MEECO DESIGNATION REPORT 2017: MD ANDERSON III Issue May 18, 2017 | Page 5

Remarkable. Also appreciated is how your team is measuring the investment spent on each coach’s
education/credentialing. In some organizations, ICF certification is not a high enough standard,
especially when working with the C-suite. The Association of Corporate Executive Coaches is becoming
the go-to standard for this level of coaches. It is the only coaching organization offering Master
Corporate Executive Coach Certification to those with MBA’s or Ph.D.’s. These coaches have extensive
experience working with the C-suite for Fortune 1000 companies. This quality is consistent with the
robust certification requirements for internal coaches at MD Anderson. Well done.

The use of various competency models and frameworks are mostly unique to MD Anderson was also
outstanding.

SUSTAINABILITY OF THE ORGANIZATION'S COACHING CULTURE (An average score
of 14.6 out of a possible 15) - 2 members of the Evaluation Committee commented on the
sustainability of the culture:
Thank you for including the lessons learned section and plans for the future. This is most often the
weakest sections of submissions. Consider pre and post assessment to help measure progress as a result
of coaching. Also consider expanding stakeholder improvement ratings beyond the supervising leader
to HR and other key stakeholders. This rater also appreciated the amount of work that goes into
providing monthly coaching updates. Typically external coaches are used to doing this but also
including internal coaching is a large benefit. The rater could not tell if the report is used for both
internal and external coaching. Also, it seems as if the leadership 360° unique to MD Anderson is set up
for pre and post evaluation. I did not see much in the submission about post evaluation improvements.
Perhaps more time is needed to gather this data.

The recommended plans for the future provide a sustaining program and coaching culture that
include alumni programs, expanded internal coaching, Next Gen leaders, improved ROI

INCLUSION (An average score of 13.8 out of a possible 15) – 2 members of the Evaluation
Committee commented on how does the organization determine who is selected to receive
coaching:

Great description and use of coaching for different levels in the organization. Appears to be a good
deal of forethought in what each level receives and there is a nice blend/mix of 1:1, group, traditional
and onboarding uses, with compelling data showing the return on the coaching investment.

Their attention to inclusion is outstanding

COACHING BENCHMARKS (An average score of 14 out of a possible 15) – 1 member of
the Evaluation Committee commented on the integration of Coaching Benchmarks:

Uses Benchmarks to compare and contrast effectiveness: Excellent ties between the coaching program

5