The Future of Executive Coaching:Coaching With Appreciation through a
360 Degree Feedback Process
William Bergquist, Ph.D.
This article first appeared in the International Journal of Coaching in Organizations, 2003, 1(2),37-43. It can only be reprinted and distributed with prior written permission from Professional Coaching
Publications, Inc. (PCPI). Email John Lazar at [email protected] for such permission.
The Future of Executive Coaching:Coaching With Appreciation through a 360 Degree Feedback Process
William Bergquist, Ph.D.
Executive coaching is a timely response to the postmodern challenges that face contemporary organizations. Executivecoaching is also a human service field that holds great promise in the near future—especially when linked with one or more ofthree broad-based initiatives that are prominent in the landscape of contemporary organizational life. I briefly address thetimeliness of executive coaching, then turn to its linkages with these other initiatives and, in particular, to its linkage withmulti-source assessment systems and provide a case study to illustrate the interplay between executive coaching (taking anappreciative approach) and the most prominent of these assessment systems—360 Degree feedback.
It may not be coincidental that the field called executivecoaching has emerged at the same time as many orga-nizational analysts have described a postmodern worldof complexity, unpredictability and turbulence.1 To theextent that executive coaching is about the processes ofdecision-making (the “executive” function) rather thana specific organizational role (the person who serves asan “executive”)—then this field is particularly timelyand its future is bright.
Timeliness of Executive Coaching:Complexity, Unpredictability
and TurbulenceI propose that any employee in an organization whomust make decisions under the challenging conditionsof complexity, unpredictability and turbulence can ben-efit from the assistance of a knowledgeable and skillfulexecutive coach.
Complexity demands a level of cognitive functioningthat often leaves us, as Robert Kegan suggests, “in overour heads.”2 We must be able to understand andgrapple with complex problems that are often nestedinside other complex problems or are juxtaposed withother problems in dilemmas. In complex settings weare faced with an additional challenge: we must simul-taneously be able to think about our own thinking. Wemust be able to learn from our mistakes (and successes),as well as be aware of the setting in which we learn andin which we don’t learn (often called meta-learning)
We are even more challenged when faced with uncer-tainty. Under conditions of uncertainty, obviously, wecan’t predict what will happen next. However, there isan additional challenge: we are continually faced withnew information that comes from many different angles.We must continually accommodate to this new infor-mation while abandoning—at least temporarily—
old assimilated models, assumptions,3 and social con-structions of organizational reality. In Kurt Lewin’sterms we are always unfreezing and never have a chanceto settle in with our new learning and new accommoda-tion.4
Turbulence further compounds the challenge, given thatwe, as decision-makers, must live in a swirling “whitewater world” in which rapid change intermixes withpatterned change, stagnation and chaos. Somehow inthe midst of this turbulence—which is driven by ever-accelerating change—we must find our own personal(some would say “spiritual”) core.5 We search for sanc-tuary from this turbulence and must always adjust to aworld with new change-dynamics. At the end of theday, we can’t even remember what happened to us at
If we, as executive coaches, can make a case for thevalue of the services we render as being directly alignedwith, appreciative of, and effective in addressing thechallenges of complexity, unpredictability and turbu-lence, then we can anticipate that the field of execu-tive coaching will be sustained. If we can make a par-ticularly strong case, then this endeavor called execu-tive coaching will play a growing and increasinglyimportant role in 21st Century organizational life.
the start of the day—because we have had to make somany adjustments throughout the day!
Linkage of Executive CoachingTo Other Broad-Based Organizational
InitiativesHow does one establish this alignment between ex-ecutive coaching and the three challenges ofpostmodern organizational life? I propose that thisalignment can readily be established if executivecoaching is linked to one of three organizational ini-tiatives: (1) leadership development and training,
The International Journal of Coaching in Organizations
38
(2) strategic planning and planned organizationalchange/transformation and (3) 360 Degree feedbackprocesses. Each of these three initiatives tends to in-crease organizational complexity, unpredictability andturbulence—especially when the initiative is beginningto have an impact on the organization. At this momentof impact—this “tipping point”6 —an executive coachcan be of great benefit. This can be a “coachable mo-ment” when the knowledge and skill of the executivecoach can be directly brought to bear in helping a deci-sion-maker face the challenge of complexity,unpredictability and turbulence.
