11Oct/120

Shanghai Motors: A Case Study in GeoleadershipTM

Posted by WABC

By Dr. E. S. Wibbeke and Dr. Cynthia Loubier-Ricca

Can leaders be successful leading business ventures in cultures outside of their own without understanding those novel cultures? If recent research and news accounts are correct, the answer is no. A conservative estimate suggests that 70% of global business ventures fail because of mismanagement of cultural differences.1 In this article, we address the question of intercultural leadership competence and how to build it. Based on original research conducted with 30 intercultural experts, we developed and tested a leadership preparation model we call GeoleadershipTM. This model does not suggest a blanket approach to leadership preparation approaches. Rather, it addresses missing aspects of culturally biased approaches. The remainder of the article describes the typical problems inherent in intercultural business contexts, presents the GeoleadershipTM Model components, and then applies the model to a specific case study in a global business.

The Problem of Culture

Whether or not we desire to, most adults act from a cultural bias. Culture influences, if not controls, our lives. Culture informs our religious/spiritual beliefs, our ways of eating, our manner of dress, and how we view the world. Our own cultures become so ingrained and second nature that they feel quite natural. When we put ourselves in another culture, we can quickly encounter customs, beliefs, and laws that feel quite unnatural. Therein lies the dilemma for business leaders who desire to conduct business in a culture outside their own. Leading a business venture in another country across national and international boundaries can be daunting. As recently as 2004, the world consisted of at least 200 nations and over 5000 ethnic groups. In many countries, the population is segmented into a dominant majority with one or more ethnic minorities amounting to more than 10% of the population.2

Theorists define culture variously and, as Pedersen and Connerley suggest, culture is often a misunderstood construct in organizations.3 Hall4 viewed culture as a mental exercise for sending, sorting, and processing of information. Kroeber and Kluckhohn5suggested that culture was an abstraction, rather than something tangible. Triandis6 perceived culture as a set of norms, roles, and values that produce meaning. Samovar and Porter7 suggested that culture is the cumulative deposit of knowledge and experience acquired by groups of people and then passed on to subsequent generations. House, Wright, and Aditya8 defined culture as the patterns of shared psychological properties among collective members resulting in attitudes and behaviors transmitted across generations. Such psychological properties include assumptions, beliefs, and values. When shared collectively, such properties become cultural norms or accepted behaviors. Although culture appears to be related to ethnicity, nationality, demography, or status, the typical definition is similar to Hofstede's "the collective programming of the mind that distinguished the members of one human group from another."9

Adding complexity to the picture is the fact that business organizations, too, have or are cultures. Shafritz and Ott10 described organizational culture as "a polemical concept which does not lend itself to a single definition." Van Maanen11 posited that it was "observed behavioral regularities when people interact, such as the language used and the rituals around deference and demeanor." Deal and Kennedy12 argued that culture is "the dominant values espoused by an organization, such as product quality, or price leadership and affects practically everything from who gets promoted and what decisions are made, to how employees dress."

Leadership Is a Cultural Concept

The problem with even the best-intentioned recommendations for leadership competence in intercultural contexts is that there still remains a cultural bias. In other words, the very concept of leadership is culturally bound. For example, in French, leadership (conduit) means "to guide one's own behavior, to guide others, or command action." Although the French are famous for protesting, authority commands deference and respect. In German, leadership (führung) means "guidance," and in organizations, it is construed to consist of uncertainty reduction. The leader guides action by the rules in such a way as to motivate. In Arabic, there is a word sheikh that has different meanings according to the regional culture. Literally, sheikh means a man over 40. However, in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia, sheikh means a person from the Royal Family. In Egypt, sheikhmeans a scholar of religion. In Lebanon, sheikh means a religious leader, even among Christians. The socioeconomic and political culture of the Middle East plays a role in influencing the definition of leadership, though it is generally agreed that leadership is tied to seniority before any other qualification. In most of the Middle East, the term" leadership" is a political term, with the exception that in Iran, it is more a religious term. In Chinese, the characters for leadership, mean "the leader and the led." The implication is that leadership can only be a relational activity. For this article, we focus on a US leader who faced the intersection of American and Chinese business culture.

The GeoleadershipTM Model

We conducted a study with leading intercultural experts from around the world to determine the critical competencies for intercultural leadership and how leaders can acquire them. While the study's questions focused on US business leaders, panelists concluded that their recommendations held for all leaders engaged in global enterprise.

