Content uploaded by Anthony M Grant
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anthony M Grant on May 16, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Coaching
Section I
Passmore_p01.indd 13 9/8/2012 12:46:41 AM
The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring, First Edition.
Edited by Jonathan Passmore, David B. Peterson, and Teresa Freire.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The Efficacy of Coaching
Anthony M. Grant
2
Introduction
Is coaching effective? Is it cost-effective? The answers to these questions depend heavily
onthe contextual and situational factors at play and who is asking the question – and why.
A professional coach or purveyor of coaching services asking the above questions may
well take the growth of the coaching industry worldwide as one indicator of whether
coaching is effective and “works”, and it is clear that in the last 10 or 15 years workplace
and executive coaching has grown from a relatively novel and little used intervention to a
mainstream activity in organizations worldwide.
The annual revenue expended on corporate coaching has been estimated to be in the
region of US$1.5 billion, and in 2009 it was estimated that there were approximately
40,000 professional coaches globally (Frank Bresser Consulting, 2009) up from approxi-
mately 30,000 in 2006 (International Coach Federation, 2006 ), and the figures are
probably even higher today despite the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Indeed for some
organizations the pressures and tensions inherent in the GFC served only to highlight
theneed to provide good coaching to key staff (Farndale et al ., 2010 ). In the United
States, 93 percent of US-based Global 100 companies use executive coaches (Bono etal .,
2009 ). In the United Kingdom, 88 percent of organizations use coaching (Jarvis et al .,
2005 ). In 2006 in Australia, 64 percent of business leaders and 72 percent of senior
managers reported using coaches (Leadership Management Australia, 2006 ), and
following the GFC, Australian businesses perceived a need for coaching in terms of the
increased importance of developing new perspectives in tough economic times, renewed
emphasis on communicating effectively with employees, and building trust and resilience
with staff increased dramatically (Leadership Management Australia, 2009 ).
But the growth of the coaching industry and industry’s recognition of the important
role of coaching in both good and tough economic times is not a reliable indicator of
coaching’s efficacy or validity. Indeed, given that coaching is playing an increasing role in
Passmore_c02.indd 15 9/8/2012 12:26:13 AM
16 Coaching
organizations worldwide, it is important that we are able to reliably access the effectiveness
of coaching interventions and develop an evidence base for professional coaching. Is
coaching effective and do we yet have an evidence base for coaching?
To begin the process of answering these questions, we need to determine what we mean
by coaching, delineate the nature of coaching-related evidence, work out how to measure
coaching effectiveness, and determine effective methodologies for assessing coaching
outcomes, and do so in relation to the extant coaching literature. Drawing on past work
in this area (Grant, 2011 ; Grant et al ., 2010 ), and beginning with some broad delineations
of coaching, I review the recent extant research into the efficacy of coaching and highlight
possible future directions for the measurement of coaching efficacy.
Seek First to Understand
Before we can meaningfully discuss the efficacy of coaching we need to understand the
nature of coaching itself. Although the widespread use of the term “coaching” suggests
that it is a monolithic activity, in fact coaching methodologies are highly diverse and
heterogeneous approaches to creating and facilitating purposeful positive individual and
organizational change.
Despite such diversity, most understandings of coaching are underpinned by the view
ofcoaching as a collaborative relationship formed between a coach and the coachee for the
purpose of attaining professional or personal development outcomes which are valued by the
coachee (Spence and Grant, 2007 ). Thus, typically, coaching is a goal-focused activity; clients
come to coaching because there is a problem they need or want to solve or a goal they want
to attain, and they a looking for help in constructing and enacting solutions to that problem.
At its core the coaching process is a relatively straightforward one in which the coach
helps stretch and develop the coachee’s current capacities or performance, by helping
individuals to: (1) identify desired outcomes, (2) establish specific goals, (3) enhance
motivation by identifying strengths and building self-efficacy, (4) identify resources
andformulate specific action plans, (5) monitor and evaluate progress towards goals, and
(6) modify action plans based on such feedback. The monitor-evaluate-modification steps
of this process constitute a simple cycle of self-regulated behavior, and this is a key process
in creating intentional behavior change (Carver and Scheier, 1998 ). The role of the coach
is to facilitate the coachee’s movement through this self-regulatory cycle by helping the
coachee to develop specific action plans and then to monitor and evaluate progression
towards those goals (Grant et al ., 2010 ).
Sounds Simple: So Coaching Should be Easy to Evaluate?
Thus, in theory at least, the essence of coaching is a relatively straightforward process of
setting goals, developing action plans, and managing progress towards those goals.
Therefore, it might be entirely reasonable to assume that assessing the efficacy of coaching
should be a comparatively easy process.
However, coaching as a broadly-applied human change methodology has been used
with a vast range of issues, including: reducing workplace stress (Wright, 2007 ); creating
organizational cultural change (Anderson et al ., 2008 ); business coaching (Clegg et al .,
2005 ); facilitating work performance in cross cultural contexts (Peterson, 2007 ); dealing
Passmore_c02.indd 16 9/8/2012 12:26:13 AM
The Efficacy of Coaching 17
with resistance to change in low-performing managers (Passmore, 2007 ); enhancing sales
force performance (Agarwal et al ., 2009 ); helping learner drivers develop driving
skills (Passmore and Mortimer, 2011 ); improving communication and leadership skills
(Wilson, 2004 ); helping with career development (Scandura, 1992 ); team building and
group development (Cunha and Louro, 2000 ); and coaching to improve performance in
job interviews (Maurer et al ., 1998 ) – an almost endless list of applications.
In addition to these rich and diverse applications, coaching in the workplace is con-
ducted at all levels of the organization. Executive coaching for executive level employees
is typically conducted within a formal coaching agreement with external coaches, using
sit-down coaching sessions and encompasses a vast range of services and specialties:
coaching for enhanced strategic planning; presentation skills; anger and stress management;
executive management team building; and leadership development – all outcomes that
aredifficult to quantify. In contrast, workplace coaching in organizations can be under-
stood as coaching that takes place in workplace settings with non-executive employees
aimed at enhancing workplace performance and work-related skills. As such, it is often
aninternal coaching intervention delivered on the job by line managers and supervisors,
or by employees specially designated as being in the coaching role. This kind of coaching
often involves impromptu or “corridor coaching”, rather than formal sessions (Grant etal .,
2010 ). Thus, the aims and processes of workplace coaching interventions are often
somewhat different to those in executive coaching. Furthermore, and adding to the
complexity of evaluating coaching in the workplace, is the fact that organizations tend to
use a combination of both external and internal coaching approaches, for example one UK
survey found that 51 percent of UK organizations used external coaches, 41 percent trained
their own internal coaches, and 79 percent used managers as coaches (Kubicek, 2002 ).
Reviewing the Efficacy of Coaching is Complex,
and the Literature is Disjointed
Because coaching interventions cover such a broad range of applications, and are conducted
with such a wide and diverse range of participants, it is perhaps not surprising that the
academic outcome literature on coaching is disjointed and somewhat fragmented. There
is an increasing amount of coaching-specific, practitioner-generated research. Practitioner
research in general tends to be conducted by independent practitioners on client outcomes
associated with their own personal business. Practitioner research, especially as part
of one’s reflective practice, has the potential to be extremely valuable and has made a
significant contribution to the emergence and development of an evidence base for coach-
ing. However, a key limitation of practitioner research is that many practitioners are not
trained in research methods or in the dissemination of findings. Further, most practitioner
research tends not to use standardized or validated outcome measures, typically construct-
ing pre-post surveys or questionnaires that target the specific behaviors that are the focus
of the coaching intervention, or presenting estimates of financial return on investment
(ROI: McGovern et al ., 2001 ).
Whilst such idiosyncratic outcome measures may be very useful to the client and often
form valuable material in terms of marketing for coaching service providers, their
relevance to the broader coaching-specific knowledge base is often limited. It should
benoted, however, that the quality of coaching practitioner research is improving. Where
some past coaching research seemed to be primarily aimed at marketing coaching services
Passmore_c02.indd 17 9/8/2012 12:26:13 AM
18 Coaching
(Corbett, 2006 ), recently there are many more well-grounded examples of contemporary
thought in this area, particulary in relation to the evaluation of executive coaching (forsome
useful examples see Coutu and Kauffman, 2009 ; Hernez-Broome and Boyce, 2011 ).
As regards the peer-reviewed academic literature on the efficacy of coaching: as of January
2011 there were a total of 634 published scholarly papers or dissertations on coaching
listed in the databases PsycINFO and Business Source Premier, beginning with Gorby’s
( 1937 ) report of senior staff coaching junior employees on how to save waste. This figure
of 634 includes life (or personal coaching) and executive and workplace coaching,
butexcludes papers on other applications of coaching such as sports or athletic coaching,
forensic, clinical or psychotherapeutic populations, educational coaching or coaching for
faking on psychometric or educational tests, which are not relevant to this chapter.
It is clear that the coaching literature has grown significantly in recent years. Between
1937 and January 1, 2011 there were a total of 634 published papers. In terms of assessing
the efficacy of coaching there have been 234 outcome studies published since 2000
(toJanuary 2011); 131 case studies, 77 within-subject studies, and 25 between-subject
studies. Of the 25 between-subject studies, 14 were randomized studies (see Table 2.1 for
a summary of the 25 between-subject studies).