In future issues of this journal I hope to identify execu-tive coaching strategies that are particularly appropri-ate in response to the unique challenges of leadershipdevelopment and training, and the substantial chal-lenges of strategic planning and planned organizationalchange and transformation. The attention in this articlewill be placed on the interplay between executive coach-ing and multi-source feedback processes—and, in par-ticular, the family of feedback processes often labeled“360 Degree Feedback.”
Multi-Source Feedback:The 360 Degree Feedback Process
Though it is plagued with many problems, multi-sourcefeedback processes for appraising the performance ofemployees are currently receiving extensive attention incorporate life. By 1996, at least one quarter of the busi-ness organizations in the United States reported using amulti-source feedback process.7 Furthermore, “more thanninety percent of the Fortune 1000 companies [by 1996used] some form of multi-source assessment system forat least developmental feedback.”8 The percentage hasprobably grown much larger since 1996. This enthusi-asm is accompanied by an equally impressive contro-versy concerning the appropriate use and potential costsand benefits associated with this process.
Often labeled 360-Degree feedback, multi-source assess-ment requires that several different people within (andsometimes outside) the organization assess anemployee’s performance. Typically, the employee doesa self-assessment and this assessment is compared withassessments completed by other people who are famil-iar with this employee’s work.
Multi-source assessment is about expanding the per-spective of an employee regarding her own performance.It is also about broadening the base of an assessmentand hopefully improving the validity of data gatheredabout an employee’s performance. This performance ap-praisal process begins with the self-assessment by theemployee, along with the assessment by this employee’ssupervisor. This is called 1 Degree feedback.9 Then the
expansion begins. The most common types of expan-sion are up, down and sideways in the organization.The assessment by colleagues (lateral) is called 90 De-gree feedback, while upward assessment by subordinatesis labeled 180 Degree feedback.10
At a more ambitious level, the scope of this assessmentcan be expanded to include other people inside and out-side the organization. These are the so-called 360 Degreefeedback processes. 360 Degree feedback programs mayinclude other employees in the organization who havebeen impacted by the employee’s performance. Theseare often identified as internal customers of the employeewho is being assessed. A 360 Degree feedback assess-ment might also include people outside the organiza-tion who are directly served by the employee orwhobenefit indirectly from his work. These are the exter-nal customers. Frequently, customers are brought in notonly to provide feedback but also help design the pro-cess.11
The true 360 Degree feedback process involves all ofthese sources,12 though in a few cases, a multi-sourceassessment may be even more extensive, involving thesolicitation of appraisals from members of theemployee’s family, friends or former employers. Thisextensive review is typically oriented toward em-ployee development, rather than being used for per-sonnel decisions. It is usually only available to thehighest-level employees in an organization and israrely mandatory. In yet other cases, the 360 Degreefeedback process is conducted with a team rather thanan individual employee. Data are gathered not onlyfrom team members, but also from customers, inde-pendent observers and raters, other teams in the orga-nization, and the supervisor to whom the team re-ports. In some instances an entire organization hasconducted a 360-Degree feedback process regardingits own operations.13
Three Tiers of AssessmentThe 360 Degree feedback process involves either two orthree tiers of assessment. The first tier is self-assessment.The employee usually rates his own performance usingthe same scale that is distributed to the other peopleinvolved in the 360 Degree assessment. When I conducta 360 process, there is an additional questionnaire filledout by the person being assessed. I ask this person topredict how he thinks the other people completing thescale will rate him.