From the analysis, we identified seven critical factors considered necessary for intercultural leadership competence. These seven critical factors were integrated and form the foundation for Geoleadership,TM a new intercultural leadership model. The seven factors are as follows:

Care: Global business leaders should hold and maintain equal concern for the bottom line and for stakeholder groups. One of the starkest criticisms of US business leaders is that their focus is on profit above all other considerations. While we can agree that one objective of business is profit creation, we also believe that a longer term and broader social system ultimately serves business.

Communication: In order for business leaders to lead effectively in intercultural situations, they must engage the people of the cultures in whose countries they work. Closely related to context is that leaders must reach out to people in other cultures with a desire to understand and appreciate that culture and its people. Leaders must learn communication skills that promote listening and open, respectful dialogue.

Consciousness: A person filling the role of leader (or manager) needs to develop self-awareness. A leader's awareness must be expandable as contexts shift such that the leader becomes aware of his/her own personal cultural background and bias relative to that of other people. Building consciousness means being able to expand self-awareness.

Contrasts: Leaders must be able to work comfortably and effectively with ambiguity. Developing a tolerance for working with contrasting perspectives, methods, and differing value systems is critical. Working in ambiguous contexts requires patience and consciousness. Working at such a high level of consciousness means that leaders must be able to perceive multiple levels of contrasting meaning simultaneously.

Context: Global business leaders must develop the ability to A) perceive, discern, and adapt to the situations within which they work, and B) suspend judgment. As trite as it may seem, the old expression "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" seems to apply. This is not to suggest that leaders patronize the people with whom they interact in intercultural contexts. Rather, global business leaders must attend to the situation in which they find themselves. Leaders need to be able to recognize their own culturally learned behavior and adapt it according to their new context.

Change: Postmodern organizations require leaders who demonstrate flexibility in adapting to dynamic cultural environments. Intercultural leaders must shift from the old mechanistic mindsets of the industrial era to the flexible adaptive perspective of organizational life as a complex sociocultural system.

Capability: In order for a leader to be effective in intercultural situations, sufficient personal and organization capabilities must be developed. Intercultural competence requires that leaders are able to assess their own and others' capability and build it where there is deficit. Most important is the leader's influence in facilitating the creation of an organizational culture capable of intercultural learning agility.

In the following section we present a case study and illustrate how each of the seven model principles potentially contributed to the success of a leader who transferred from the US to China, and who, as president, led his company's expansion into that country.

The Case of Shanghai Motors Parts

Tom Fontaine is the president of Shanghai Motor Parts, the second largest auto interior parts manufacturing company now operating in China. He is from Wisconsin, graduated from Princeton and Harvard universities, and is fluent in Mandarin. He has lived and worked in Shanghai with his wife and children for 15 years and become thoroughly immersed in the culture. The company's strategy for entering China was rather simple. China had a large workforce that was willing to work for much lower wages than laborers in Europe and North America. Moreover, there was a thriving economy and the Chinese people had acquired an appetite for driving automobiles. Before the current economic crisis, China was the third largest producer of automobiles in the world, although a large number were foreign carmakers. China's own auto manufacturers are not well known outside of that country. Shanghai Motor Parts found a niche selling interior parts and components to the largest of the homegrown Chinese auto manufacturers.

When Tom Fontaine took the assignment to explore the possibility of going into China, he had several concerns about navigating the Chinese culture. Tom's first consideration was related to the corporation's goals of expansion. Chief among those was his intention that whatever agreement was forged had to benefit all stakeholders. His worry was how to do that given that he was a novice, even though he was well traveled and had taken three years of Mandarin in college. Tom's first step before traveling to China was to contact someone who had experience with both business and Chinese culture. He knew from his Mandarin studies that there were many pitfalls that could befuddle someone who did not understand the subtleties of Chinese society. Tom cared about not only the impression he made, but also about the company's effect on the Chinese.

Tom's coach had advised that the Chinese, especially in the north, still live by the teachings of Confucius. For this reason, Tom began reading to reacquaint himself with Confucian ideals. What occurred to Tom was he had better do a lot of listening. Communication would be essential in building trust, and trust was a cornerstone of building relationships upon which business agreements could be forged.