Many of the published empirical papers are surveys about different organizations’ use
of coaching (e.g., Douglas and McCauley, 1999 ; Vloeberghs et al ., 2005 ), or studies
examining the characteristics of coach training schools (e.g., Grant and O ’ Hara, 2006 ).
That is, most of the empirical literature to date is contextual or survey-based research
about the characteristics of coaches and coachees or the delivery of coaching services.
Whilst this is useful information for both the coaching industry and the purchasers of
coaching services, it does not tell us a great deal about the efficacy of coaching per se .
Outcome Studies
The first published empirical outcome study exploring the efficacy of coaching in the academic
literature was Gershman’s ( 1967 ) dissertation on the effects of specific factors of the
supervisor-subordinate coaching climate upon improvement of attitude and performance of
the subordinate, showed initial support of the efficacy of coaching approaches in the workplace.
No other coaching outcome studies were published until Duffy’s ( 1984 ) dissertation on the
effectiveness of a feedback-coaching intervention in executive outplacement. Peterson’s ( 1993 )
thesis on behavior change in an individually tailored management coaching program marked
the dawning of a contemporary phase of coaching outcome research (prior to 1990 there had
been only six published coaching outcome studies examining the efficacy of coaching).
Most of the 131 case studies in the coaching literature are purely descriptive, tending to
emphasize practice-related issues rather than presenting rigorous evaluations of the coach-
ing intervention. Very few of these case studies used established and validated quantitative
measures, and few used case study methodology beyond a purely descriptive fashion.
Two Key Case Studies
From this author’s perspective two case studies stand out in the coaching literature as
exemplifying good practice in using case study methodologies to explore the efficacy of
coaching. The first is Libri and Kemp’s ( 2006 ) A-B-A-B single case design with a sales
Passmore_c02.indd 18 9/8/2012 12:26:13 AM
Table 2.1 Summary of 25 between-subjects studies to January 1, 2011.
Study Intervention overview Type of study Key findings
Miller ( 1990 ) 33 employees. Some received coaching
by their managers over 4 weeks.
Quasi-experimental field study
(a) Coaching group; (b) Control group.
No sig. differences pre-post for interpersonal
communication skills.
Deviney ( 1994 )* 45 line supervisors at a nuclear power
plant. Some received feedback and
coaching from their managers over
9 weeks.
Randomized controlled study
(a) Feedback plus coaching,
(b) Feedback with no coaching,
(c) Control group.
No sig. differences in pre-post feedback
behavior.
Taylor ( 1997 )* Participants undergoing a medical
college admission test preparation
course.
Randomized controlled study
(a) Training only; (b) Coaching only;
(c) Training plus coaching;
(d) Control group.
Coaching reduced stress more than training.
Grant ( 2002 )* 62 trainee accountants received group
coaching over one semester.
Randomized controlled study
(a) Cognitive coaching only;
(b) Behavioral coaching only;
(c) Combined cognitive and behavioral
coaching; (d) Control groups for each
condition.
Combined cognitive and behavioral coaching
most effective in increasing grade point
average, study skills, self-regulation, and
mental health. GPA gains maintained in
12 month follow-up.
Miller et al .
( 2004 )*
140 licensed substance abuse
professionals learnt motivational
interviewing via a range of methods.
Randomized controlled study
(a) Workshop only; (b) Workshop plus
feedback; (c) Workshop plus coaching;
(d) Workshop, feedback, and coaching;
or (e) Waitlist control group.
Relative to controls, the 4 trained groups
had gains in proficiency. Coaching and/or
feedback increased post-training
proficiency.
Sue-Chan and
Latham ( 2004 )
53 MBA students in two studies in
Canada and Australia.
Random assignment
(a) External coach; (b) Peer coach or
(c) Self-coached.
Study 1: External coaching associated
with higher team playing behavior than
peer coaching; Study 2: External and
self coaching associated with higher
grades than peer coaching.
(continued)
Passmore_c02.indd 19 9/8/2012 12:26:13 AM
Study Intervention overview Type of study Key findings
Bennett and
Perrin ( 2005 )*
111 individuals randomized to nurse
coaching group or usual-care
control group with coaching
conducted by nurses on phone and
email.
Randomized controlled study
(a) Health coaching; (b) Control
group.
Intervention group had significantly less
illness intrusiveness and health distress
than controls at 6 months. Nurse-delivered
MI, primarily using the telephone and
email, is a feasible method to facilitate
well-being with older adults.
Gattellari et al .
( 2005 )*
277 GPs in total. Some received 2
phone-based peer coaching sessions
integrated with educational
resources.
Randomized controlled study
(a) Peer coaching and educational
resources; (b) Control group.
Compared to controls, peer coaching
increased GPs’ ability to make informed
decisions about prostate-specific antigen
screening.
Gyllensten and
Palmer ( 2005 )
31 participants from UK finance
organization.
Quasi-experimental field study
(a) Coaching group; (b) Control group.
Anxiety and stress decreased more in the
coaching group compared to control group.
Evers et al .
( 2006 )
60 managers of the federal
government.
Quasi-experimental field study
(a) Coaching group; (b) Control group.
Coaching increased outcome expectancies
and self-efficacy.
Green et al .
( 2006 )*
56 adults (community sample) took
part in SF-CB life coaching program
Randomized controlled study
(a) Group-based life coaching;
(b) Waitlist control.
Coaching increased goal attainment,
well-being, and hope. 30-week follow-up
found gains were maintained.
Green et al .
(2007)*
56 female high school students took
part in SF-CB life coaching program
for 10 individual coaching sessions
over 2 school terms.
Randomized controlled study
(a) Coaching group; (b) Waitlist control
group.
Coaching increased cognitive hardiness,
mental health and hope.
Spence and
Grant ( 2007 )*
63 adults (community sample) took
part in SF-CB life coaching
program.
Randomized controlled study
(a) Professional coaching group;
(b) Peer coaching group; (c) Waitlist
control group.
Professional coaching more effective
in increasing goal commitment, goal
attainment and environmental mastery.
Duijts et al .
(2007) *
Dutch employees assessed for the
effectiveness of a preventive
coaching program on sickness
absence due to psychosocial health
complaints and on well-being
outcomes
Randomized controlled study:
(a) 6 month course of preventive
coaching; (b) control group.
Significant improvements in health, life
satisfaction, burnout, psychological
well-being but no improvement in
self-reported sickness absence.
Table 2.1 (continued)
Passmore_c02.indd 20 9/8/2012 12:26:13 AM
Spence et al .
( 2008 )*
45 adults (community sample) took
part in mindfulness-based health
coaching over 8 weeks.
(a)Randomized controlled study:
SF-CB coaching followed by
mindfulness training (MT);
(b) Mindfulness training followed by
SF-CB coaching; (c)Health education
only control group.
Goal attainment greater in coaching than in
the educative/directive format. No
significant differences were found for goal
attainment between the two MT/CB-SF
conditions.
Fielden et al .
( 2009 )
Nurses from 6 UK health care trusts
were allocated to a coaching group
(N = 15) or a mentoring group
(N = 15).
Quasi-experimental field study
(a)Coaching group; (b) Mentoring
group in six-month coaching/
mentoring program. Qualitative and
quantitative data at (T1 = baseline,
T2 = 4 months and T3 = 9 months).
Mentoring was perceived to be “support”
and coaching was “action”. Both reported
significant development in career
development, leadership skills, and
capabilities; mentees reported the highest
level of development, with significantly
higher scores in 8 areas of leadership and
management and in 3 areas of career
impact.
Franklin and
Doran ( 2009 )*
First-year students: co-coaching with
preparation, action, adaptive
learning coaching, or self-regulation
coaching PAAL (N = 27) or
self-regulation (N = 25)
A double-blind random control trial in
which participants were randomly
allocated to either a preparation, action,
adaptive learning (PAAL), or a
self-regulation co-coaching.
Both co-coaching conditions produced
significant increases in self-efficacy and
resilience; however, only those in the
PAAL condition performed significantly
better on decisional balance, hope,
self-compassion, the incremental theory of
change, and independently assessed
academic performance.
(Grant et al .,
2009 ) *
41 executives in a public health agency
received 360-degree feedback and
four SF-CB coaching sessions over
10-week period.
Randomized controlled study
(a) Coaching group; (b) Waitlist control
group.
Coaching enhanced goal attainment,
resilience and workplace well-being and
reduced depression and stress and helped
participants deal with organizational
change.
(continued)
Passmore_c02.indd 21 9/8/2012 12:26:13 AM
Study Intervention overview Type of study Key findings
Aust et al .
(2010)
Seven intervention units (N = 128) and
seven non-randomized reference
units (N = 103) of a large hospital in
Denmark participated in an
intervention project with the goal of
improving the psychosocial working
conditions.
Quasi-experimental field study
(a) Coaching group; (b) Control group.
In the intervention units there was a
statistically significant worsening in
6 out of 13 work environment scales.
The decrease was most pronounced for
aspects of interpersonal relations and
leadership. In comparison, the reference
group showed statistically significant
changes in only 2 scales. Process evaluation
revealed that a large part of the
implementation failed and that different
implicit theories were at play.
Cerni et al .