The second tier is assessment by others. In most cases, theemployee helps to select the people who will rate him,though the final list remains confidential to preserveanonymity. Typically, seven or eight colleagues are askedto complete the rating scale, though this number may beas great as twenty-five or as little as four or five. The
2003 Annual Edition (Issue Two)
39
employee is usually provided with ample informationregarding the tier-two ratings. The employee’s own rat-ings are usually juxtaposed with ratings from the otherfeedback sources. Sometimes, the ratings are comparedwith ratings given to other employees in the organiza-tion. The ratings for an employee might even be com-pared to national norms if the feedback instrument waspurchased from a major vendor.14
There is a third tier that is rarely addressed in a 360Degree feedback process. This third tier concerns assess-ment of the context or culture in which the employee oper-ates and in which the ratings are being solicited. Muchas a fish can’t tell you much about the water in whichshe swims, so an employee and her colleagues can rarelytell you much about the setting in which they work. Thissetting, however, has an impact on their performanceand their perceptions of one another. While many 360Degree advocates suggest that multi-source feedback caninfluence organizational culture,15 most fail to recog-nize that influence can also flow in the opposite direc-tion: organizational culture can influence the ratingsbeing given to individual employees engaged in a 360Degree feedback process.
The Challenges of 360 Degree FeedbackWhether a Two Tier or Three Tier system is engaged, themajor challenge is one of managing the complexity ofdata being analyzed. This complexity confronts boththose who administer this system and those who re-ceive the feedback. As Tornow and London observe:16
Clearly, this is no small task. It requires a gooddeal of cognitive complexity, in addition to affec-tive acknowledgment of the validity and legiti-macy of the feedback. It also requires balancingmultiple and perhaps conflicting perspectives, aswell as balancing a sense of self with the largercontext and role requirements.
Tornow and London have identified an important draw-back to many 360-Degree feedback processes. The re-ports that are prepared often produce information over-load, and may produce a sense of despair, perhaps be-cause multi-source feedback is usually accompanied byvery few follow-up services. The employee receives animpressive, highly creditable report filled with colorfulcharts and graphs. She is told how to make sense ofthese graphs and numbers—and is then left alone tonavigate the stormy sea this type of report can stir up.Recent research suggests that only forty percent of themulti-source feedback systems are linked to develop-ment programs that specifically address the areasbeingassessed in the 360 Degree feedback.17 Much ofthe bad press regarding 360 Degree feedback processesis generated by this insensitive and often abusive policyof providing the feedback without follow-up services.
As the leaders of the Center for Creative Leadership haverepeatedly noted, the qualities being assessed in a 360Degree feedback process should always be develop-able,whether this process is being used for personnel deci-sions or for development.18 The Center for Creative Lead-ership (CCL) has been at the forefront of leadership de-velopment programs and 360-Degree feedback pro-cesses for many years; hence, the insights of CCL staffregarding the essential link between 360 Degree feed-back processes and development should be given cre-dence:19
Although it is useful to gain self-knowledge about as-pects of character that are stable (and therefore notchangeable), it is important for managers to know thatcharacteristics being assessed are also amenable to de-velopment, especially when improvement is the goal.Behavioral or otherwise observable items forming scalesthat relate to practices or perspectives one can changeare the most useful form for 360-Degree feedback, in thatit enables managers to engage in a goal-setting and de-velopment-planning process that enhances involvementand self-determination.
A 360 Degree feedback process can generate several ad-ditional psychological storms even if presented in athoughtful and appreciative manner. First, the data fromother people in the organization can dis-confirm anemployee’s sense of self. Substantial research suggeststhat there is usually greater concurrence in the ratingsof peers, subordinates and superiors, than there is be-tween the self-ratings of an employee and any one ofthese three rating groups.20
Employees are likely to be surprised by the appraisalsbeing offered by other people in their organization. Theemployees who are least effective and most likely to re-ceive negative feedback are particularly vulnerable, forresearch studies indicate that these employees are likelyto be most surprised by the feedback they receive.21 Theyare particularly inclined to over-rate their own perfor-mance. Atwater suggests that this dis-confirmation isparticularly difficult for poor performers with high self-esteem:22
These individuals tended not to accept negative feed-back because it was inconsistent with their self-percep-tions. This pattern creates a vicious cycle wherein thehigh self-esteem perpetuates inaccurate self-perceptionby causing individuals to deny information that contra-dicts their high opinions of themselves. The implica-tions of these findings about self-esteem . . . suggest aparticular problem if the high self-esteem is unfoundedand negative feedback is needed. If the feedback is dis-counted so as to maintain the positive self-esteem, it willbe difficult to convince these individuals that change isnecessary.