Tom had an edge on some people who take on foreign assignments because he was a leader who had developed a high level of self-awareness. Consciousness,or being mindful, is important when shifting between situations and in maintaining integrity. What Tom learned was that the more he focused on the present and less on a goal in the future, the better his relationship building went. He learned he could be charming and humorous and that these qualities served him well. He learned the importance of attending to details and following through on everything he promised. Most importantly, Tom learned to cultivate every interaction by attending to the person and their needs.

The differences between how American and Chinese businesses operate is striking, and the ability to manage ambiguity and appreciate the contrastsbetween cultures is an essential skill for leaders working across cultural contexts. The key to understanding these differences struck Tom as requiring patience and perseverance. He determined that one important building block in forging relationships with the local people in Shanghai would be solving interpersonal problems rather than problems of process and legality. To the Chinese, building a relationship is about building trust; it is not about money.

In China, every interaction between people is based on a relationship. The concept of guanxi, which literally means "relationship," is held as a primary value. In business relationships, guanxi takes on additional meaning, referring to the network of relationships forged over time, relationships built on reciprocity. The Chinese society is much more complex than most Westerners imagine, differing vastly across many regions. Customs, language, and norms of each region must be recognized and honored. The Westerner who assumes that she/he has mastered China by coming to a base level of understanding of one city could blunder seriously.

Negotiating a business expansion into a new country, especially for those leaders who physically move to that country, entails monumental change.Through Tom's work in learning about Chinese culture, building greater self-awareness, and living in the moment, he increased his ability to adapt and be flexible.

By the time Tom had finished assessing the expansion to China, he knew whatcapabilities he and the company needed to grow. While he was confident, he was always tuned into the context and open to growth. As the relationship grew, Tom determined that if the company was going to move forward with expansion, it could not be on an American timetable. Tom had once heard an expression in the American business lingo that said to "slow down to move fast," and he began to understand the wisdom of the saying related to his company's endeavors in China. The most important capabilities that Tom acquired were cultivating self-awareness, developing appreciation for and knowledge of another culture, forging deep interpersonal relationships, creating a vision for the long-term, and learning to assume nothing.

We developed the GeoleadershipTM Model based on our research into the competencies required for business leaders to be successful in intercultural business contexts. The seven dimensions of the model foster comprehensive preparation for global business ventures through cultivating similar, but heightened, skills to what has been taught in traditional leadership models. While most leadership models advise attention to communication, intercultural contexts require heightened listening skills. While most models advise leaders to acquire an ability to live with ambiguity, a much greater emphasis is needed when entering different cultures. Cultivating skill in all seven dimensions is how one leader, Tom Fontaine, brought his company to China with success.

 

This article first appeared in Business Coaching Worldwide (June Issue 2010, Volume 6, Issue 1). Copyright © 2012 WABC Coaches Inc. All rights reserved.


1 International Labor Organization. 2004. World Employment Report. Geneva.
2 United Nations Human Development Report Office, 2004
3 Pedersen, P., & M. Connerley. 2005. Leadership in a Diverse and Multicultural Environment: Developing Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4 Hall, E. T. 1976. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
5 Kroeber, A., & C. Kluckholn. 1985. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. New York: Random House.
6 Triandis, H. C. 1993. The Contingency Model in Cross-Cultural Perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
7 Samovar, L. A., & R. E. Porter, eds. 2001. Communication between Cultures,4th ed. (1991). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
8 House, R. J., N. S. Wright, & R. N. Aditya, 1997. "Cross-Cultural Research on Organizational Leadership: A Critical Analysis and a Proposed Theory." In New Perspectives on International Industrial/Organizational Psychology, edited by P. C. Earley & M. Erez. San Francisco: New Lexington.
9 Hofstede, G., & G. J. Hofstede, 2004. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 2nd ed. (1996). New York: McGraw-Hill.
10 Shafritz, J. M., & J. S. Ott. 2000. Classics of Organization Theory, 5th ed. (1977). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt College.
11 Van Maanen, John. 1979. "Reclaiming Qualitative Methods for Organizational Research: A Preface." Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, December: 520-524.
1 Deal, Terrence E., & Allan A. Kennedy. 1982. Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life.  Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Dr. E.S. Wibbeke is the recognized management expert in how culture affects the bottom line. Dr. Wibbeke teaches Business Leadership courses at the University of Liverpool (UK) and Thunderbird School of Global Management (US), and holds a Doctorate in Organizational Leadership and an MBA in International Management. Dr. Wibbeke spent 20 years leading international projects at Fortune 500 firms, including 10 years in Silicon Valley. Dr. Wibbeke is author of Global Business Leadership (Elsevier, 2008), winner of the 2008 Best Business Book-San Diego Book Awards Association. Contact Dr. Wibbeke.

