soft skills” in successful peer coaching indicates how it is an essentially relational process. According to Researchers “it is quite clear that the nature of the relationship between two peers is critical to the success of the venture.” Building on this theme further, Researchers (2008) identified the need for trust in peer coaching, which further serves as a platform for “critical friendship” where partners support each other’s development by asking what sometimes may be provocative questions and critique. They also identified the need for authenticity and honesty in coaching relationships where participants should feel that they can express their feelings openly without fear of recrimination.
Based on the discussion above, it appears that peer coaching is indeed an effective source of professional and personal learning. Yet, while some authors have explored the processes that will support effective learning, what we do not know is whether the context of peer coaching impacts on overall learning outcomes. Below, we report the findings of a study which examined a career community focussed on providing peer coaching for managers in business organizations.
- Methodology
This study was driven by the following research question:
RQ1. How do external peer coaching groups – which are a form of career community – impact leadership development? We chose a qualitative methodology to conduct this exploratory examination, where we conducted in-depth interviews with participants in a unique leadership development program which involved peer group coaching supplemented by one-on-one personal coaching. A key reason for adopting a qualitative methodology was that we were looking for a deeper understanding of interviewees’ perceptions and experiences regarding peer coaching.
2.1 The program
This leadership development program was launched in 2010 as a leadership development program designed to help “high-potential” middle-level and upper-level managers improve their leadership ability through two mechanisms: peer group coaching and personal coaching.
The first component of the program involved eight peer coaching sessions over a 12-month period. Participants met in small, exclusive groups – typically in cohorts of seven to eight peers, but as many as 12 peers – every six weeks to discuss a variety of topics relevant to their jobs and stage of career (e.g. managing direct reports, career, self-branding, managing gen Y, etc.) and to provide each other with peer coaching and advice. Each group was comprised of people from different organizations. Sessions were led by a facilitator and lasted three hours each.
In order to provide a clear picture of this particular program and its respective objectives, it seems appropriate to draw on the words of the interviewees themselves. The following comments, from a participant in the program, describe the nature of this program and its goals:
The program was made up of about a group of people that I got together with from very different backgrounds, very different companies. We talked about shared experiences and challenges. What was quite amazing was the similarity in the kinds of issues or obstacles faced in middle management groups. (Director of one of a large consumer-based organization) […] One person would present an issue that they are struggling with, and they would describe the situation and we’d all go around and give some input on different ways of tackling it […].
[…] What I liked about our group was we came from different industries and different disciplines. So almost every area of the company was represented in that room.
Yet when you boiled it all down, we all had the same problems, the same issues facing us […].
(Director of Financial Reporting at a large publically traded media company).
2.2 Sample and data collection
At the time the study took place, 37 individuals (five cohorts) had completed a publically offered version of the program described above. We conducted in-depth interviews with 17 graduates of the program, which represents 46 percent of all participants. Our sample comprised 14 women and three men. In total, 12 respondents held the title of director, two respondents held the title of manager, one – senior vice president, and one – managing partner, and one integration leader. Most had been identified by their organizations as “high potential” employees. Participants represented a range of functional backgrounds, including operations, finance, HR, marketing, and sales. Most respondents worked for large organizations in a range of industries, including publishing, medical, and retail, whose names would be easily recognized.
The process of recruiting participants involved an initial e-mail invitation to participants in this program inviting them to partake in an interview-based research project. One of the researchers then scheduled and carried out interviews with 17 respondents. The interviews were largely unstructured, where we asked participants to share their observations of their experiences with the program and its impact on them as professionals.
All interviews began with the question “Please tell me about your current position and the organization you work for?” and moved to “Tell me about your experience with the leadership development program.” The interview then moved to an unstructured format with questions evolving according to the themes identified by the respective interviewees. However, the interviewer included specific additional questions about details concerning the program, participants’ experiences and perceptions of various aspects of the program, and whether – and how – their participation in the program may have impacted them. Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 minutes.
2.3 Analysis and findings
Interviews were audio taped and transcribed verbatim and then analyzed using thematic analysis (King, 2004) to identify the key themes in interviewees’ experiences of the respective program. Whereas we had an idea of some of the themes that might emerge based on our review of the respective literature we were also sensitive to new themes that might distinguish our findings from those already reported by other scholars, noted above. As reported below the identified themes provided a robust insight into interviewees’ perceptions of the respective program and how it fit with their notion of leadership development.
Thematic interpretation of participants’ responses yielded the following four major themes: first, the value of a learning community; second, the utility of a formal approach to peer coaching; third, the value of diversity and “externality”; and fourth, the value of an open learning environment. Each is described below.
2.3.1 The value of a learning community. All respondents, without exception, spoke about their positive impressions of the program. For example, a Director of Audience Development and Strategy at a media company reflected, “It’s the single most valuable thing I have ever done in terms of my career development.” Participants especially reported attaining affective and tangible types of outcomes. Affective outcomes included enhanced self-insight, greater feelings of self-confidence and self-assurance, and higher expectations and motivation. This is evident in comments from several interviewees such as the director at a book publisher who commented that the program: “[…] made me more proactive […].”
