ArticlePDF Available

What constitutes evidence-based coaching? A two-by-two framework for distinguishing strong from weak evidence for coaching 1

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

There has been an almost exponential growth in the amount of coaching-specific and coaching-related research over the past ten years. At the same time there has been considerable interest in the development of evidence-based approaches to coaching, and many coaching practitioners have incorporated the phrase into their terms of reference for their practice. However, these is still a lack of clarity about what constitutes evidence based coaching, and there have been few, if any, published guidelines about how to determine the relevance of different bodies of research to coaching practice. This article discusses the nature of evidence-based practice as it relates to coaching and then presents a two-by-two framework that highlights the relevance of a broad range of research to evidence-based coaching practice. The aim of this paper is to help further develop a more nuanced view of evidence-based approaches to coaching practice.
Content may be subject to copyright.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://ijebcm.brookes.ac.uk/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 14, No. 1, February 2016
Page 74
What constitutes evidence-based coaching?
A two-by-two framework for distinguishing
strong from weak evidence for coaching1
Anthony M Grant, Coaching Psychology Unit, University of Sydney, Australia
Contact Email: anthony.grant@sydney.edu.au
Abstract
There has been an almost exponential growth in the amount of coaching-specific and
coaching-related research over the past ten years. At the same time there has been
considerable interest in the development of evidence-based approaches to coaching, and
many coaching practitioners have incorporated the phrase into their terms of reference
for their practice. However, these is still a lack of clarity about what constitutes evidence-
based coaching, and there have been few, if any, published guidelines about how to
determine the relevance of different bodies of research to coaching practice. This article
discusses the nature of evidence-based practice as it relates to coaching and then presents
a two-by-two framework that highlights the relevance of a broad range of research to
evidence-based coaching practice. The aim of this paper is to help further develop a more
nuanced view of evidence-based approaches to coaching practice.
Key words: evidence-based coaching; coaching research; evidence-based practice
Introduction
The volume of published material associated with coaching has increased substantially
over the past ten years. This growing body of knowledge spans a broad range from
rigorous coaching-specific research (both qualitative and quantitative), to basic research
in disciplines not specifically related to coaching (Bartlett II, Boylan, & Hale, 2014;
Beattie et al., 2014; Grant, Passmore, Cavanagh, & Parker, 2010). The diversity of this
material (and the accompanying sense of information overload), can make it difficult for
both researchers and practitioners to grasp the relevance of specific information from the
developing knowledge base and engage in an evidence-based approach in their own
personal coaching practice (Bawden & Robinson, 2009).
This article briefly discusses the nature of evidence-based practice as it relates to
coaching. It then presents a framework that delineates the relevance to evidence-based
coaching practice of a broad range of coaching-related research, ranging from coaching-
1 This article draws on and utilises material and concepts from a forthcoming chapter: Grant, A. M.
(forthcoming). Coaching as Evidence-Based Practice: The View through a Multiple-Perspective
Model of Coaching Research. In T. Bachkirova, G. Spence & D. Drake (Eds.), The Sage Handbook
of Coaching. London: Sage.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://ijebcm.brookes.ac.uk/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 14, No. 1, February 2016
Page 75
specific research to noncoaching-specific research. The aim of this paper is to help
further develop a more nuanced view of evidence-based approaches to coaching practice.
Origins of the concept of evidence-based coaching
Adapted from its original use in medical contexts (Sackett, Haynes, Guyatt, &
Tugwell, 1996) the term evidenced-based coaching was coined at the Coaching
Psychology Unit in the University of Sydney in 2003 as a way of distinguishing between
coaching that is explicitly grounded in the broader empirical and theoretical knowledge
base, and coaching that was developed from the pop psychology, personal development
genre.
At the time this term was coined the intention was merely to have an expression that
indicated that here was an approach to coaching that sought to be grounded on firm and
coherent foundations empirical and theoretical foundations that would allow a
discipline of coaching to develop with the same gravitas as other helping professions
such as counselling or clinical psychology. Indeed, at the time the term was more
aspirational than actual.