( 2010 )
14 secondary school principals: all
school staff in the 14 schools were
invited to rate their school principal
using the MLQ (5X) questionnaire.
Pre-test, post-test control-group
researchdesign
(a) Coaching group;
(b) Control group.
This study provides initial evidence that by
creating changes to rational and
constructive thinking, it is possible to
increase coachee ’ s use of transformational
leadership techniques.
Grant et al .
( 2010 )*
44 high school teachers were
randomly assigned to either SF-CB
coaching or a waitlist control group.
This study was both an experimental
(randomly assigned) and a WS
(pre-post) study.
Participation in coaching was associated with
increased goal attainment, reduced stress
and enhanced workplace well-being and
resilience. Pre-post analyses for the
coaching group indicated that coaching
enhanced self-reported achievement and
humanistic-encouraging components of
constructive leadership styles.
Kauffeld and
Lehmann-
Willenbrock
(2010)
Spaced and massed training are
compared using behavioral and
outcome criteria; 64 bank
employees (N = 32 in each training
group).
Quasi-experimental follow-up research
design with a sample of 64 bank
employees (N = 32 in each training
group) is used.
Spaced rather than massed training practice
resulted in greater transfer quality, higher
self-reports of sales competence and
improved key figures. Spaced training did
not surpass massed training in terms of
transfer quantity.
Table 2.1 (continued)
Passmore_c02.indd 22 9/8/2012 12:26:13 AM
Kines et al .
( 2010 )
Foremen in 2 intervention groups are
coached and given bi-weekly
feedback about their daily verbal
safety communications with their
workers.
A pre-post intervention-control design
with 5 construction work gangs:
foremen-worker verbal safety exchanges
(experience sampling method, N = 1693
interviews), construction site safety level
(correct vs. incorrect, N = 22,077 single
observations), and safety climate
(7dimensions, N = 105 questionnaires),
measured over 42 weeks.
Coaching construction site foremen to
include safety in their daily verbal
exchanges with workers has a significantly
positive and lasting effect on the level
of safety, which is a proximal estimate
for work-related accidents.
Kochanowski
et al . ( 2010 )
Experimental group of managers
received individual coaching several
weeks after attending a feedback
workshop. The control group of
managers also attended a feedback
workshop but did not receive the
follow-up coaching.
Quasi-experimental field study
(a) Feedback plus coaching group;
(b)Feedback only control group.
Coaching significantly increased the use
of collaboration with subordinates, but
results for the other three “core” tactics
were mixed.
Leonard-Cross
(2010)
Investigated the impact and process of
developmental coaching evaluating
coaching which took place over a
two-year period.
The study used action research (Lewin,
1946) and a quasi-experimental
method. Coachees and the comparative
group of non-coached staff completed
questionnaires.
Participants that had received developmental
coaching (N = 61) had higher levels of
self-efficacy than the control group of
participants (N = 57) who had not received
coaching.
Notes: SF-CB = solution-focused cognitive behavioral; * = randomized controlled study.
Passmore_c02.indd 23 9/8/2012 12:26:13 AM
24 Coaching
executive that used established and validated self-report quantitative measures of anxiety
(Beck and Steer, 1993 ), depression (Beck et al ., 1996 ), and core self-evaluations (Judge
etal ., 2003 ), in addition to objective measures of sales performance, including the number
of client leads, client loan interviews, loan applications, and number of loans approved
each week. This case study of the efficacy of coaching serves as a useful case study exemplar
of the blending of the psychological with the pragmatic in that the case reports both on
quantitative psychological facets and workplace performance.
The second case study, that in many ways is the antitheses of the Libri and Kemp ( 2006 )
paper, is Freedman and Perry’s ( 2010 ) qualitative report. This detailed and highly
descriptive paper describes the development and trajectory of an initially non-voluntary
shadow coaching and consulting engagement with a somewhat reluctant client in the
nuclear industry. The case study explores the efficacy of coaching from both the coach’s
and the client’s perspective, and the paper is somewhat unusual in that both coach and
client jointly contributed to its writing. This paper gives the reader detailed insight into
the actual process of shadow coaching and consulting, including access to the cognitive
and emotional responses of both the coach and client, and in this way sheds light on inner
workings of the executive coaching relationship. From the perspective of Freedman and
Perry’s ( 2010 ) paper, investigation of the efficacy of coaching is more than just reports of
coaching outcomes or goal attainment.
Such narrative accounts of the coach’s and client’s internal process provide valuable
information about the efficacy of coaching from a completely different perspective to that
offered by numerical data, and are of great value to those seeking such insights. However,
they do not allow us to make more generalized evaluations of the efficacy of coaching or
compare results between different coaching interventions. For that type of evaluation we
need to turn our attention to group-based evaluations of the efficacy of coaching.
Within-subject Outcome Research
Within-subject studies are those that compare the impact of coaching on a group of
individuals. The group was assessed before and following the coaching interventions. The
74 within-subject studies published to January 2011 represent the largest single group-
based methodological approach to quantitative empirical coaching research. This group of
studies into the efficacy of coaching cover a wide range of issues including: workplace
coaching to reduce waste (Sergio, 1987 ); improvement in managers’ leadership skills as a
result of feedback and coaching (Conway, 2000 ); the impact of life coaching on goal
attainment, insight and mental health (Grant, 2003 ); the use of team coaching in
supporting team reflection and learning in global research and development project
teams(Mulec and Roth, 2005 ); the cognitive and behavioral flexibility in executives who
received coaching (Jones et al ., 2006 ); the attainment of organizational quota and personal
goals within an army recruiting organization (Bowles et al ., 2007 ); changes in leadership
competencies and learning agility amongst senior executives in the IT industry (Trathen,
2008 ); increases in measures of operational and fiscal performance in medical settings
(Bacigalupo et al ., 2009 ) and the impact of peer coaching on well-being amongst
psychology undergraduate students (Short et al ., 2010 ).
Of particular interest in the group of within-subject studies is Solansky’s ( 2010 )
evaluation of two key leadership development program components. This paper is of
interest to those concerned with the development of the literature base on the efficacy
Passmore_c02.indd 24 9/8/2012 12:26:13 AM
The Efficacy of Coaching 25
ofcoaching as it is one of few coaching-related empirical papers published in a top-tier
academic journal. To date, the vast majority of coaching research has been published in
second-or third-level journals. Whilst the level of prestige accorded to a journal by an
elitist section of the academic community may have little or no relevance for the vast
majority of readers interested in coaching, the small but increasing number of coaching
publications in top-tier journals indicates that coaching as a human change methodology
is finding increasing acceptance within the academic community. To the extent that such
publications are an indicator of the increasing recognition of coaching as a valid approach
to facilitating human change, this trend is welcome and it is hoped it will continue.
Within-subject studies can provide useful quantitative data and allow for the use of
inferential statistics, provided that the studies are well designed and use validated and
reliable measures. However, by comparing the results of the intervention to a matched
group that did not receive coaching, a between-subject design can give greater assurance
that the results are due to the coaching intervention itself, and not to some broader
influence such as the mere passage of time or changes in, for example, workplace culture
or environment. The use of random assignment to a coaching or non-coaching control
group means greater control over extraneous, individual differences, and gives some
sections of the coaching community and interested onlookers greater comfort in the
certainty of reported coaching efficacy.
Between-subject and Randomized Controlled Studies
Conducting evaluations of real-life coaching intervention is a complex and time consum-
ing process. Recruiting participants, managing the process of collecting data, organizing
the coaches and coachees, and ensuring that there is a broad consistency in the way that
the actual coaching is conducted presents unique and difficult challenges. These are made
particularly complicated when the coaching is conducted in organizational settings
wherethere are often competing political or operational agendas, and the structure and
priorities of the organization may change substantially over the course of the coaching
engagement.
It is thus not surprising that there are few between-subject studies in the coaching
literature. As of January 2011 in the PsycINFO database there are only 25 published
between-subject studies and only 14 of those used randomized controlled designs. The
14randomized controlled studies of coaching that have been conducted to date indicate
that coaching can indeed improve performance in various ways.
Four of these fourteen studies have been in the medical or health areas of work. Taylor
( 1997 ) found that solution-focused coaching fostered resilience in medical students. This
study appears to be the first reporting on the impact of solution-focused coaching.
Solution-focused approaches parallel the aims of appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider et al .,
2000 ), in that solution-focused coaching focuses specifically on the individual’s strengths
and goals, rather than taking a reductionist, diagnostic approach.
Gattellari et al . ( 2005 ) found that peer coaching by general practitioners improved the
coachee’s ability to make informed decisions about prostate-specific antigen screening.
Miller et al . ( 2004 ) found that coaching with feedback was superior to training-only
conditions, in a program designed to help clinicians learn motivational interviewing skills.
Spence et al . ( 2008 ) found that goal attainment in a health coaching program was greater
in the coaching condition when compared to an education-only intervention.
Passmore_c02.indd 25 9/8/2012 12:26:14 AM
26 Coaching
Four outcome studies have been in the life (or personal) coaching domain with
community samples and with students. These have indicated that coaching can improve or
indeed facilitate goal attainment and reduce anxiety and stress (Grant, 2003 ), enhance
psychological and subjective well-being (Green et al ., 2006 ; Spence and Grant, 2007 ) and
resilience, while reducing depression, stress, or anxiety (Green et al ., 2007).