This was echoed by a Director of Digital Commerce at a publishing company who stated: “I felt that I was a better leader after going through the program.”
Tangible outcomes included improvements in leadership and decision-making skills. For example, the Director of Financial Reporting at a large publically traded media company stated: “I definitely would say, you know, a year later I am definitely a different person from a leadership perspective than I was a year ago and for the better.”
In the same way, the Director of Development and Outreach, at a not-for-profit national organization described how the program had impacted on his/her interpersonal interaction with his/her manager:
It gave me skills to speak with my boss about situations. So, I would actually, you know, it kind of empowered me to have conversations, uncomfortable conversations […]. like where my job was going, what the expectations were if I thought that I was being presented with challenges that weren’t within my scope or I was being put on the spot or I wasn’t having regular meetings. It helped me give structure with my relationship with my boss.
Some interviewees commented on the perceived superiority of this learning community as a learning experience over their in-house leadership development programs. For example, a Director of Audience Development and Strategy at a media company stated:
“The program […] was very hands on, very directed at your needs. The internal program was very generic.” In fact, participants were so pleased with the external peer coaching approach to leadership development that they persuaded the program developer to create an alumni group as reported by a Director of one of the largest consumer-based organizations in Canada:
We had such a good time with it we convinced [the program organizer] to set up an Alumni program and so we stuck together for another year and continued a similar approach […] it’s a really good opportunity for reinforcing those traits that make you an effective leader.
2.3.2 The utility of a formal approach to peer coaching. Peer coaching, broadly described as generating ideas and suggestions for dealing with various “real-life” challenges, offers a “sounding board,” and provides an opportunity for vicarious learning. The interview day indicated that peer coaching functioned especially as a personal support mechanism and basis for social comparison. One participant, Director of Audience Development and Strategy at a media company, commented that she found the sessions and participants to be: “Very supportive and very helpful and a very caring group.” A particularly important point for this interviewee was that having a “sounding board” external to her organization allowed her to avoid having to seek help from senior management and thus from running the risk of being seen as overly dependent or lacking knowledge: “You don’t always want to be running to your boss asking those questions so having that peer group to rely on to give you feedback and help you through issues was phenomenal.” We heard similar accounts from other interviewees such as the Director at a book publisher who stated that “I mean I really like having a peer group that I could share certain ideas and issues with.”
The perceived power of peer coaches who operate outside of the individual’s workplace was often seen as a major benefit to the leadership development program. For example, the Director of Digital Commerce at a publishing company described how:
“The ability to discuss issues with people at your level across different organizations and industries was really, really interesting and one of the best parts of the program.”
Similarly, the General Manager at a personal finance company described a stark difference between his perceptions of coaching and other more traditional approaches to leadership development and peer-to-peer coaching: “I’ve had one-on-one coaching before, done 360’s before, but the peer-to-peer mentoring was interesting, because when you’re providing advice sometimes you realize things that you know of, but it can be just as useful for yourself […] Then it’s also comforting just to hear that problems are not unique, that other people especially from different disciplines and types of companies run into the same problems.”
2.3.3 The value of diversity and “externality”. The value of diversity was a key theme across all interviews, which was also seen as further supporting the effectiveness of the program as a whole. First, there was a widespread feeling that organizational and functional diversity exposed group members to a variety of different perspectives and experiences, enhancing their capacity to apply different lenses when analyzing situations and, thus, broadening their options and enriching their decision-making as suggested by a Senior Vice President at a leading independent global PR firm reflect this sentiment, below:
I like that it brings people from different industries, different roles together, and we share problems that we all have. It’s very interesting to hear how others provided their objective counsel on what they might do or might not do, and we learn from that. Several interviewees echoed this theme such as a Managing Partner of a consulting company “[…] there is immense value for me in being able to sit in a room and discuss
challenges and share challenges with a group of peers from other organizations.”
Likewise, the Director of Financial Reporting at a large publicly traded media company noted: “The perspective the people brought to the table was great, because someone from HR is going to have a different perspective than someone from finance or someone from marketing or operations. It was great to see that cross-section and from
different industries.”
There was also widespread agreement that organizational diversity created an environment that facilitated more open sharing of sensitive information. It especially helped to establish a higher level of trust, making it easier to disclose personal experiences, thereby, facilitating learning. This reflects the “bartender effect” where individuals may feel more comfortable discussing their private/personal problems with a stranger. For example, our respondents suggested that they found it easier to openly share with others outside of their own organization rather than their immediate colleagues. This view was reflected in the following comment from Marketing Director at a large book publishing company who stated that “You can just be very frank about situations and you don’t need to be afraid of ever coming back here.” Similarly, a Director of one of the largest consumer-based organizations in Canada expressed the following sentiments:
I think [being external] was fundamental. There was nobody else from my industry, let alone my company, and that was phenomenal because we were able to talk extremely open and honest without any kind of concern of, you know, ramifications. We were able to explore very confidential ideas and have really good discussions and debates.