The International Journal of Coaching in Organizations
40
The force of the data received in a 360 Degree feedbackprocess creates a second storm for its recipients. While itis easy to dismiss the feedback from a boss or from adirect report, it is much harder to dismiss this feedbackwhen it comes from several sources and these sourcestend to agree with one another. The increasing reliabil-ity and validity of the 360 Degree tools that are beingused produces even greater threat. There is no way toescape from or discount these finely wrought statistics.Given the credibility of the feedback, the recipient is facedwith the task of learning something new about himself.As a learner, the 360 Degree participant must be willingto seek out additional feedback to gain greater clarityabout areas for further development. Feedback recipi-ents must be willing to live outside their comfort zoneand must be willing to “take the risk of engaging inactivities that challenge their skills and abilities.”23
A poorly administered 360 Degree feedback process islikely to create yet another psychological storm. Thisstorm arises from the alteration of relationships withcolleagues that many 360 Degree feedback processes pro-duce. In most instances, the feedback one receives comesfrom anonymous sources. The feedback recipient typi-cally doesn’t know specifically who has rated him,though the recipient usually has helped to create a listofpotential raters. Thus, when the feedback is received,employees will inevitably wonder who filled out the rat-ing form and why they rated as they did.
The feedback recipient often would like to talk with thosewho completed the rating; yet, they know that this can’tbe done without shattering the anonymity and confi-dentiality barriers. These are perfect conditions for mildparanoia and for an employee to project his own fearsand uncertainties about self onto other people withwhom he works. Without adequate follow-up, a 360Degree feedback process can destroy a sense of team-work and create a climate of suspicion and mistrust.
The Linkage:Appreciative Executive Coaching and
360-Degree FeedbackThe message is clear. 360 Degree feedback processes arepowerful and they must be handled, like any other powerfultool, with great care. Irreparable damage can be done.Much good can come from the use of two and three tierassessments, yet these appraisals must be done in athoughtful and appreciative manner, with substantialfollow-up and a direct tie-in with executive coachingprocesses. An appreciative approach to 360 Degree feed-back can help to alleviate some of the psychological stormand potential damage. Appreciative feedback focuseson strengths and opportunities, rather than primarilyon deficits and barriers.24 In learning about his strengthsand capabilities, as well as viewing problem areas asopportunities, the feedback recipient can sustain high
self-esteem, while also facing the challenge of changeand reconfigured images of self.
An appreciative approach can also be helpful in thisregard because it is always leaning into the future. Feed-back recipients are encouraged to forge an image of suc-cessful functioning that helps to guide and sustain themthrough the difficult and often destabilizing processesof personal change.25 Any 360 Degree feedback processwill inevitably produce some discomfort with regard tosense of self and level of self-esteem. However, appre-ciative feedback is much more likely to enable a recipi-ent to turn this discomfort into learning and develop-ment than is feedback that has been infused with defi-cits.26
I propose that there are five primary areas in which ex-ecutive coaching from an appreciative perspective canbe most effective when linked to 360 Degree feedback.The appreciative executive coach can help the recipientof the feedback: (1) understand and sort through the complex (often contradictory) information contained in the feedback report, (2) reduce non-constructive defensiveness and dam- aging loss of self-esteem associated with unantici pated feedback, (3) identify strengths and successes inherent in the feedback, so that this appreciation of strengths and successes can motivate and serve as guidance for addressing the areas where further development is needed, (4) trace out the implications of this feedback for deci- sions to be made in the future, and (5) retain the lessons learned from the feedback and maximize the application of these lessons (transfer of learning) in the workplace (and potentially elsewhere in the recipient’s life).