However, the notion of evidence-based coaching seems to have resonated with many
people in the coaching industry globally (e.g., Cox & Ledgerwood, 2003; Larsen,
Kilburn, & Myszak, 2007). A search of Google Scholar in December 2015 using the key
words evidence-based coaching returned 2,400 hits and a search in Google returned
43,400 hits. There are now peer-reviewed academic journals focusing on evidence-based
coaching, university postgraduate degree courses emphasising evidence-based coaching,
and many coaching practitioners who have incorporated the phrase into their terms of
reference.
What does evidence-based coaching really mean?
But what does evidence-based coaching really mean? The concept has sparked quite
vigorous debate on the role of scientific evidence in coaching, and what constitutes
evidence (e.g., Drake, 2009). Such debate makes a significant contribution to helping
coaching as a discipline not to be confined within the ridged boundaries of (say) a medical
or reductionist paradigm (Cox, 2011). This is important because the term evidenced-
based within medical contexts is almost synonymous with double-blind randomised-
controlled trials and mechanistic manualised treatment protocols. A key underpinning
notion in the medical context is that research should dictate practice. However, this is
not the case in relation to coaching. Coaching engagements are not medical interventions
that follow prescribed regimes. The nonclinical, nonmedical context of coaching means
that the medical understanding of evidence-based practice may be unsuitable for
coaching – although few would argue that applying evidence to practice is not a valuable
way of further developing coaching as a discipline.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://ijebcm.brookes.ac.uk/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 14, No. 1, February 2016
Page 76
A broad definition of evidence-based coaching
Hence I take a broader and less reductionist view of evidence-based practice than is
typically found in medical contexts. I draw on the assumption that translating research
into coaching practice (and conversely translating coaching practice into coaching
research) can optimise outcomes and lead to more rigorous (and vigorous) coaching
research and practice. From this perspective both empirical evidence and professional
wisdom (wisdom being comprised of experience, knowledge, and good judgement) have
considerable and often equal value. Consequently I prefer to employ a more
sophisticated understanding of the term “evidence-based” and refer to the intelligent and
conscientious use of relevant and best current knowledge integrated with professional
practitioner expertise in making decisions about how to deliver coaching to coaching
clients and in designing and delivering coach training programs (adapted from Sackett,
et al., 1996; Stober & Grant, 2006).
What is evidence? How can we best collect it?
A key notion in evidence-based practice in medicine is that research methodologies
(and the evidence derived from them) can be classified as being “good” or “poor”. In
medical science (and those sections of psychology that seek to emulate the medical
model) the typically accepted gold standard of research is the evidence collated from
meta-analyses – systematic reviews of a number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs)
(Kaptchuk, 2001). At the next level of the research hierarchy is the evidence collected
from the RCTs themselves. These are studies where participants have been randomly
allocated to a treatment or a control group. Double-blind RCTs, where neither the
researcher nor the participant knows which group they are in, are clearly useful for testing
of new therapeutic medications. These studies are used with the aim of giving
researchers as much control over extraneous influencing factors as possible. The
emphasis at this end of the research hierarchy is on quantitative data; data that can be
counted and statistically analysed.
Figure 1: The traditional evidence-based hierarchy
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://ijebcm.brookes.ac.uk/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 14, No. 1, February 2016
Page 77
As indicated in Figure 1, at the next level are between-subject studies. These are
studies that use a control group as a comparison to a treatment group, but without the
randomisation found in RCTs. Next sit the within-subject studies that use pre and post
measures from a single group of people. Below these sit cross-sectional studies which
are descriptive or correlational studies. These can give good insights into the
relationships between various factors, but cannot give insight into causal factors. Case
studies come next in the hierarchy.
Case studies are typically qualitative in nature. Here the research emphasis is usually
on understanding the nature or the meaning of subjective experience, and this can be from
an individualistic or organisational perspective. They are normally conducted using
various interview techniques and have the potential to produce rich and highly insightful
narratives rather than numerical data that can be statistically analysed. Finally, at the
base of the hierarchy are professional articles in non peer-reviewed publications,
opinions, editorials and anecdotal reports.
Those who subscribe to the medical model tend to place far greater emphasis and
value on the upper parts of the hierarchy. Indeed, most people would agree that RCTs
are the best way thoroughly to test the effectiveness of medical interventions such as new
drug treatments. However, as previously mentioned, coaching is not medicine. Indeed,
given that much coaching does not follow prescribed or manualised treatment regimes,
the medical model may be a somewhat inappropriate framework from which to develop
an evidence-based approach to coaching.
