← jemcoach.comSample · Fictional data

Network-Enhanced Coaching Report

Dana Whitfield

VP, Clinical Operations · Meridian Health Partners

Engagement started March 19, 2026 · 13 participants · Active

Survey Rounds

Three rounds completed

RoundTypeInvitedCompletedRate
Baseline — Q1Network ONA1111100%
Check-in — Q2FeedForward mini-survey88100%
Check-in — Q3FeedForward mini-survey77100%
13
Active participants
55
Mapped ties
0.35
Network density
3
Clusters at baseline

Baseline Network · Q1 2026

Three disconnected clusters — no cross-silo ties

At the start of the engagement, advice and influence flow in three separate clusters with no ties bridging them. Dana's node (DW) sits within Cluster A and does not connect to supervisory or peer clusters B or C.

Cluster ACluster BCluster CDWKTMRSLJHPNACTBLMGHMBRKNO
Executive
Supervisor
Peer
Employee
Advice tie

Centrality Analysis

NameDegreeBetween.InOut
Dana Whitfield
Executive · Coaching target
1.2500.061105
Priya Nair
Supervisor
1.2500.053105
Greg Holloway
Peer · Informal bridge
1.0830.37585
Tom Becker
Employee
0.8330.05355
Marcus Bell
Peer
0.7500.15945

Greg Holloway's betweenness centrality (0.375) is notably high relative to his degree — he is the network's informal broker across clusters. Coaching strategy reinforces rather than replaces this.

Network Target · End of Engagement

Structural shift — executive as cross-silo bridge

Behavioral change shows up in the network. As Dana increases cross-functional visibility and stakeholder accountability, new strategic ties form across clusters — shifting her from a within-cluster node to a structural bridge.

DWKTMRSLJHPNACTBLMGHMBRKNO
Executive
Supervisor
Peer
Employee
Existing tie
New bridge tie
Cross-cluster ties formed
4 new
DW → PN, DW → GH, DW → LM, PN → GH
Components reduced
3 → 1
Network is now fully connected
Dana's betweenness (projected)
+180%
Shifts from peripheral to primary bridge position
Greg Holloway bridge position
Retained
Strategy: reinforce existing brokers, don't replace them

FeedForward Mini-Survey

Stakeholder-rated behavioral improvement

Stakeholders rate whether the leader has improved on targeted behaviors since the last check-in. Scores are 1–5 (1 = much worse, 3 = unchanged, 5 = much better). All ratings are anonymous and reported in aggregate.

Cross-functional communication
+57%
Round 1 (Baseline)2.8
Round 3 (Current)4.4
Transparent decision-making
+45%
Round 1 (Baseline)3.1
Round 3 (Current)4.5
Actively seeking input from reports
+65%
Round 1 (Baseline)2.6
Round 3 (Current)4.3

Rated by 7–8 stakeholders per round. Individual responses are confidential.

What this looks like for your organization

Request a full sample report

The full version includes a written executive summary, stakeholder verbatim themes, quarterly network overlays, and the final behavioral change scorecard.