I wish to bring these five areas of executive coachingalive by closing this article with a case study of execu-tive coaching that has been linked directly with a 360Degree feedback process.
Case Study: Sam AgagarianSam Agagarian is CEO of a very large human serviceagency—I will call it the Human Service Center (HSC)—located in an urban region of the Pacific Northwest. Hehas served as CEO of HSC for the past eight years andhas brought his organization to a place where it is thriv-ing financially and has received many national awardsas a “healthy” place in which to work and in which toreceive services. Sam comes to his 360 Degree feedbackand the supporting executive coaching process not as acolleague who is in trouble, but as someone who wantsto sustain and further improve his performance as an
2003 Annual Edition (Issue Two)
41
How Did I Get Involved?I received a call several years ago from a colleague whohad recently graduated from the senior level certifica-tion program I conduct. I knew from conversations withher (I will call her Sara) that Sara was involved in acomprehensive executive coaching program with HSC.She also informed me that HSC had been involved in alarge-scale 360 Degree feedback program for many yearsand that all of the senior level administration of HSChad participated in this program.
Sara indicated to me that all the vice presidents of HSChad recently received feedback from a 360 Degree pro-cess and that they all were receiving executive coachingfrom Sara or one of her colleagues, as a way to make thisfeedback more useful to them. In the past, little was doneother than distribute and interpret the 360 results. I wasvery pleased that she had been able to couple coachingwith the 360.
Sara then told me that the president and CEO of HSChad not yet engaged in the latest 360 process and thatshe felt uncomfortable conducting this 360 with him orfollowing up with executive coaching to him. Her reti-cence was based both on her concern that she was al-ready coaching many of his subordinates and that shethought he would benefit more from a “senior-level”executive coach who could offer both extensive experi-ence and academic credibility. Sara thought that I wouldbe a good fit. I agreed to take on the assignment.
Why the 360-Degree Feedback and Executive Coach-ing?I met with Sam Agagarian in his large, cluttered officethat looked out over the city he served. I was more anx-ious than usually in starting this new executive coach-ing engagement, in part because I knew of his reputa-tion as a competent and highly acclaimed executiveleader. What would I have to offer? Sam and I met twicefor two hours apiece to accomplish two tasks. First, wedesigned a 360 Degree feedback instrument and pro-cess that would meet his needs. Second, we both werechecking out our relationship to see if a long-term ex-ecutive coaching process might be appropriate.
There was also a third reason that I did not overtly ar-ticulate to Sam. I wanted to identify the reasons why hewanted to participate in this feedback and coaching pro-cess. By the end of our first two-hour meeting I had dis-covered four reasons. Two of the reasons were not verystrong. The other two convinced me that this would be aworthy endeavor.
I find the first of the reasons to be common among ad-ministrators participating in 360s. Administrators en-gage in 360s because their colleagues have already com-pleted them and everyone “has to take their medicine.”This rather macho approach to 360s is not very helpful.It implies that the 360 feedback is primarily negative innature and that the recipient is to successfully “defend”against this feedback rather than use it for improvement.All of Sam’s vice presidents had completed the processand Sam “had” to do it to show that he could “take it”just as his subordinates did. This is not a very good rea-son.
The second reason was also not very convincing. A 360Degree feedback process had been completed three yearsago at HSC and therefore should be done again. Prece-dence is never sufficient justification for any personal ororganizational intervention. There are several benefits,however, to be derived from precedence—if one honorsthe work already done.
As consultants or coaches we can replicate the processpreviously engaged and in this way gain invaluable lon-gitudinal data about the person or organization we arestudying. In this case, I encouraged Sam to use the same360 instrument that was used three years ago—with sev-eral additions and modifications. In this way, we couldtrack changes in the ratings and qualitative feedback hereceived from this instrument. While the 360 instrumentthat had been used three years before was not among thebest I have seen, it had been tailored for Sam and HSC,and was owned by HSC (hence could be modified with-out requiring outside permission).