According to several interviewees, the value of diversity – which yielded a greater varietyof perspectives and a feeling of being able to share freely – trumped any value that may have come from having group members with industry-specific or company-specific knowledge. In fact, group diversity was perceived to be so important to participants that most respondents indicated scepticism that this type of program could be effectively replicated by companies in-house. The Director of Sales at a large distributor of products for utilities and pipelines also raised this point describing the value of external peers compared with his perceptions of in-house peers: “[In a case of an in-house program] you wouldn’t expect that level of openness without fear of repercussion in terms of discussions you’re able to have.” Similarly, the Director of Operations at a national retailer of home health care products and services stated the following: “The negative side of [an in-house program] is I don’t think individuals are going to talk very openly about any issues they’re having with their boss, or you know, there will be the concern that something like that could leak out or could be career limiting.”
2.3.4 The value of an open learning environment. A further dominant theme throughout the interviews was how an external peer coaching program can nurture an “open learning environment.” This finding is important given that “changing mindsets” is often a central theme in contemporary leadership development. Data analysis suggested that two types of distinct, yet mutually supportive, personal learning took place: work-related learning and career-related learning. Work-related learning involved learning how to complete job-specific tasks, deal with subordinates, address specific tactical challenges, and make better decisions. This type of learning is described in the following comment from Director at a book publisher: “It was also very goal-oriented, and I was able to apply it to my job and move things forward. So you know, it kind of related back to what I was working on.”
Other interviewees expressed similar views to that above. For example, the Director of Audience Development and Strategy at a media company, felt he/she could internalize the lessons learned from the program and move forward as a leader: “I give a lot of feedback, but I’ve learned through this process sometimes it wasn’t effective feedback. So I’ve really tried to improve how I’ve managed that process. Then I think also clarity of communications I’ve improved significantly as well.” Similarly, the Director of Sales at a large distributor of products for utilities and pipelines: was emphatic about how the program had helped him/her “Absolutely it helped me with that decision-making process.” This theme was also echoed by the Director, Development and Outreach, at a not-for-profit national organization: “It helps me to be more strategic in my thinking. It helped me identify my weaknesses or things that I needed to improve upon.”
Career-related learning was evident when interviewees described how their participation in the program had exposed them to a higher level of aspiration and created a different outlook on their careers. This was clearly identified by the Director of Sales at a large distributor of products for utilities and pipelines: “I would say it sort of opened up my eyes to, you know, the range of opportunities.” Likewise, the Integration Leader at a leading international medical company expressed a similar theme: “[…] there is this process you go through where you identify, you know, what are your values, what are your interests, and you kind of define what you want from a career perspective.” In addition to the comments above, we also heard other reports about how the program had facilitated a form of deep-rooted learning which may not have been possible in other learning formats. For example, the, Director of Audience Development and Strategy at a media company observed: “[…] it helped me better define what my own brand is and what my values are.” Likewise, the Director of Human Resources at the largest operator of horse racing in Canada reported the following: “I realized I needed to come up with a different plan […] So, that group really helped me kind of realize that I need to get back in the driver seat with respect to my own career.” It is also notable that in addition to identifying the two types of learning, interviewees also believed that the relationship between the two was recursive as suggested by the Director of one of the largest consumer-based organizations in Canada: “It’s a great opportunity to really make sure that you understand who you are as a leader and as a manager, and how you want to envision yourself and grow.”
- Discussion
This study contributes to the literature addressing leadership development in a number of important ways. First, much of the extant research has focused on either academic or student participants, whereas our study focused on business professionals.
In addition, we examined intra-organizational peer coaching program vs an inter-organizational peer coaching program – i.e. the latter where people are sent outside of the organization. We have also especially illustrated the need to better bridge the gap between two literatures – careers and leadership development. Career scholars explore the activities involved in developing careers (e.g. career communities) and leadership development scholars explore activities involved in developing leaders.
This study demonstrates the value of integrating knowledge from both these literatures to suggest that learning communities can impact leadership development in significant ways. Our aim was to examine whether and how effectively external peer coaching groups, which are a form of career communities, could be used for the purpose of leadership development. Our findings draw critical attention to the substantive contribution that learning communities can make toward leadership development. Specifically, our study revealed that external peer coaching and personal coaching deliver distinct types of value as part of a complete leadership development program. These components generate positive participant reactions, meaningful personal learning, significant affective and tangible outcomes, as well as a boost to accelerate individual careers.
Although many leadership development programs assume that “leadership” is best learned from top leaders (e.g. Presidents and CEOs), organizations can acquire unique benefits by leveraging the concept of peer coaching, which can produce substantial results by having managers at the same organizational level learn from each other. The traditional view is that leaders must be “home grown.” That is, businesses typically maintain in-house programs, workshops, and the like as the sole means of leadership development.
Our study underscores the value of “leaving home.” That is, participants in the learning community that we examined appeared to gain immensely from the nature of this “external” (i.e. outside of their own organization) source of peer coaching and leader development. Organizations may further maximize such benefits by sending their mid and senior-level managers to external peer coaching programs, which can deliver unique value in addition to any internal leadership development initiatives.