Blog

You are currently viewing Advancing the science of coaching

Advancing the science of coaching

  • Post category:News
  • Post comments:0 Comments

Authors Janis A. Cannon-Bowers, 1 Clint A. Bowers, 2  * Catherine E. Carlson, 2 Shannon L. Doherty, 2 Jocelyne Evans, 2 and Julie Hall 2

Coaching has experienced a dramatic increase in interest and use in the past several years. In fact, coaching has been described as one of the fastest-growing specialties within the Human Resources profession (Bozer and Delegach, 2019). The ICF estimates that over two billion US dollars per year is invested in workplace coaching worldwide (International Coaching Federation (ICF), 2020).

As coaching has increased in acceptance, it has also evolved to meet the demands of its clients. Coaches are much more likely to have received formal training now than in the past (Passmore and Sinclair, 2020). There are also an increased number of assessment techniques (Möeller and Kotte, 2022) and interventions (Greif et al., 2022) available to today’s coaches. Additionally, the COVID pandemic accelerated the shift in the delivery modality of coaching, with many coaches switching to technology-based delivery platforms rather than face-to-face interactions.

This increase in research activity, combined with the rise in popularity of workplace coaching, drive the need for another review of the scientific literature to allow us to assess the state of the art and to suggest directions for future research. Hence, the present manuscript describes a meta-analytic review of research on the effectiveness of workplace coaching since 2018. This review also considers the impact of several moderator variables that may influence the effectiveness of coaching.

1.1. Definition of coaching

Workplace coaching (which includes executive coaching and other coaching interventions aimed at improving performance in the workplace) is defined in several ways in the literature (see Greif et al., 2022 for a review). Some of these definitions incorporate the idea that coaching is a counselling and support process (Greif et al., 2022), while others emphasize goal setting and organizational outcomes (Kilburg, 1996; Grant, 2003). Perhaps the most accepted definition of coaching is that of the International Coaching Federation, which defines coaching as, “Partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential” (International Coaching Federation, 2020). Notably, what most of these definitions have in common is the notion that coaching involves an intimate relationship between a coach and a client (or group of clients) that is aimed at improving the client’s outcomes, the organization’s outcomes or both. In this sense, there is a fairly wide consensus around what executive coaching is meant to accomplish.

1.2. Theoretical bases of coaching

In general, coaching practice has been heavily influenced by Positive Psychology which focuses on positive aspects of human experience (as opposed to mental illness or maladaptive behavior). Indeed, according to Auer et al. (2022), many have suggested that “coaching can be thought of as an applied form of positive psychology (Grant and Cavanagh, 2007, p. 3) or that coaching fits appropriately within the broader positive psychology framework (Freire, 2013; Theeboom et al., 2014). Hence, the influence of positive psychology is evident across coaching approaches.

That said, prevailing reviews of coaching generally converge on two different theoretical bases upon which coaching practice is defined (Bono et al., 2009; Vandaveer et al., 2016). On the one hand, coaching has been conceived as primarily a facilitation process that has its roots directly in positive psychology and includes techniques such as appreciative inquiry and counselling. The emphasis from this perspective is on the process of coaching (Williams and Lowman, 2018). That is, the coach’s role is to provide active and empathic listening, Socratic questioning, and clarification with the aim being to help the client remove barriers that are keeping them from achieving their personal and professional goals (Vandaveer et al., 2016). It is largely non-directive and aimed at helping the client gain insights and actualize their potential.

The second view of coaching puts the emphasis more squarely on the outcome of coaching by focusing on goal setting and goal achievement (Whitmore, 2010). The theoretical basis for this approach rests on literature into goal setting, including action planning and accountability as a means to achieve durable behavioral change. Some of the specific approaches that fall into this category include strength-based coaching (MacKie, 2014) and Cognitive-Behavioral coaching (Passmore et al., 2013). The common ingredient is that the coach’s role is to help the client clearly define their goal, develop concrete actions plans designed to achieve the goal and set up mechanisms so that the client is accountable for their progress towards achieving the goal (Grant, 2022).

As noted, the influence of positive psychology is evident in these approaches as well. For example, strength-based coaching focuses on identifying and leveraging an individual’s strengths and talents to enhance their performance and overall effectiveness as an executive or leader. Rather than focusing primarily on weaknesses and areas of improvement, this coaching method emphasizes the identification and development of existing strengths and leveraging them to achieve personal and professional goals (MacKie, 2014).