The third and fourth reasons were excellent and led me
organizational leader. An appreciative approach hasbeen particularly appropriate for and valued by Sam—as it is with many highly successful leaders.
to reconfirm my acceptance of the 360 Degree feedbackand executive coaching assignment. It became clear tome within the first hour of our interaction that Sam wasvitally interested in his own ongoing professional de-velopment. He strongly (and knowledgeably) supportedthe use of executive coaching by all of his vice presi-dents and he was envious of the services they were re-ceiving. Sam wanted his own coach and wanted thiscoach to begin working with him in conjunction withthe date he was about to receive from the 360 feedback.
It became apparent to me almost immediately that Samcould use some assistance in interpreting the 360 feed-back, given that he intended (as he did three years be-fore) to request feedback from a broad constituency—more than 20 people. Some of these would be respon-dents who are members of the HSC staff. Others wouldcome from outside his immediate staff. They would bemembers of his board of directors, community leaders—even CEOs from institutions that competed with HSCfor services. I immediately liked and admired this manand his willingness (even eagerness) to receive and makeuse of feedback from many different sources.
The International Journal of Coaching in Organizations
42
The fourth reason was also persuasive. My colleague(Sara) had thoughtfully and carefully established a com-prehensive executive coaching program that was tiednot only to the 360 feedback process, but also to thebuilding of an effective executive management team andestablishment of a new master plan for HSC. I trustedSara’s intentions, her competence and her appreciativeperspective with regard to coaching (a perspective Istrongly embrace). I believe that 360 feedback processescan be powerful and appropriate motivators for engag-ing in executive coaching. Conversely, an existing ex-ecutive coaching program can be a constructive andmotivating gateway to enter a 360 Degree feedback pro-cess. I identify this strategy as “instrumented coach-ing” and make extensive use of instruments of manydifferent types in my own executive coaching work.27
Linking 360 Degree Feedback Processes to ExecutiveCoachingOne of the challenges facing anyone who designs andimplements 360 Degree feedback systems concerns thecomplexity of the information that is collected. If there isto be no follow-up from the 360, other than one or twohours of interpretation, then the data that are gatheredmust be kept relatively simple—both conceptually andthe way they are presented. There usually are no morethan ten to fifteen categories and the data are presentedin graphic form (with no more than 2 or 3 data pointsper category). This restriction is not required if execu-tive coaching supplements the feedback. One can gatherrich data that represent many different categories andperspectives. The coach and colleague (I prefer to usethis term rather than “client”) can readily work withstatistics (such as standard deviation scores rather thanjust points on a graph) and qualitative data (such asquotations, thematic analyses, metaphors, and vig-nettes).
Given that Sam and I were going to engage in executivecoaching, I suggested that the 360 feedback process con-tain several unusual components. First, I recommendedthat the standard categories focusing on Sam’s compe-tencies (360 feedback processes are inevitably norma-tive in nature) be supplemented with four items (briefcase studies) that would yield information about Sam’sinterpersonal style (a descriptive rather than normativeapproach to 360 feedback). Second, I recommended thatSam complete a self-assessment version of the 360 in-strument. This version invited Sam to rate himself withregard to both competencies and interpersonal style.28
Third, I made an unusual request of Sam: I invited himto fill out a third version of the 360 instrument whichasked Sam to predict how he thinks his colleagues willrate him with regard to his competencies and interper-sonal styles. Sam agreed to all three of these modifica-tions.
The OutcomesData were gathered on Sam’s competencies and stylesfrom 22 people. There was an impressive 100% rate ofreturn. In addition, Sam completed the Self-Assessmentand Prediction versions of the 360 inventory. I assembledall the data (along with written comments made by manyof the respondents). Sam and I reviewed the data over aperiod of two months (two-hour sessions every two tothree weeks). Upon completing this intensive review wedecided to keep meeting once a month in order to en-gage in a formal executive coaching process.