There have been only two randomized controlled studies of workplace coaching.
Deviney ( 1994 ) examined the efficacy of supervisors acting as internal workplace coaches,
finding no changes in supervisors’ feedback skills following a multiple-rater feedback
intervention and coaching from their managers over nine weeks. The reason for this is not
clear, but it may be because the training processes for giving the supervisors’ workplace
coaching skills was not effective. The difficulties of developing managers’ coaching skills
iswell-recognized (Grant, 2010 ).
Duijts et al . ( 2008 ) examined the effectiveness of coaching as a means of reducing
sickness absence due to psychosocial health complaints and on well-being outcomes and
found that coaching led to significant improvements in health, life satisfaction, burnout,
and psychological well-being, but found no improvement in self-reported sickness absence,
concluding that coaching can enhance the general well-being of employees. There has
been only one randomized controlled study of the effectiveness of executive coaching,
with participants receiving 360-degree feedback followed by four sessions of executive
coaching. The coaching was found to improve goal attainment, increase resilience, and
reduce stress and depression (Grant et al ., 2009 ).
For some observers the small number of randomized controlled outcome studies may
be considered to be the major shortcoming in the literature on coaching efficacy. Although
the data obtained from quantitative, randomized, controlled outcome studies cannot
provide the rich detailed insights afforded by well-written qualitative case studies (e.g., see
Peterson and Millier, 2005 ), and many might contest their practical utility, they are
currently held to be the “gold standard” in quantitative outcome research (for discussion
on this issue in relation to coaching see Cavanagh and Grant, 2006 ). Certainly there is a
considerable section of the coaching and general scientific community that sees randomized
controlled studies as essential for establishing the credibility of coaching interventions,
and in this author’s view such research indeed provides one extremely important part of
the foundation for an evidence-based approach to coaching.
However, in real-life coaching research, unlike laboratory-based studies or clinical
drugtrials, genuine randomized allocation to intervention or control is often extremely
difficult, if not impossible. Because of these difficulties many coaching outcome studies
have used single group, pre-post, within-subject designs (e.g., Grant 2003 , Jones et al .,
2006 ; Olivero et al , 1997 ; Orenstein, 2006 ).
There have been a number of quasi-experimental studies that have used pre-test and
post-test comparisons with non-randomized allocation to a coaching or control group.
Miller ( 1990 ) examined the impact of coaching on transfer of training skills, but the
drawing of conclusions was restricted by a high rate of participant drop out: 91 participants
began the study but only 33 completed the final measures. Gyllensten and Palmer ( 2005 )
found that, compared with a no-coaching control group, coaching was associated with
lower levels of anxiety and stress. Evers et al . ( 2006 ) found that executive coaching
enhanced participants’ self-efficacy and their beliefs in their ability to set personal goals,
but they did not measure actual goal attainment. Barrett ( 2007 ) used a quasi-experimental,
modified post-test only control group design, finding that group coaching reduced
burnout but did not improve productivity.
Passmore_c02.indd 26 9/8/2012 12:26:14 AM
The Efficacy of Coaching 27
In an interesting use of workplace coaching to improve safety in the building industry,
Kines et al . ( 2010 ) found that coaching construction site foremen to include safety in their
daily verbal exchanges with workers had a significant positive and lasting effect on the level
of safety. Kochanowski et al . ( 2010 ) compared a feedback only group with a feedback plus
coaching group of managers on a leadership development program, finding that coaching
significantly increased the use of collaboration with subordinates. Recent research also
includes quasi-investigations into the differential effects of spaced versus massed training
and coaching strategies, finding that spaced rather than massed training practice resulted
in greater transfer quality, higher self-reports of sales competence and improved key
performance criteria (Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2010 ).
Longitudinal Studies: Is Coaching Effective Over Time?
In order to truly assess the efficacy of coaching interventions we need to know if any
reported effects maintain over time. However, thus far there have been very few longitu-
dinal studies. The few that have been conducted indicate that coaching can indeed produce
sustained change.
In a 12-month follow-up, Miller et al . ( 2004 ) found coaching with feedback was superior
to training-only conditions in maintaining clinicians’ interviewing skills. Green et al .
( 2006 ) found that gains from participation in a ten-week solution-focused cognitive-be-
havioral life coaching were maintained at a 30-week follow-up. Using an A-B-A-B design
in a signal subject case study with an 18-month follow-up, Libri and Kemp ( 2006 ) found
that cognitive-behavioral coaching enhanced sales performance and core self-evaluations.
Gauging Efficacy Through Measuring Outcomes of Coaching
It would appear from this review that coaching outcome research, as a relatively new area
of empirical study, is progressing through the “natural” stages of research development,
from descriptive or qualitative case studies, through to quantitative within-subject studies,
and on to quasi-experimental and randomized, controlled between-subject designs.
Indeed, the 234 outcome studies published between 2000 and January 2011 provide a
useful foundation for future research and are indicative of the emergence of an evidence
base for coaching, and the amount of research is increasing over time.
However, a major potential problem for the development of a coherent body of
knowledge about the effectiveness of coaching, and further establishment of an evidence-
based framework for coaching, is the fact that there is little consistency in the use of
outcome measures in coaching research. Indeed, the lack of consistency could prove to be
a significant barrier to the development of an evidence base for coaching, and could even
possibly lead to the decline of a coherent coaching literature as onlookers struggle to make
sense of a potentially amorphous mass of data.
For example, in relation to executive coaching, the topics addressed within the coaching
interventions vary widely and include interpersonal skills, stress management, strategic
thinking, time management, dealing with conflict, leadership and management styles,
delegation, staffing issues, as well as sales or financial performance (Bono et al ., 2009 ).
Not surprisingly the ways such goals are measured also vary considerably. However, there
is considerable variation between studies in the use of outcome measures, which makes it
Passmore_c02.indd 27 9/8/2012 12:26:14 AM
28 Coaching
very difficult to draw meaningful comparisons between studies, and this is an important
issue that researchers into coaching will need to address if a coherent body of knowledge
about coaching efficacy is to be developed over time.
An overview of the outcome literature in executive and workplace coaching illustrates
the diversity of variables used to measure the outcome of executive coaching. The
followingare some representative examples of outcome measure from the literature.
Executive Coaching Efficacy Measures
Peterson ( 1993 ) provides a valuable example of how to develop coaching assessments
to suit the idiosyncratic goals of individual coaching clients. Peterson used multiple
customized rating inventories and rating scales based on each coachee’s individual train-
ingobjectives, and drew data from a number of raters to assess the effectiveness of an
individualized coaching program for managers and executives. Steinbrenner and Schlosser
( 2011 ) and Orenstein ( 2006 ) have reported on the use of similar techniques.
Not surprisingly in executive coaching, customized surveys targeting the specific goals
of the coaching intervention, and reports completed by the coachee, their managers,
or peers form the largest single group of outcome measures in executive coaching
outcome research. For example, Jones et al . ( 2006 ) developed a customized self-report
inventory based on aspects of transactional and transformational leadership (Bass and
Avolio, 1994 ), and self-reported measures of managerial flexibility. Although in this case
such measures were theoretically grounded, no reliability or validity data (beyond face
validity) was reported – a common shortcoming in much of this literature. Olivero et al .
( 1997 ) used behavioral, task-specific outcome measures (the timely completion of
patient evaluation forms), to assess the relative impact of training and coaching, report-
ing that coaching and training combined was more effective than training alone. Gravel
( 2007 ) investigated the efficacy of executive coaching workshops with high school
principals using customized surveys assessing time spent on administrative tasks and
overall job satisfaction.
Given that most executives and senior managers participate in 360-degree assessments,
and that such assessments are frequently used at the beginning of a coaching assignment
in order to define the coaching goals (Coutu and Kauffman, 2009 ), it is surprising that
more outcome studies do not use 360-degree assessments or validated leadership style
assessments as outcome measures. Of those that did, Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson
(2002) used the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass and Avolio, 1990 ), a
well-validated and widely-used leadership assessment tool (Lowe et al ., 1996 ), to assess
changes in leadership style. However, only coachees’ self-ratings were taken following the
coaching program – probably due to the complexity of conducting follow-up research
with non-participants (Grant et al ., 2010 ).
Thach ( 2002 ) used a customized 360-degree feedback tool which drew on previously
validated items to assess the impact of executive coaching, collecting ratings from the
coachees themselves, their mangers, and their direct reports, finding that coaching
increases leadership effectiveness. Moving beyond merely assessing outcomes, Thach
( 2002 ) also conducted a number of additional analysis including exploring and reporting
positive correlational relationships between the number of coaching sessions attended and
increases in self-reported leadership effectiveness, giving possibly useful insights into some
of the mechanisms underpinning effective coaching.
Passmore_c02.indd 28 9/8/2012 12:26:14 AM
The Efficacy of Coaching 29
Also exploring both outcomes and the mechanisms underpinning effective coaching,
Trathen ( 2008 ) used Choices Architect ® , a research-based 360-tool designed to measure
learning agility (Lominger, 2009 ), collecting data from both participates and their
managers before and after coaching, finding a meaningful and significant association
between changes in leadership competences and learning agility among those participating
in executive coaching.