It should be noted that the two approaches outlined above are not mutually exclusive—a coaching session can include elements of both; the distinction is based more on the overarching focus of the coaching and what it is trying to achieve.

1.3. Coaching outcomes

As with many interventions aimed at improving workplace performance, the question of what outcomes coaching can affect must be answered on several levels. Borrowing from the training effectiveness literature, Kotte and Bozer (2022) described the use of a four-level model based on Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy. The levels in this framework are: subjectively perceived benefit, affective and cognitive learning outcomes, client behavior change, and performance results. In a similar vein, Jones et al. (2016) applied a training-based conceptualization of outcomes presented by Kraiger et al. (1993). This model conceptualizes expected outcomes as falling into three categories: affective, cognitive and skill based. Affective outcomes include attitude and motivational outcomes (e.g., self-efficacy, wellbeing). Cognitive outcomes include learning declarative knowledge, problem solving and other cognitive strategies. Finally, skill outcomes include acquisition and automaticity of new skills (e.g., negotiation skills; delegation skills). To this, Jones et al. (2016) added a category called results (similar to Kirkpatrick) that represents organizational-level changes and outcomes (e.g., increased sales or lower attrition).

1.4. Previous meta-analyses

Theeboom et al. (2014) conducted a meta-analytic review of coaching effectiveness in organizations. They concluded that, across a variety of outcomes, coaching had a significant positive effect on individual effectiveness. The effect sizes ranged from g = 0.43 for coping to g = 0.74 for goal-directed self-regulation. The authors also reported that within-subjects (pre-post only) designs yielded significantly higher effect sizes than mixed designs (pre-post with a comparison group). They also found that the number of coaching sessions was not related to effectiveness.

Jones et al. (2016) critiqued the Theeboom et al. (2014) analysis on the basis that they included studies that were not conducted in the workplace. They also suggested an emphasis on variables that are more relevant to the workplace. In their meta-analysis, they also found that coaching was associated with a moderate positive effect on effectiveness.

Go to:

2. Hypotheses

H1: There will be no difference in coaching effectiveness based on the type of coaching offered (process/facilitation-based or outcome/goal setting-based).

H2: There will be no difference between the effectiveness of coaching as assessed by the three types of outcome measures.

H3: Studies that employed process/facilitation-based coaching will yield better outcomes for affective-based measures than cognitive or skill-based measures, while the opposite will be true for outcome/goal setting-based coaching.

H4: Self-reported outcomes will be higher than either evaluation by supervisors or evaluation by subordinates.

H5: Face-to-face coaching will yield better results than virtual coaching.

H6a: The duration of coaching as measured by the number of sessions will have a significant positive impact on coaching outcomes.

H6b: The duration of coaching as measured by the total hours of coaching will have a significant positive impact on coaching outcomes.

 

4.2.
.1. Directions for future research

Including the present study, reviews and meta-analyses have been consistent in reporting a moderate, positive effect of coaching for over a decade. This effect seems robust across outcomes, number of sessions, and modality—clearly something is working!

Related to the question of what is the best type of coaching is the related question of, “who are the best coaches?” According to ICF, managers and leaders using coaching skills strongly agree that clients expect coaches to be certified and/or credentialed. However, the studies represented in this analysis include coaches with a very wide range of backgrounds and experience. Interestingly, very few studies include information about the coach’s certification (ICF or otherwise). Without such information, it is difficult to associate the quality of coaches with the outcomes they create.

5.3. Recommendations for advancing the science of coaching

Consistent with two previous meta-analyses, our analysis found that, overall, coaching is an effective intervention for improving workplace outcomes. At this point, in order to establish and advance a science of coaching, we recommend the following:

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Go to:

References

  1. * indicates inclusion in the analysis.
  2. *Allan J., Leeson P., Martin S. (2018). Application of a 10 week coaching program designed to facilitate volitional personality change: Overall effects on personality and the impact of targeting.  J. Evid. Based Coach. Mentor., 16, 80–94, doi: 10.24384/000470 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. *Auer E. M., Hutchinson D., Eatough E., Carr E. W., Sinar E. F., Kellerman G. (2022). The buffering effects of virtual coachingduring crisis: A quasi-experimental study ofchanges in well-being, work, and socialoutcomes before and during the COVID-19pandemic.  J. Evid. Based Coach. Mentor., 20 3–19, doi: 10.24384/ektn-xx15 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ballesteros-Sánchez L., Ortiz-Marcos I., Rodríguez-Rivero R. (2019). The impact of executive coaching on project managers’ personal competencies.  Manag. J.50, 306–321. doi: 10.1177/8756972819832191, PMID: [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bono J. E., Purvanova R. K., Towler A. J., Peterson D. B. (2009). A survey of executive coaching practices.  Psychol.62, 361–404. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01142.x, PMID: [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Borenstein M., Hedges L. E., Higgins J. P. T., Rothstein H. R. (2022). Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 4. In Biostat, Inc. Available at: Meta-Analysis.com
  7. Borenstein M., Hedges L. V., Higgins J. P., Rothstein H. R. (2021). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons. Hoboken, NJ. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bozer G., Delegach M. (2019). Bringing context to workplace coaching: A theoretical framework based on uncertainty avoidance and regulatory focus.  Resour. Dev. Rev.18, 376–402. doi: 10.1177/1534484319853098 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bozer G., Jones R. J. (2021). Introduction to the special issue on advances in the psychology of workplace coaching.  Psychol.70, 411–419. doi: 10.1111/apps.12305 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Brinkert R. (2016). State of knowledge: Conflict coaching theory, application, and research.  Resolut. Q.33, 383–401. doi: 10.1002/crq.21162, PMID: [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Burt D., Talati Z. (2017). The unsolved value of executive coaching: A meta-analysis of outcomes using randomised control trial studies.  J. Evid. Based Coach. Mentor.15, 17–24. doi: 10.24384/000248 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cochran W. G. (1954). The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics10, 101–129. doi: 10.2307/3001666, PMID: [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. *De Haan E., Gray D. E., Bonneywell S. (2019). Executive coaching outcome research in a field setting: A near-randomized controlled trial study in a global healthcare corporation.  Manag. Learn. Edu., 18, 581–605, doi: 10.5465/amle.2018.0158 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dunning D. (2013). “The problem of recognizing one’s own incompetence: Implications for self-assessment and development in the workplace” in Judgment and decision making at work. eds. Highhouse S., Dalal R., Salas E. (England: Routledge; ), 57–76. [Google Scholar]
  15. Freire T. (2013). “Positive psychology approaches” in The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology of coaching and mentoring. eds. Passmore J., Peterson D. B., Freire T. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; ), 426–442. [Google Scholar]
  16. Grant A. M. (2003). The impact of life coaching on goal attainment, metacognition and mental health.  Behav. Personal. Int. J.31, 253–264. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2003.31.3.253 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Grant A. M. (2022). “Solution-focused coaching: The basics for advanced practitioners” in Coaching Practiced. eds. Tee D., Passmore J. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; ), 311–322. [Google Scholar]
  18. Grant A. M., Cavanagh M. J. (2007). Evidence-based coaching: Flourishing or languishing?  Psychol.42, 239–254. doi: 10.1080/00050060701648175, PMID: [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Greif S., Möller H., Scholl W., Passmore J., Müller F. (2022). “Coaching definitions and concepts” in International handbook of evidence-based coaching: theory, research and practice. eds. Greif S., Möller H., Scholl W., Passmore J., Müller F. (New York: Springer International Publishing; ), 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hedges L. V., Olkin I. (1984). Nonparametric estimators of effect size in meta-analysis.  Bull.96:573. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.573, PMID: [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Higgins J. P., Thompson S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.  Med.21, 1539–1558. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186, PMID: [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. International Coaching Federation (2020). Global Coaching Study. Available at: https://coachingfederation.org/research/global-coaching-study