During our coaching sessions we decided to addressfive themes that had emerged from review of the 360feedback data:
(1) Several of Sam’s major strengths [loyalty,nurturing attitude, thoughtfulness] alsogets him in trouble. [Sam is unwilling tomake hard decisions, he often delays deci-sions, and may have too many personal re-lationships with his subordinates],
(2) Respondents are worried about Sam burn-ing out. [Sam assumes too much responsi-bility and works too many hours each day],
(3) Sam needs to build a stronger vice presi-dential team and give them more responsi-bility. [Too many people are going aroundthe vice presidents to work directly withSam],
(4) One of Sam’s vice presidents is a source ofmajor problems for many members of theorganization. [She must be confronted bySam], and
(5) Sam is the “heart and soul” of the organi-zation. [Sam must begin (as a man in hisearly 60s) to address the difficult issue ofsuccession planning].
ConclusionsIt’s now two years later. Sam and I are still working onthese issues. He has engaged in a major reorganizationplan that helps HSC prepare for new leadership, hasdirectly confronted his problematic vice president andhas begun to do a better job of setting boundaries aroundhis own time. The insights he gained regarding hisstrengths getting him in trouble came directly from theinterpersonal style items on the 360 Degree feedbackinventory. Sam found the style ratings (descriptive) tobe of much greater value than the competency ratings(normative).
I suspect that many senior administrators, like Sam, areaware of their shortcomings and their areas of incompe-tence. What’s “news” to them are the many ways inwhich the strengths on which they have long relied arealso sources of their problems and pitfalls. These in-
2003 Annual Edition (Issue Two)
43
sights are not simple “oh, that’s what happens.” Rather,they tend to come from long, reflective deliberations andthe analysis of many specific problems—in an ongoingexecutive coaching process. This is where executivecoaching can benefit most from a linkage to 360 Degreefeedback processes and where the future of executivecoaching might look most bright._______________________________________________
Bill Bergquist has served as a coach, consultant andtrainer for more than 30 years to 1,000+ corporations,educational institutions, human service agencies, gov-ernments and churches. He has authored thirty-sixbooks and more than forty articles that focus on indi-viduals, organizations and societies undergoing pro-found transformation. President of an independentgraduate school that provides Masters and Doctoral leveleducation to mature, accomplished adults, Bill also pro-vides advanced-level certification programs in execu-tive and performance coaching.
_______________________________________________
Endnotes
1 Notable analysts include Peter Drucker, Rosabeth Kanter,Peter Vaill, Margaret Wheatley, Ralph Stacey and WilliamBergquist.2 Robert Kegan. In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands ofModern Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.3 Chris Argyris and Donald Schon Theory in Practice: IncreasingProfessional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975; ChrisArgyris. Reasoning, Learning, and Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989;Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline. New York:Doubleday, 1990.4 Kurt Lewin. “Frontiers in Group Dynamics,” Human Relations,1947, 1, pp. 5-41.5 Peter Vail, Managing as a Performing Art. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989.6 Malcolm Gladwell. The Tipping Point. Boston: Little, Brown,2000.7 Jeanne Atwater, “The Advantages and Pitfalls of Self-Assessment in Organizations,” in James W. Smither (ed.).Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 1998, p. 332.8 Mark Edwards and Ann Ewen. 360-Degree Feedback. NewYork: American Management Association, 1996, p. 9.9 Mark Edwards and Ann Ewen. 360-Degree Feedback. NewYork: American Management Association, 1996, p. 38.10 Mark Edwards and Ann Ewen. 360-Degree Feedback. NewYork: American Management Association, 1996, p. 40-41.