Dr. Cynthia Loubier-Ricca has been working as a consultant to individuals and organizations for the past 15 years. She regularly teaches courses in sociology, psychology, leadership, and research at the undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral levels. She serves as a research mentor, dissertation chairperson, and dissertation committee member quite often. She has served as principal investigator or chairperson for various research or evaluative projects employing qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-design methodologies. Cynthia has conducted her own research using such methods as case study, ethnography, grounded theory, and quasi-experimentation. She holds doctoral, masters, and bachelor degrees in social science and business fields. Cynthia holds certification in conducting ethical research with human subjects (University of Miami), including international research and Internet-based research.

If you wish to reproduce this article in any material form, you must first contact WABC for permission.
23Aug/120

Being Grateful – An Essential Perspective of Any Practitioner Researcher, by Dr. Annette Fillery-Travis

By Dr. Annette Fillery-Travis

So far in these columns we have discussed mainly methodological issues in research such as identifying your own perspective and engaging your community. While musing this week on where to go next, I found myself faced with a number of my own research challenges and realized that all of them revolved around research ethics. So I thought it was high time we opened up that can of worms!

As practitioners, we all aspire to work ethically with our clients. We make ourselves aware of codes of ethics and breathe a sigh of relief that we have a clear framework to steer us out of some of coaching's trickier situations! So, as practitioner researchers, is that enough or do we need a separate ethical framework specific to research?

After all, we do a number of similar things as researchers and as coaches—we uncover an individual's truth through question and challenge, explore meaning through analysis and synthesis, and may even experiment with new behaviors and design alternatives. In short, the initial stages of most coaching models mirror those of the research cycle, and the skills the coach and researcher bring to interventions are very similar. Surely we can use the same ethical framework for research as for coaching!

The answer to my mind is no—we need to go further for a number of reasons. The main one is the care of your participants. When you undertake any research, you are hoping that your participants will give you their time and engagement to provide you with their perspectives, thoughts, and feelings on the research topic. In return, they get the opportunity to have their voice heard. That's it! Nothing more.

So the balance of "gifts" between researcher and participants is rather one-sided. You are getting a wealth of information and knowledge from your participants; they are giving you their hopes, considerations, and reflections. They are prompting your thinking, shining a light on issues hitherto uncovered, and generally exposing their opinions/thoughts/feelings to your scrutiny and trusting you with it all. Your participants are going to provide you with the building blocks of the entire study. You are simply asking the questions. As a researcher I am left feeling profoundly grateful!

I owe my participants a debt: to take care of what they have given me and what I do with it. I need to make sure that it is kept secure and, when reporting my study, I need to keep my participants' safety uppermost in my mind. It is not just putting a tick in a box, but a sincere undertaking that acknowledges the debt of gratitude I owe to my participants, placing the burden of care squarely on my shoulders as the researcher.

Poorly run practitioner research can have devastating effects if we do not keep to a tight ethical framework. One veterinary surgeon I knew, interested in the development of diagnostic skills in young practitioners, designed an inquiry that would have resulted in his sharing his opinion of the skills of a small group of four vets with their boss. It would have been interesting to see who would have been the first vet to sue after being dismissed from their post. A quick rugby tackle by his research supervisor (me!) stopped that design going live, but it threw light on how ethical dilemmas emerge as soon as we start looking.

But it is not all bad news—there is a range of research ethical codes available from the major professional bodies. Best practice, such as a clear contract between you and your participants at the beginning, is also out there in the many books on research practice. But we also need to develop good internal ethical awareness, as no standardized code will cover all eventualities.

One rule of thumb that helps inform me is to consider the information given by a participant (in whatever form) as remaining their property. It is not something the researcher can use as he or she sees fit, but is, instead, a prized possession such as a work of art. An artist remains the spiritual owner of his/her art and the collector simply a custodian of the work. Its value comes from who created it. In a similar way, the participants continue to "own" their data and must give their permission for whatever happens to it. This will mean that we need to check back with our participants to ensure that we are correct in what we have heard from them, that they are amenable to their information being included, and that they give us explicit permission when we want to use quotes from them—even when these are unattributed.