In a randomized controlled study of executive coaching in the health industry Grant
etal . ( 2009 ) reported on the use of the Human Synergistics Life Styles Inventory (LSI;
Lafferty, 1989 ) for 360-degree feedback, and on the use of the Depression, Anxiety and
Stress Scale (DASS; Lovibond and Lovibond, 1995 ), and the Workplace Well-being Index
(WWBI; Page, 2005 ) for assessment of the impact of coaching on individual participants’
mental health. For an assessment of the impact of coaching on goal attainment Grant et al .
( 2009 ) used goal attainment scaling (see Spence, 2007 ), a process in which participants set
personal goals and rate their goal progression before and after the coaching intervention.
Coaching was associated with improved outcomes on all these measures.
More recently Cerni et al . ( 2010 ) used a pre-test, post-test control-group research
design to assess the impact of a ten-week coaching intervention program based on
cognitive-experiential self theory on transformational leadership among 14 secondary
school principals using the MLQ (Bass and Avolio, 1990 ), finding a significant difference
between the pre-test and post-test scores for the intervention group, as rated by their
school staff, whereas the control group remained unchanged. Cerni et al . ( 2010 ) reported
qualitative findings indicating that school principals in the intervention group became
more reflective about their thinking processes and leadership practices.
However, although the aforementioned studies that have employed 360-degree
feedback assessments show that such assessment is indeed a viable outcome measure in
coaching, it is nevertheless true that one key barrier to the common use of 360-degree
assessments, as an assessment of the efficacy of coaching interventions, is that the collection
of such data pre- and post-coaching intervention is often an extremely time consuming
and challenging process, involving coordinating time-poor employees and senior executives
at multiple time points. Nevertheless, when reliable and well-validated 360-degree tools
are used appropriately, such research can provide important standardized data about
the efficacy of coaching that is important for the advancement of coaching. It is
recommended that far more research be conducted long these lines.
Workplace and Personal Coaching Measures
A similarly diverse pattern is evident in the outcome literature on workplace coaching
with non-executive employees. It is also notable that a number of these studies have
employed objective outcome measures, important indices in assessing the efficacy of
coaching interventions. For example, Sergio ( 1987 ) reported on a workplace coaching
intervention aimed at modifying six specific behaviors of 24 male forming-machine
operators in a mid-sized fastener manufacturing organization with the outcome measures
being actual observed behaviors, and most importantly, a reduction in actual wasted
material.
Another interesting study that used actual observable behaviors as a measure of the
efficacy of workplace coaching was Kines et al . ( 2010 ) who explored the use of coaching
to improve safety behaviors on construction sites. Foremen were coached to increase the
Passmore_c02.indd 29 9/8/2012 12:26:14 AM
30 Coaching
number of times that they included safety-related comments in their day-to-day dealings
with construction site workers. The foremen set specific personal goals about the number
of times they wished to refer to safety behaviors in their interactions with workers, and the
foremen then received bi-weekly feedback and coaching on their actual performance.
Compared to control groups the coaching condition increased safety on a number
ofobservable measures, including the number of times workers reported having had a
safety-related conversation with their foreman, observed safety performance, and the
authors concluded that feedback-based coaching to construction site foremen regarding
the content of their daily verbal exchanges resulted in significant increases in workers’
safety performance and the physical safety level of the work site.
Also exploring the effect of coaching on objective measures of performance in university
students, Franklin and Doran ( 2009 ) conducted a well-designed, double-blind, random,
control trial in which participants were randomly allocated to either a preparation, action,
adaptive learning (PAAL) coaching condition, or to a self-regulation co-coaching program
with blind assessment of subsequent academic performance – an objective behavioral
measure of the efficacy of the coaching intervention. A third no-treatment condition was
used for additional comparison and control of expectancy effects. Participants in both
coaching conditions reported significant improvements in self-efficacy and resilience, but
only those in the PAAL condition experienced significant increases in decisional balance,
hope, self-compassion, and belief in the incremental theory of change. Moreover,
participants in the PAAL condition experienced significantly greater increases in six of
theseven dependent variables than participants in the self-regulation condition. Relative
to the no treatment control group, PAAL participants performed 10 percent better in
independently assessed academic performance, whereas those in the self-regulation
coaching condition only performed 2 percent better.
Other workplace coaching studies have used self-reported measures of workplace
performance and mental health to good effect. Duijts et al . ( 2008 ) conducted a randomized
controlled study into the impact of coaching on employees’ sickness absence due to psy-
chosocial health complaints and on the general well-being of employees using self- reported
measures including the Short Form Health Survey (Ware and Sherbourne, 1992 ), the
General Health Questionnaire (Koeter and Ormel, 1991 ), the Dutch Questionnaire on
Perception and Judgment of Work (Veldhoven and Meijmen, 1994 ), and the Dutch ver-
sion of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Schaufeli and Dierendonck, 2000 ), which are all
well-validated measures.
In a quasi-experimental study examining the impact of workplace coaching on mental
health with finance industry employees, Gyllensten and Palmer ( 2005 ) used the DASS
(Lovibond and Lovibond, 1995 ) as an outcome measure and found that levels of anxiety
and stress had decreased more in the coaching group compared to the control group, and
were lower in the coaching group compared to the control group at the end of the study.
Evers et al . ( 2006 ) report on an executive coaching intervention with managers of the
US federal government using self-report measures of self-efficacy beliefs and outcome
expectancies that were linked to three central domains of functioning: setting one ’ s own
goals, acting in a balanced way, and mindful living and working.
Comparing the relative impact of a feedback workshop with attendance at the workshop
followed by coaching sessions, Kochanowski et al . ( 2010 ) found that coaching signifi-
cantly increased manager’s use of collaboration with subordinates, which was assessed
using the Influence Behaviour Questionnaire (IBQ; Yukl et al ., 2008 ) which measures 11
proactive influence tactics.
Passmore_c02.indd 30 9/8/2012 12:26:14 AM
The Efficacy of Coaching 31
In relation to coaching in non-workplace settings, the outcome measures used to assess
the efficacy of coaching interventions have been similarly varied and have included
personality inventories (Norlander, 2002 ), students’ well-being (Short et al ., 2010 ),
improvement of techniques in Aikido (Negi and Shimamline, 2010 ), goal self-concordance
(Burke and Linley, 2007 ), and body mass index (Zandvoort et al ., 2009 ), as well as
measures of mental health (Spence and Grant, 2007 ), well-being (Green et al ., 2007), and
self-refection and insight (e.g., Grant, 2008 ).
The observed extensive variations in outcome measures is to be expected given that
coaching is a highly individualized human change methodology and is used in a wide
range of contexts. Coaching outcome measures are purposefully aligned with individual
client’s goals; thus, it is inevitable that outcome measures will vary considerably between
studies. However, as previously mentioned, the idiosyncratic use of measures means that
it is difficult for a coherent body of knowledge to develop over time. For such a body of
knowledge to develop we need to augment the idiosyncratic measures necessary to assess
the efficacy of specific coaching engagement with common standardized, validated, and
psychometrically reliable measures (Passmore, 2008 ).
Using Validated Measures to Assess Efficacy:
Mental Health and Goal Attainment
It is surprising that few studies have used commonly-available, well-validated measures of
mental health and well-being given that coaching is frequently promoted as being effective
as a means of enhancing both goal attainment and well-being (e.g., Levine et al ., 2006 ;
Passmore and Gibbes, 2007 ). This is despite the fact that there are many such measures
designed for use in non-clinical populations. Such measures include the Depression,
Anxiety and Stress Scale (Lovibond and Lovibond, 1995 ), the Psychological Well-being
Scale (Ryff and Keyes, 1996 ), the Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener et al ., 1985 ), and
the Cognitive Hardiness Scale (Nowack, 1990 ).
Coaching is a goal-orientated change methodology. Thus, goal attainment is an
important outcome measure in coaching. However, few outcome studies have used goal
attainment scaling as a measure of coaching efficacy. Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) tech-
niques offer a useful methodology for measuring goal progression towards predetermined
objective success benchmarks. For a comprehensive discussion of the use of GAS in
coaching see Spence ( 2007 ). The broader use of GAS could provide a means of making
comparisons between studies and its use in coaching efficacy research would significantly
help to further build a coherent body of knowledge about the efficacy of coaching. GAS
would also help address the serious limitations of the few studies that have examined
return on investment (ROI) in coaching using subjective post-coaching ratings of success
(e.g., McGovern et al ., 2001 ).
Is Return on Investment a Reliable Measure
of Coaching Efficacy?
Return on investment is often presented as being the most important indicator of coaching
efficacy in organizational coaching contexts. Return on investment data is calculated using
metrics such as growth in sales, market share, or organizational profitability, and is
Passmore_c02.indd 31 9/8/2012 12:26:14 AM
32 Coaching
frequently used by coaching and consulting organizations as a marketing tool in order to
promote and sell their coaching and consulting services. Return on investment figures of
788 percent (Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson, 2001 ) and 545 percent (McGovern et al .,
2001 ) are commonly reported as being the ROI for executive coaching and are frequently
touted as being a key rationale of the use of coaching in organizational settings (Grant
etal ., 2010).
But is ROI a reliable measure of coaching efficacy? On the surface the idea that
spending money on coaching services will make the organization more money in return,
seems like a persuasive argument for the use of ROI as both a measure of coaching
efficacy and as a means of promoting coaching as a viable and reliable change methodology.