  23. Johnson B. T., Mullen B., Salas E. (1995). Comparison of three major meta-analytic approaches.  Appl. Psychol.80:94. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.94, PMID: [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Jones R. J., Woods S. A., Guillaume Y. R. (2016). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching.  Occup. Organ. Psychol.89, 249–277. doi: 10.1111/joop.12119 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. *Junker S., Pömmer M., Traut-Mattausch E. (2021). The impact of cognitive-behavioural stress management coaching on changes in cognitive appraisal and the stress response: A field experiment.  Int. J. Theory Res. Pra., 48, 134–144, doi: 10.1080/17521882.2020.1831563 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kilburg R. R. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding and definition of executive coaching.  Psychol. J. Pract. Res. 62, 361–404. doi: 10.1037/1061-4087.48.2.134 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kotte S., Bozer G. (2022). “Workplace coaching research: Charted and uncharted territories” in International Handbook of Evidence-Based Coaching. eds. Siegfried G., Möller H., Scholl W., Passmore J., Müller F. (Cham: Springer; ), 971–982. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kraiger K., Ford J. K., Salas E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation.  Appl. Psychol.78:311. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. *MacKie D. (2014). The effectiveness of strength-based executive coaching in enhancing full range leadership development: A controlled study.  Psychol. J., 66,:118, doi: 10.1037/cpb0000005 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. McCambridge J., de Bruin M., Witton J. (2012). The Effects of Demand Characteristics on Research Participant Behaviours in Non-Laboratory Settings: A Systematic Review. PLoS One7:e39116. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039116, PMID: [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Möeller H., Kotte S. (2022). “Assessment in coaching” in International handbook of evidence-based coaching: theory, research and practice. eds. Greif S., Möller H., Scholl W., Passmore J., Müller F. (Cham: Springer International Publishing; ), 55–64. [Google Scholar]
  32. *Onyishi C. N., Ede M. O., Ossai O. V., Ugwuanyi C. S. (2021). Rational emotive occupational health coaching in the management of police subjective well-being and work ability: a case of repeated measures.  Police Crim. Psychol., 36, 96–111, doi: 10.1007/s11896-019-09357-y [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Passmore J., Sinclair T. (2020). Becoming a Coach: The Essential ICF Guide. Springer, New York. [Google Scholar]
  34. Passmore J., Peterson D., Freire T. (2013). “The psychology of coaching and mentoring” in The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology of coaching and mentoring. eds. Passmore J., Peterson D. B., Freire T. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; ), 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  35. *Peláez M. J., Coo C., Salanova M. (2020). Facilitating work engagement and performance through strengths-based micro-coaching: a controlled trial study.  Happiness Stud., 21, 1265–1284. doi: 10.1007/s10902-019-00127-5 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Schermuly C. C., Graßmann C. (2019). A literature review on negative effects of coaching–what we know and what we need to know.  Int. J. Theory Res. Pra.12, 39–66. doi: 10.1080/17521882.2018.1528621 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Sherman S., Freas A. (2004). The wild west of executive coaching.  Bus. Rev.82, 82–90. PMID: [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Silzer R., Church A., Rotolo C., Scott J. (2016). I-O Practice in Action: Solving the Leadership Potential Identification Challenge in Organizations.  Organ. Psychol.9, 814–830. doi: 10.1017/iop.2016.75 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sonesh S. C., Coultas C. W., Marlow S. L., Lacerenza C. N., Reyes D., Salas E. (2015). Coaching in the wild: Identifying factors that lead to success.  Psychol. J.67:189. doi: 10.1037/cpb0000042 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. *Steketee A., Chen S., Nelson R. A., Kraak V. I., Harden S. M. (2022). A mixed-methods study to test a tailored coaching program for health researchers to manage stress and achieve work-life balance.  Behav. Med., 12, 369–410, doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibab134, PMID: [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. Sutton J. (2020) Coaching styles explained: 4 different approaches. Available at: com
  42. Theeboom T., Beersma B., van Vianen A. E. (2014). Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context.  Posit. Psychol.9, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2013.837499 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  43. Vandaveer V. V., Lowman R. L., Pearlman K., Brannick J. P. (2016). A practice analysis of coaching psychology: Toward a foundational competency model.  Psychol. J.68, 118–142. doi: 10.1037/cpb0000057 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  44. Walther J. B., Van Der Heide B., Ramirez A., Jr., Burgoon J. K., Peña J. (2015). “Interpersonal and hyperpersonal dimensions of computer-mediated communication” in The handbook of the psychology of communication technology. ed. Sunhar S. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; ), 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  45. Whitmore J. (2010). Coaching for performance: growing human potential and purpose: the principles and practice of coaching and leadership. Hachette UK. Edinburgh [Google Scholar]
  46. *Williams J. S., Lowman R. L. (2018). The efficacy of executive coaching: An empirical investigation of two approaches using random assignment and a switching-replications design.  Psychol. J. Pract. Res., 70,:227, doi: 10.1037/cpb0000115 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  47. Wise D., Hammack M. (2011). Leadership coaching: Coaching competencies and best practices.  Sch. Leadersh.21, 449–477. doi: 10.1177/105268461102100306, PMID: [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  48. *Zuberbuhler M. J., Salanova M., Martínez I. M. (2020). Coaching-based leadership intervention program: A controlled trial study.  Psychol., 10:3066, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03066 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Leave a Reply