This stance also stops us "giving" our data away to others, even fellow researchers, and this is not a bad thing. Data is bespoke to the study within which it was collected—a product of the question, design, methodology, and instrument used. Rarely is it transferable in its raw form. The outputs of the data analysis can be transferable and of general use, but not the raw data itself.

So keep ethically aware and you are not only taking your participants' gifts to you seriously, but you are taking your own research and work seriously!

Worth a Look

The British Psychological Society code of research ethics.

This article first appeared in Business Coaching Worldwide (June Issue 2009, Volume 5, Issue 2). Copyright © 2012 WABC Coaches Inc. All rights reserved.

If you wish to reproduce this article in any material form, you must first contact WABC for permission.
28Jun/120

Collaboration and Research—All for One and One for All, By Dr. Annette Fillery-Travis

A student once asked me why she should do a literature review and my answer was "...to engage in a dialogue with your community and find out what they have uncovered. Once you have done your research, tell them what you have found." Dialogue and collaboration can extend throughout your research life into your practice, and I have been particularly struck by this over the last few months.

It began with the Global Coaching Convention (GCC) in the summer of 2008. The GCC provided us the opportunity to connect with a global community and test our ideas with each other about what was important and why. Then in October 2008, the Foundation of Coaching brought together coaching researchers from around the world as part of the International Coaching Research Forum. This event was generously sponsored by the Harnisch Foundation, and personally attended by its president Ruth Ann Harnisch. Carol Kauffman and Mary Wayne Bush co-chaired the two-day event. Sunny Stout Rostron facilitated a structured workshop to produce 100 research proposals for sharing within the coaching community.

At the Forum, we exchanged ideas, co-created research designs and collaborated, culminating in the creation of an excellent resource for any of us who are thinking of doing research and want some guidance on what to research and how to do it. Each proposal has an aim, identification of a possible methodology and potential outcomes. They are freely available on the Coaching Commons—the web-hub for the Foundation. Have a look, find something you want to do and go ahead with all our blessings (just let us know what you find out!).

Clearly, 100 research proposals do not represent a comprehensive research strategy for the field. This work will need to be done in the future, so that those interested in doing and/or funding research (organizations, professional bodies and individuals) will know what could provide the most impact without duplicating previous efforts.

All other disciplines and professions have research priorities that highlight their real needs from multiple perspectives. Let's take the coaching profession seriously and initiate a collaboration between professional bodies, major buyers and national/internal bodies on this task that would have real value for everyone.

While at the Forum, I was struck by the number of proposals that dealt with coaching within the organizational context, specifically, with the development of coaching cultures. In the UK, the coaching capability of organizations is a "hot topic." I can see evidence that it is also on the agenda in Europe and the US. The rise has been organic, as Frisch identifies in his pivotal work about "the emerging role of the internal coach,"1 and it is obvious, but not expected.

In the postmodern world, just-in-time learning, self-direction, self-efficacy and flexibility are prized capabilities and coaching is seen as an effective method of developing them. The question is: How do we embed coaching within organizations in a way that fits their culture, context and needs and achieves all (or most) of the benefits?

This is not a trivial question. Do we have information on best practice yet? How generic is it? What factors (training, support, buy-in, etc.) are critical, and which are merely nice to have? Does it matter which sector you are in? The list of questions seems endless and we need answers yesterday!

In my own work,2 I have mapped out some of the field through case studies. The biggest surprise was the use of coaching within manufacturing industries (in this case, a diesel-engine manufacturer). In recent years, the market shift in these industries has been so dramatic that the admonition "We cannot afford not to coach" rings especially true.

I was delighted to read the recent research coming out of the Ashridge Centre for Coaching and also sponsored by the Chartered Institute of Personal Development in the UK.3 They looked at ways coaching had been embedded in a range of organizations and identified three basic modes. I will leave you to delve into exactly what they were; however, I wanted to highlight the methodology they used. As we said last time, the controlled experimental trial cannot answer some of the more complex research questions. This is a case in point.

There was no hypothesis here to be tested, but an exploration or "finding out" that needed to happen. There were a range of perspectives at play from the internal coaches, finance directors and managers as well as employees, all of whom had a tale to tell that had to be respected. The researchers were also "in the thick of it," not disinterested observers, and the research process itself needed to be flexible as information came to light. Finally, the researchers were actively seeking to bring about change and wanted to be influenced by the results.