However, Ibelieve that there are some significant problems in using ROI as a measure of
coaching efficacy.
To understand these problems we need to examine how ROI is typically calculated. In
essence, ROI is calculated by subtracting the value of the outcomes of coaching from the
costs of coaching and then expressing this as a percentage (((coaching benefits– costs of
coaching)/costs of coaching)) x 100 percent). There are a number of different variations
on this formula, for example, including factoring into the calculation a rating of the
coachee’s level of confidence that all or some of the perceived benefits are in fact due to
coaching, or deliberately underestimating the financial return (Grant et al ., 2010 ).
However, whilst ROI can provide some indications about the impact of a specific
coaching intervention in a specific context, I argue that ROI has serious limitations as a
benchmark outcome measure for coaching effectiveness. The use of ROI may well give
purchasers of coaching services and those who seek to market their coaching and consul-
tancy services a sense of comfort and some reassurance that their coaching is effective and
valuable, but does ROI really measure the true impact of coaching? Most definitely not.
It is important to note that the ROI metric depends on two key things: (1) the costs
of the coaching intervention, including the amount that the coaches charge and asso-
ciated costs of implantation, and (2) the financial benefit obtained by the organization.
These are highly idiosyncratic factors. Thus at best ROI can only be indicative of a
single specific coaching engagement, and is a somewhat spurious measure of coaching
outcome.
Do We Yet Have an Evidence Base for the Efficacy
of Coaching?
It is clear from this review of the literature on the efficacy of coaching that the amount and
quality of coaching outcome research is increasing and, importantly, applications
arebecoming more diverse over time. The quality and sophistication of the research is
increasing, but it is also clear that there are no standardized or even particularly commonly
used measures of coaching efficacy. The indicators of efficacy reviewed here include
leadership style, reductions in wastage in manufacturing settings, psychological well-being,
employees’ absence due to sickness, personal resilience, workplace well-being, sales perfor-
mance, safety behaviors on construction sites, ROI, and goal attainment, to name just a
few. It is indeed heartening to see coaching methodologies being used so broadly. But the
wide success of coaching also brings its own problems. The questions remain: Do we yet
have an evidence-base for the efficacy of coaching? Can we now say that coaching is an
effective human change methodology?
Passmore_c02.indd 32 9/8/2012 12:26:14 AM
The Efficacy of Coaching 33
I suggest that the above review indicates that we do indeed have an emergent evidence
base for the efficacy of coaching, and that we can certainly say that coaching can be a very
effective human change methodology.
But we must also recognize that the evidence base at present is somewhat unsophistic-
ated in comparison to areas such as medicine and health – domains typically taken to rep-
resent aspirational benchmarks as other disciplines move towards their own evidence base
(for discussion on this point in relation to the debate on an evidence base for industrial and
organizational psychology see Potworowski and Green, 2011 ). Indeed, alternative per-
spectives could suggest that we do not have sufficient well-conducted between-subject
studies to constitute a true evidence base for coaching and, furthermore, the notion of
evidence-based coaching is highly unrealistic because coaching does not have and is
unlikely to ever develop a sophisticated knowledge base such as that found in the domains
of medicine and health. In short, they might argue, the notion of an evidence-base for
coaching is simply not achievable.
However, such an argument is based on the assumption that a discipline of professional
coaching should aspire to development along the lines of evidence-based practice (EBP)
as delineated by the medical model. I am not at all convinced that this should be the case.
Where much of the medical, health, and clinical psychological literature appears to hold
tightly to the medical model of EBP, prizing randomized controlled trials above other
forms of empirical enquiry, there has been considerable debate about the applicability of
evidence based approaches to “real world” organizational contexts in the industrial and
organizational (I/O) psychology literature (e.g., Briner and Rousseau, 2011 ) – contexts
highly familiar to much coaching research and practice. Itis important to note that an
evidence base per se does not purport to prove that anyspecific intervention is guaranteed
to be effective, nor does it require that a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial is held
as being inevitably and objectively better than a qualitative case study approach.
Inclusivity in Establishing Efficacy
An evidence-base for coaching should recognize that, as in the case of I/O psychology,
real-world research is not easy. In the real world, allocation to intervention or control is
not always possible, and moreover, as this chapter’s earlier discussion of the Freedman and
Perry ( 2010 ) case study clearly shows, well-conducted qualitative research into coaching
can provide important insights that are simply not possible with quantitative approaches–
and a true evidence base for any discipline should recognize and respond to diversity of
practice by providing reliable information for a wide range of applications, contexts, and
methodologies. This view of evidence-based approaches is deliberately broad, and this
broad perspective represents current thinking in this area (Cronin and Klimoski, 2011 ) –
and I posit that it is this view that should inform the development of an evidence base for
coaching.
Within this view many forms of enquiry are welcome and valued. The key criteria for
evaluation and tests of efficacy should thus be the rigor and coherence of the enquiry,
the insights it generates, and its contribution to the broader knowledge research and
practice of coaching, rather than whether it is a qualitative, single case study or a large-scale
randomized controlled study. Each has its place and each can contribute to the continued
development of our understanding of the efficacy of this exciting human change
methodology that we call coaching.
Passmore_c02.indd 33 9/8/2012 12:26:14 AM
34 Coaching
Conclusion
There can be little doubt that the academic and research base for coaching has grown
substantially, and all signs indicate that this growth will continue into the near to mid
future at the very least. Coaching has definitively moved from fad to fixture in organizational
contexts, and in the areas of personal and developmental coaching, too. Applications of
coaching are highly diverse and measures of coaching efficacy are similarly varied. The lack
of consistency associated with such diversity could prove to be a significant obstacle in the
development of an evidence base for coaching as onlookers struggle to make sense of a
potentially amorphous mass of data.
In order to move the evidence base for coaching further forward we need to increase the
use of standardized outcome measures and this will give greater consistency to the research
literature. This is not to decry the use of idiosyncratic measures that reflect the individual-
istic goals that often lie at the heart of the coaching endeavor. Rather, it is a call to augment
those so that a common language of coaching efficacy can develop. Goal attainment
scaling may be one measure of efficacy that can provide the syntax necessary to enable this
language, and could well provide the framework to facilitate communication across the
broad range of contexts in which contemporary coaching is practiced and researched. In
this way we have the opportunity to demonstrate that the diversity of coaching is indeed
its key strength.
References
Agarwal , R. , Angst , C.M. , and Magni , M. ( 2009 ) The performance effects of coaching: A multilevel
analysis using hierarchical linear modeling . International Journal of Human Resource
Management , 20 ( 10 ), 2110 – 34 .
Anderson , M.C. , Anderson , D.L. , and Mayo , W.D. ( 2008 ) Team coaching helps a leadership team
drive cultural change at Caterpillar . Global Business and Organizational Excellence , 27 ( 4 ),
40 – 50 .
Bacigalupo , A. , Hess , J. , and Fernandes , J. ( 2009 ) Meeting the challenges of culture and agency
change in an academic health center . Leadership and Organization Development Journal , 30 ( 5 ),
408 – 20 .
Barrett , P. T. ( 2007 ) The effects of group coaching on executive health and team effectiveness:
Aquasi-experimental field study . Dissertation Abstracts International Section A
, 67 , 26 – 40 .
Bass , B.M. and Avolio , B.J. ( 1990 ) Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire . Palo Alto, CA : Consulting Psychologists Press .
Bass , B.M. and Avolio , B.J. ( 1994 ) Improving Organisational Effectiveness through Transformational
Leadership . London : Sage .
Beck , A.T. and Steer , R.A. ( 1993 ) Beck Anxiety Inventory Manual . San Antonio : The Psychological
Corporation .
Beck , A.T. Steer , R.A. , and Brown , B.S. ( 1996 ) Beck Depression Inventory Manual ( 2nd edn). San
Antonio : The Psychological Corporation .
Bennett , J.A. and Perrin , N.A . ( 2005 )
Healthy aging demonstration project: Nurse coaching for
behavior change in older adults . Research in Nursing and Health , 28 ( 3 ) June.
Bono , J.E. , Purvanova , R.K. , Towler , A.J. , and Peterson , D.B. ( 2009 ) A survey of executive coaching
practices . Personnel Psychology , 62 ( 2 ), 361 – 404 .
Bowles , S. , Cunningham , C.J. , De La Rosa , G.M. , and Picano , J. ( 2007 ) Coaching leaders in middle
and executive management: Goals, performance, buy-in . Leadership and Organization
Development Journal , 28 , 388 – 408 .
Passmore_c02.indd 34 9/8/2012 12:26:14 AM
The Efficacy of Coaching 35
Briner , R.B. and Rousseau , D.M. ( 2011 ) Evidence-based I–O psychology: Not there yet . Industrial
and Organizational Psychology , 4 ( 1 ), 3 – 22 .
Burke , D. and Linley , P. ( 2007 ) Enhancing goal self-concordance through coaching . International
Coaching Psychology Review , 2 ( 1 ), 62 – 9 .
Carver , C.S. and Scheier , M.F. ( 1998 ) On the Self-regulation of Behavior . Cambridge, UK : Cambridge
University Press .
Cavanagh , M. and Grant , A.M. ( 2006 ) Coaching psychology and the scientist-practioner model . In:
S. Corrie and D. Lane (eds) The Modern Scientist Practitioner . New York : Routledge .
pp. 146 – 57 .