11 Carol Paradise-Tornow, “The Competitive Advantage ofCustomer Involvement in 360-Degree Feedback,” in WalterTornow, Manuel London and CCL Associates. Maximizing theValue of 360-Degree Feedback. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998,p. 104.12 Mark Edwards and Ann Ewen. 360-Degree Feedback. NewYork: American Management Association, 1996, p. 42.13 Patricia O’Connor Wilson, Cynthia McCauley and Lifly Kelly-Radford, “360-Degree Feedback in the Establishment ofLearning Cultures,” in Walter Tornow, Manuel London andCCL Associates. Maximizing the Value of 360-Degree Feedback.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998, pp. 136-137.14 Ellen Van Velsor, “Designing 360-Degree Feedback toEnhance Involvement, Self-Determination, and Commitment, inWalter Tornow, Manuel London and CCL Associates. Maximiz-ing the Value of 360-Degree Feedback. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,1998, p. 158-192.15 David Waldman and Leanne Atwater. The Power of 360-Degree Feedback. Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1998.16 Walter Tornow and Manuel London, “Challenges andImplications for Maximizing 360-Degree Feedback,” in WalterTornow, Manuel London and CCL Associates. Maximizing theValue of 360-Degree Feedback. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998,p. 250.17Anthony Dalessio, “Using Multisource Feedback for Em-ployee Development and Personnel Decisions,” in James W.Smither (ed.). Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998, p. 321.18 Ellen Van Velsor, “Designing 360-Degree Feedback toEnhance Involvement, Self-Determination, and Commitment, inWalter Tornow, Manuel London and CCL Associates. Maximiz-ing the Value of 360-Degree Feedback. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,1998, p. 170-171.19 Ellen Van Velsor, “Designing 360-Degree Feedback toEnhance Involvement, Self-Determination, and Commitment, inWalter Tornow, Manuel London and CCL Associates. Maximiz-ing the Value of 360-Degree Feedback. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,1998, p. 170.20 Anthony Dalessio, “Using Multisource Feedback forEmployee Development and Personnel Decisions,” in James W.Smither (ed.). Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998, p. 289.21 Anthony Dalessio, “Using Multisource Feedback forEmployee Development and Personnel Decisions,” in James W.Smither (ed.). Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998, p. 289-290.22 Jeanne Atwater, “The Advantages and Pitfalls of Self-Assessment in Organizations,” in James W. Smither (ed.).Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 1998, p. 332.23 Patricia O’Connor Wilson, Cynthia McCauley and Lifly Kelly-Radford, “360-Degree Feedback in the Establishment ofLearning Cultures,” in Walter Tornow, Manuel London andCCL Associates. Maximizing the Value of 360-Degree Feedback.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998, pp. 124.24 Deborah Jude-York and Susan Wise. Multipoint Feedback.Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Publications, 1997, pp. 60-63; MichelleLeDuff Collins. The Thin Book of 360 Feedback: A Manager’sGuide. Plano, TX: Thin Book Publishing, 2000, p.56.25 Michelle LeDuff Collins. The Thin Book of 360 Feedback: AManager’s Guide. Plano, TX: Thin Book Publishing, 2000, pp. 45-46; Deborah Jude-York and Susan Wise. Multipoint Feedback.Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Publications, 1997, p. 33.
The International Journal of Coaching in Organizations (IJCO) is the signature publication of
Professional Coaching Publications, Inc. (PCPI). In addition to this internationally acclaimed
journal, PCPI publishes books on topics of interest to those in the coaching community, whether
practitioner, decision maker, or end user. You can count on PCPI, Inc. to provide content that
pushes the envelope — bringing theory, research and application together in ways that inform,
engage and provoke. Visit the PCPI website, www.pcpionline.com, to view and purchase our
growing line of products.
If you have administrative questions, please refer them to our IJCO Office Manager, at
[email protected]. For advertising, marketing and operations inquiries, please refer
them to John Lazar, IJCO Co-Executive Editor, at [email protected]. Please submit unsolicited
manuscripts for peer review consideration to the IJCO office manager at [email protected].
Visit Both Our Sites at Your Convenience
Journal information:www.ijco.info
Purchases:www.pcpionline.com
Resource Center for Professional Coaching in Organizations