The methodology they chose was collaborative inquiry (akin to action research), in which the organizations being studied actively participate in the research and the resulting change. A multitude of instruments was used (questionnaires, case studies and literature review) to get a rich picture of what was happening within the organizations. This cooperative engagement meant that the results have a resonance with anyone in the field and a practicality that makes the research highly accessible and useful. In short, the research had impact upon practice even before it was fully reported.

So do not be a solitary researcher, but enjoy your inquiry by collaborating till you drop!

Worth Reading

Definitely have a look at the coaching section on the CIPD website—there is a great deal offered from this research sponsor!

This article first appeared in Business Coaching Worldwide (February Issue 2009, Volume 5, Issue 1). Copyright © 2012 WABC Coaches Inc. All rights reserved.


1 Fisch, M.H. 2001. "The Emerging Role of the Internal Coach." Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. 53, 4: 240-250.
2 Jarvis, J., D. Lane, and A. Fillery-Travis. 2006. The Case for Coaching: Making Evidence-based Decisions on Coaching. London: CIPD.
3 Knights, A. and A. Poppleton. 2008. Developing Coaching Capability in Organisations. London: CIPD.

Dr. Annette Fillery-Travis is Director of Programmes MProf/DProf  at Middlesex University and a senior researcher and education coach with the Professional Development Foundation. The author of more than 60 research articles and studies, her book The Case for Coaching, presenting a literature review with research case studies and interviews from over 20 organizations on coaching efficacy, was published by CIPD, UK. Contact Annette.

If you wish to reproduce this article in any material form, you must first contact WABC for permission.
1Dec/110

Become a Dr. in Professional Studies (Business Coaching)

Posted by WABC

At WABC, we are serious about remaining a leading international authority on business coaching. Being a leader means blending excellence and innovation, a mixture we've aimed for in developing our suite of professional degrees and designations exclusively for business coaches.

That same mixture is at the heart of our latest development, the Doctorate in Professional Studies (Business Coaching). This first-ever international doctoral degree for business coaches is now the highest rung on the ladder of lifelong learning and achievement in our emerging profession.

We are honored to offer this fully accredited doctorate through our UK-based partner Middlesex University, an international leader in developing work-based programs. The doctoral program is open to WABC Full Members who hold either the Chartered Business Coach™ (ChBC™) designation or the Master of Arts in Professional Development (Business Coaching) degree.

What Is the DProf in Business Coaching?

The Doctorate in Professional Studies (Business Coaching) is the professional equivalent of a PhD. It involves the same assessment methods and criteria as a PhD, and graduates of both programs can call themselves "Dr.," but there are some key distinctions. Unlike the PhD, the DProf in Business Coaching focuses on practice-related research. It places business coaches and their practice at the center of the research project, enabling candidates to undertake research that's unique to them and their work environment.

The DProf in Business Coaching is for advanced business coaches who bring the highest level of professionalism and critical analysis to their practice. Here are just five benefits of earning this superior degree:

  • It tells clients and the marketplace that you've attained the highest professional mastery in our field.
  • Because this doctorate is practice-based, what you learn will elevate your client service and your career.
  • You'll learn from the world's best minds in business coaching.
  • The degree's multidisciplinary approach to research will broaden your horizons and expand your career options.

Your research will influence organizations as well as business coaching overall, making you a recognized thought leader in our field.

What's Involved?

Earning the Doctorate in Professional Studies (Business Coaching) typically takes three to four years. In Stage 1 you critically reflect on your practice and design a work-based research project. In Stage 2 you conduct the project, complete a research report and go through an oral examination. If successful, you earn the degree as well as the title "Dr."

There are no residency requirements for the DProf in Business Coaching. You will be registered with Middlesex University as a work-based student and will enjoy the full privileges of student status.

Is It for You?

You can apply for the Doctorate in Professional Studies (Business Coaching) if you meet these requirements:

  • You're an advanced practitioner of business coaching (external or internal coaching or a combination of both) who is actively publishing in the field, developing practice for other coaches or working with senior managers and business leaders. Your CV must describe and document your experience and advanced practice.
  • You hold either WABC's ChBC™ designation or Master of Arts in Professional Development (Business Coaching) degree.
  • You're a Full Member of WABC in good standing and have maintained all the membership standards.

Interested?

Get more details. Read more about the Doctorate in Professional Studies (Business Coaching), or the ChBC and MA programs that are the first step towards it.

Get in touch. Contact us to discuss enrolling.

 

If you wish to reproduce this article in any material form, you must first contact WABC for permission.