Cerni , T. , Curtis , G.J. , and Colmar , S.H. ( 2010 ) Executive coaching can enhance transformational
leadership . International Coaching Psychology Review , 5 ( 1 ), 81 – 5 .
Clegg , S. , Rhodes , C. , Kornberger , M. , and Stilin , R. ( 2005 ) Business coaching: Challenges for an
emerging industry . Industrial and Commercial Training , 37 ( 5 ), 218 – 23.
Conway , R.L . ( 2000 ) The impact of coaching mid-level managers utilizing multi-rater feedback .
Dissertation Abstracts International , 60 ( 7-A ), 2672 .
Cooperrider , D.L. , Sorensen , P. F. , Whitney , D. , and Yaeger , T.F. ( 2000 ) Appreciative Inquiry:
Rethinking Human Organization Toward a Positive Theory of Change . Champaign, IL : Stipes
Publishing .
Corbett , K. ( 2006 ) The Sherpa Report (2006) . Ohio : Sasha Corp .
Coutu , D. and Kauffman , C. ( 2009 ) The Realities of Executive Coaching . Cambridge, MA : Harvard
Business Review Research Report .
Cronin , M.A. and Klimoski , R. ( 2011 ) Broadening the view of what constitutes “evidence” .
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 4 ( 1 ), 57 – 61 .
Cunha , P. V. and Louro , M.J. ( 2000 ) Building teams that learn . Academy of Management Executive ,
14 ( 1 ), 152 .
Deviney , D.E. ( 1994 ) The effects of coaching using mulitple rater feedback to change supervisor
behavior . Disser tation Abstracts International Section A
, 55 , 114 .
Diener , E. , Emmons , R.A. , Larsen , R.J. , and Griffin , S. ( 1985 ) The satisfaction with life scale .
Journal of Personality Assessment , 49 ( 1 ), 71 – 5 .
Douglas , C.A. and McCauley , C.D. ( 1999 ) Formal developmental relationships: A survey of organi-
zational practices . Human Development Quarterly , 10 ( 3 ), 203 – 20 .
Duffy , E.M. ( 1984 ) A feedback-coaching intervention and selected predictors in outplacement .
Dissertation Abstracts International Section B , 45 ( 1611 ).
Duijts , S.F.A.P ., Kant , I.P ., van den Brandt , P.A.P ., and Swaen , G.M.H.P . ( 2008
) Effectiveness of a
preventive coaching intervention for employees at risk for sickness absence due to psychosocial
health complaints: Results of a randomized controlled trial . Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine , 50 ( 7 ), 765 – 76 .
Evers , W.J. , Brouwers , A. , and Tomic , W. ( 2006 ) A quasi-experimental study on management coaching
effectiveness . Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research , 58 ( 3 ), 174 – 82 .
Farndale , E. , Scullion , H. , and Sparrow , P. ( 2010 ) The role of the corporate HR function in global
talent management . Journal of World Business , 45 ( 2 ), 161 – 8 .
Fielden , S.L. , Davidson , M.J. , and Sutherland , V.J. ( 2009 ) Innovations in coaching and mentoring:
Implications for nurse leadership development . Health Services Management Research ,
22 (
2 ), 92 – 9 .
Frank Bresser Consulting ( 2009 ) The state of coaching across the globe: The results of the Global
Coaching Survey 2008/2009 retreived March 29, 2011 from http://www.frank-bresser-
consulting.com/globalcoachingsurvey.html .
Franklin , J. and Doran , J. ( 2009 ) Does all coaching enhance objective performance independently
evaluated by blind assessors? The importance of the coaching model and content . International
Coaching Psychology Review , 4 ( 2 ), 128 – 44 .
Freedman , A.M. and Perry , J.A. ( 2010 ) Executive consulting under pressure: A case study . Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research , 62 ( 3 ), 189 – 202 .
Passmore_c02.indd 35 9/8/2012 12:26:14 AM
36 Coaching
Gattellari , M. , Donnelly , N. , Taylor , N. , Meerkin , M. , Hirst , G. , and Wa rd , J. ( 2005 ) Does peer
coaching increase GP capacity to promote informed decision making about FSA screening?
Acluster randomised trial . Family Practice , 22 , 253 – 65 .
Gershman , L. ( 1967 ) The effects of specific factors of the supervisor-subordinate coaching climate
upon improvement of attitude and performance of the subordinate . Dissertation Abstracts
International Section B , 28 , 2122 .
Gorby , C.B. ( 1937 ) Everyone gets a share of the profits . Factor y Management and Maintenance ,
95 , 82 – 3 .
Grant , A.M . ( 2002 ) Towards a psychology of coaching: The impact of coaching on metacognition,
mental health and goal attainment . Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities
and Social Sciences , 63 / 12 , (June), 6094 .
Grant , A.M. ( 2003
) The impact of life coaching on goal attainment, metacognition and mental
health . Social Behavior and Personality , 31 ( 3 ), 253 – 64 .
Grant , A.M. ( 2008 ) Personal life coaching for coaches-in-training enhances goal attainment, insight
and learning . Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice , 1 ( 1 ), 54 – 70 .
Grant , A.M. ( 2010 ) It takes time: A stages of change perspective on the adoption of workplace
coaching skills . Journal of Change Management , 10 ( 1 ), 61 – 77 .
Grant , A.M. ( 2011 ) Workplace, executive and life coaching: An annotated bibliography from the
behavioural science and business literature (January 1). Unpublished paper: Coaching
Psychology Unit, University of Sydney, Australia.
Grant , A.M. and O ’ Hara , B. ( 2006 ) The self-presentation of commercial Australian life coaching
schools: Cause for concern? International Coaching Psychology Review , 1 ( 2 ), 20 – 32 .
Grant , A.M.
, Curtayne , L. , and Burton , G. ( 2009 ) Executive coaching enhances goal attainment,
resilience and workplace well-being: A randomised controlled study . Journal of Positive
Psychology , 4 ( 5 ), 396 – 407 .
Grant , A.M. , Passmore , J. , Cavanagh , M.J. , and Parker , H. ( 2010 ) The state of play in coaching
today: A comprehensive review of the field . International Review of Industrial and Organisational
Psychology , 25 , 125 – 68 .
Gravel , T. M . ( 2007 ) Principal time commitment and job satisfaction before and after an executive
coaching workshop . Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social
Sciences , 68 ( 4-A ), 1247 .
Green , L. , Oades , L. , and Grant , A. ( 2006 ) Cognitive-behavioral, solution-focused life coaching:
Enhancing goal striving, well-being, and hope . The Journal of Positive Psychology , 1 ( 3
), 142 – 9 .
Green , L.S. , Grant , A.M. , and Rynsaardt , J. ( 2007 ) Evidence-based life coaching for senior high school
students: Building hardiness and hope . International Coaching Psychology Review , 2 ( 1 ), 24 – 32 .
Gyllensten , K. and Palmer , S. ( 2005 ) Can coaching reduce workplace stress: A quasi-experimental
study . International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring , 3 ( 2 ), 75 – 85 .
Hernez-Broome , G. and Boyce , L.A. (eds) ( 2011 ) Advancing Executive Coaching . San Francisco
CA : Josey-Bass .
International Coach Federation ( 2006 ) Global Coaching Study . International Coach Federation, TX :
International Coach Federation .
Jarvis , J. , Lane , D.
, and Fillery-Travis , A. ( 2005 ) Making the Case for Coaching: Does it Work .
London : Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development .
Jones , R.A. , Rafferty , A.E. , and Griffin , M.A. ( 2006 ) The executive coaching trend: Towards more
flexible executives . Leadership and Organization Development Journal , 27 , 584 – 96 .
Judge , T.A. , Erez , A. , Bono , J.E. , and Thoresen , C.J. ( 2003 ) The core self-evaluation scale:
Development of a measure . Personnel Psychology , 56 , 303 – 31 .
Kampa-Kokesch , S . ( 2002 ) Executive coaching as an individually tailored consultation intervention:
Does it increase leadership? Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences and
Engineering , 62 ( 7-B ), 3408 .
Kampa-Kokesch , S. and Anderson , M.Z.
( 2001 ) Executive coaching: A comprehensive review of the
literature . Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research , 53 ( 4 ), 205 – 28 .
Passmore_c02.indd 36 9/8/2012 12:26:14 AM
The Efficacy of Coaching 37
Kauffeld , S. and Lehmann-Willenbrock , N. ( 2010 ) Sales training: Effects of spaced practice on training
transfer . Journal of European Industrial Training , 34 ( 1 ), 23 – 37 .
Kines , P. , Andersen , L.P. , Spangenberg , S. , Mikkelsen , K.L. , Dyreborg , J. , and Zohar , D. ( 2010 )
Improving construction site safety through leader-based verbal safety communication . Journal
of Safety Research , 41 ( 5 ), 399 – 406 .
Kochanowski , S. , Seifert , C.F. , and Yukl , G. ( 2010 ) Using coaching to enhance the effects of
behavioral feedback to managers . Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies , 17 ( 4 ), 363 – 9 .
Koeter , M.W.J. and Ormel , J. ( 1991 ) General Health Questionnaire Manual, Dutch Version . Lisse :
Swete and Zeitlinger .
Kubicek , M . ( 2002 ) Is coaching being abused? Training , 12 – 14 .
Lafferty , J.C. ( 1989 ) Life Style Inventory LSI 1: Self-development Guide . Plymouth, MI : Human
Synergistics .
Leadership Management Australia ( 2006 ) The LEAD Survey 2005/6 . Melbourne : Leadership
Management Australia .
Leadership Management Australia ( 2009 ) Learnings for the New World of 2009 . Melbourne :
Leadership Management Australia .
Levine , T. , Kase , L. , and Vitale , J. ( 2006 ) The Successful Coach: Insider Secrets to Becoming a Top
Coach . New York : John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Libri , V. and Kemp , T. ( 2006 ) Assessing the efficacy of a cognitive behavioural executive coaching
programme . International Coaching Psychology Review , 1 ( 2 ), 9 – 18 .
Lominger ( 2009 ) Choices Architect ® . Minneapolis , MN : Lominger International .
Lovibond , S.H. and Lovibond , P. F. ( 1995 ) Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales . Sydney :
Psychology Foundation of Australia .
Lowe , K.B. , Kroeck , K.G. , and Sivasubramaniam , N. ( 1996 ) Effectiveness correlates of transformation
and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature . Leadership Quarterly ,
7 ( 3 ), 385 – 425 .
McGovern , J. , Lindermann , M.
, Vergara , M.A. , Murphy , S. , Barker , L. , and Warrenfelz , R. ( 2001 )
Maximizing the impact of executive coaching: Behavioral change, organizational outcomes and
return on investment . The Manchester Review , 6 ( 1 ), 1 – 9 .
Maurer , T. , Solamon , J. , and Troxtel , D. ( 1998 ) Relationship of coaching performance with perfor-
mance in situational employment interviews . Journal of Applied Psychology , 83 ( 1 ), 128 – 36 .
Miller , D.J. ( 1990 ) The effect of managerial coaching on transfer of training . Dissertation Abstracts
International Section B , 50 ( 2435 ).
Miller , W.R. , Yahne , C.E. , Moyers , T.B., Martinez , J. , and Pirritano , M.
( 2004 ) A randomized trial
of methods to help clinicians learn motivational interviewing . Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology , 72 ( 6 ), 1050 – 62 .
Mulec , K. and Roth , J. ( 2005 ) Action, reflection, and learning and coaching in order to enhance
the performance of drug development project management teams . R&D Management , 35 ,
483 – 91 .
Negi , S. and Shimamline , S. ( 2010 ) Behavioral coaching and skill improvement in Aikido .
TheJapanese Journal of Behavior Analysis , 24 ( 1 ), 59 – 65 .
Norlander , T. , Bergman , H. , and Archers , T. ( 2002 ) Relative constancy of personality characteristics
and efficacy of a 12-month training program in facilitating coping strategies . Social Behavior and
Personality , 30 ( 8 ), 773 – 83 .
Nowack , K.M.
( 1990 ) Initial development of an inventory to assess stress and health . American
Journal of Health Promotion , 4 , 173 – 180 .
Olivero , G. , Bane , K. , and Kopelman , R.E. ( 1997 ) Executive coaching as a transfer of training tool:
Effects on productivity in a public agency . Public Personnel Management , 26 ( 4 ), 461 – 9 .
Orenstein , R.L. ( 2006 ) Measuring executive coaching efficacy? The answer was right here all the
time . Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research , 58 , 106 – 16 .
Page , K . ( 2005 ) Subjective wellbeing in the workplace . Unpublished thesis, Deakin University ,
Melbourne, Australia .
Passmore_c02.indd 37 9/8/2012 12:26:14 AM
38 Coaching
Passmore , J. ( 2007 ) Addressing deficit performance through coaching – using motivational interviewing
for performance improvement at work . International Coaching Psychology Review , 2 ( 3 ), 265 – 75 .
Passmore , J. (ed.) ( 2008 ) Psychometrics in Coaching . London : Kogan Page .
Passmore , J. and Gibbes , C. ( 2007 ) The state of executive coaching research: What does the current
literature tell us and what’s next for coaching research? International Coaching Psychological
Review , 2 ( 2 ), 116 – 28 .
Passmore , J. and Mortimer , L. ( 2011 ) The experience of using coaching as a learning technique in
learner driver development: An IPA study of adult learning . International Coaching Psychology
Review , 6 ( 1 ), 33 – 45 .
Peterson , D.B. ( 1993 ) Skill learning and behavior change in an individually tailored management
coaching program . Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota , Minneapolis, MN .
Peterson , D.B. ( 2007 ) Executive coaching in a cross-cultural context . Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research , 59 ( 4 ), 261 – 71 .
Peterson , D.B. and Millier , J. ( 2005 ) The alchemy of coaching: “You ’ re good, Jennifer, but you
could be really good.” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research , 57 ( 1 ), 14 – 40 .
Potworowski , G. and Green , L.A. ( 2011 ) Assessing the uptake of evidence-based management:
Asystems approach . Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 4 ( 1 ), 54 – 6 .
Ryff , C.D. and Keyes , C.L.M. ( 1996 ) The structure of psychological wellbeing revisited . Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology , 96 , 719 – 27 .
Scandura , T. ( 1992
) Mentoring and career mobility: An empirical investigation . Journal
of Organizational Behavior , 13 ( 2 ), 169 – 74 .
Schaufeli , W.B. and Dierendonck , D. ( 2000 ) UBOS , Utrechtse Bournout Schaal, Handeiding . Lisse :
Swets Test Publishers .
Sergio , J.P . ( 1987 ) Behavioral coaching as an inter vention to reduce production costs through a
decrease in output defects . Dissertation Abstracts International , 47 ( 8-B ), 3566 – 7 .
Short , E. , Kinman , G. , and Baker , S. ( 2010 ) Evaluating the impact of a peer coaching intervention
on well-being amongst psychology undergraduate students . International Coaching Psychology
Review , 5 ( 1 ), 27 – 35 .
Solansky , S.T. ( 2010 ) The evaluation of two key leadership development program components:
Leadership skills assessment and leadership mentoring . Leadership Quarterly , 21 (
4 ), 675 – 81 .
Spence , G.B. ( 2007 ) GAS powered coaching: Goal Attainment Scaling and its use in coaching
research and practice . International Coaching Psychology Review , 2 ( 2 ), 155 – 67 .
Spence , G.B. and Grant , A. ( 2007 ) Professional and peer life coaching and the enhancement of goal
striving and well-being: An exploratory study . The Journal of Positive Psychology , 2 , 185 – 94 .
Spence , G.B. , Cavanagh , M.J. , and Grant , A.M. ( 2008 ) The integration of mindfulness training and
health coaching: an exploratory study . Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research
and Practice , 1 ( 2 ), 145 – 63 .
Steinbrenner , D. and Schlosser , B. ( 2011 ) The coaching impact study ( TM ) . In: G. Hernez-Broome and
L.A. Boyce (eds) Advancing Executive Coaching . San Francisco CA : Jossey-Bass . pp. 369 – 400 .
Sue-Chan , C. and Latham , G.P. ( 2004 ) The relative effectiveness of expert, peer and self coaches .
Applied Psychology , 53 ( 2 ), 260 – 78 .
Taylor , L.M. ( 1997 ) The relation between resilience, coaching, coping skills training, and perceived
stress during a career-threatening milestone . Dissertation Abstracts International , 58 ( 5 ), 2738 .
Thach , L.C. ( 2002 ) The impact of executive coaching and 360 feedback on leadership effectiveness .
Leadership and Organization Development Journal , 23 ( 4 ), 205 – 14 .
Trathen , S.A . ( 2008 ) Executive coaching, changes in leadership competencies and learning agility
amongst Microsoft senior executives . Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences
and Engineering , 69 ( 1-B ), 2008, 727.
Veldhoven , M. and Meijmen , T. ( 1994 ) Questionnaire on Perception and Judgment of Work .
Amsterdam : NIA .
Vloeberghs , D. , Pepermans , R. , and Thielemans , K. ( 2005 ) High-potential development policies: An
empirical study among Belgian companies . Journal of Management Development , 24 ( 6 ), 546 – 58 .
Passmore_c02.indd 38 9/8/2012 12:26:14 AM
The Efficacy of Coaching 39
Ware , J.E. and Sherbourne , C.D. ( 1992 ) The MOS 36-item short-form health sur vey (SF-36):
Concpetual framework and item selection . Med Care , 30 , 473 – 83 .
Wilson , C. ( 2004 ) Coaching and coach training in the workplace . Industrial and Commercial
Training , 36 ( 3 ), 96 – 8 .
Wright , J. ( 2007 ) Stress in the workplace: A coaching approach . Work: Journal of Prevention,
Assessment and Rehabilitation , 28 , 279 – 84 .
Yukl , G. , Seifert , C.F. and Chavez , C. ( 2008 ) Validation of the extended Influence Behavior
Questionnaire . Leadership Quarterly , 19 , 609 – 21 .
Zandvoort , M. v. , Irwin , J. D. , and Morrow , D.
( 2009 ) The impact of co-active life coaching on
female university students with obesity . International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and
Mentoring , 7 ( 1 ), 104 – 8 .
Passmore_c02.indd 39 9/8/2012 12:26:15 AM