It is important to recognise that each level in the evidence-based hierarchy has its
own unique and valuable characteristics. The evidence gained from each level tells a
slightly different type of story, and the evidence gathered at each level will speak to
different audiences. For example, the quantitative outcome or ROI data produced from
RCTs or within-subject studies is more likely to resonate with a group of sceptical
scientists or business audiences than a qualitative detail-rich exploration of personal
experiences of coaching. Thus, from this perspective and in contrast to the medical
approach, one level is not deemed better than another in the coaching context; rather each
has its different uses. If we cannot say that one is better than another, we can only really
say that one is better suited to the situation in which we seek to use that evidence.
It is also important to recognise that evidence in coaching does not just come from
scientific empirical research. Evidence is defined as the available body of facts or
information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid (OED, 2012). As
such evidence is not limited to the research outputs or scientific studies. Evidence simply
means information – and all kinds of information can count as evidence, just as long as
it is valid, reliable and relevant. Bearing in mind that some evidence is more reliable
than others, this perspective allows for multiple voices from both researchers and
informed practitioners (for an in-depth deconstruction of the term “evidence” see Drake,
2009).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://ijebcm.brookes.ac.uk/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 14, No. 1, February 2016
Page 78
Practitioner expertise and empirical research
Figure 2 illustrates the joint contributions of professional practitioner expertise and
empirical evidence. Professional wisdom consists of individual experience about what
works in one’s coaching practice with one’s clients. The individual coach’s perspective
is important here because coaching is typically an idiosyncratic intervention, not least
because the coach-coachee relationship is a major factor in coaching outcomes, and that
relationship is by its very nature idiosyncratic.
Although individual views are important, sole reliance on them may result in a
myopic perspective. Hence the practitioner group consensus, which allows for multiple
perspectives about what works, is also important. This is not to say that practitioner
group experience can present an unbiased or objective view on what works. Within any
group or subgroup of professionals there are political and social forces at play which will
shape the emerging narrative or consensus about what is the best or right way.
Nevertheless, regardless of its limitations, it is clear that practitioner wisdom has a vital
role in shaping understandings of evidence-based coaching.
The right hand side of Figure 2 represents the role of empirical evidence gathered
from research. The first issue to be addressed here related to the boundaries between
practitioner experience and formal research. There is a sense in which practitioner
experience gained as a result of professional coaching practice can be rightly considered
to be research (or evidence). However, following the rationale outlined by a number of
eminent authors in the action learning sphere (e.g., Argyris & Schön, 1992; Revans,
1982), I argue that there is an important distinction between information gained in one’s
professional practice and information gained through formal research initiatives.
Figure 2: The contributions of practice and research to evidence-based coaching
In the context of professional practice, the primary purpose is the improvement of
practice. The emphasis is on practical significance, and this information tends to be
shared through contacts with one’s colleagues, professional or industry associations. In
contrast, the aim of formal research is to produce more generalisable knowledge that
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://ijebcm.brookes.ac.uk/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 14, No. 1, February 2016
Page 79
contributes to the broader knowledge base. The emphasis is often on theoretical
significance rather than practical application, and the information tends to be shared
primarily through peer-reviewed publications, academic conferences, and only then is it
disseminated for professional purposes. They are different and they make different
contributions to an evidence-based approach to coaching (see Table One).
Academic Researcher
Practitioner
Primary purpose of
conducting research
Production of knowledge
Improvement of one’s professional
practice.
Emphasis on
Contributing to the knowledge base
and theoretical significance
Practical significance
Validation of
information
Knowledge is deemed “validated
only after a comprehensive analysis,
thorough documentation (typically in
rigid discipline-specific writing and
presentation style) and peer review
Factors that “validate” knowledge
include face validity, acceptance by
clients or stakeholders, pubic
receptivity, marketability, practical
applicability.
Dissemination of
information
Peer-reviewed publication and
academic conferences take place
before information is presented to
public/professional media
Shared though multiple channels
including professional associations,
industry contacts and clients, and social
media
Primary discourse
style
Discipline-specific jargon and (often
dense) academic language which
excludes non-academics
Easily accessible, to-the-point language,
designed to reach broad audience.
Table 1: Differences between researcher’s and practitioner’s approach to research
What constitutes empirical research evidence about coaching?
The second issue to be addressed relates to what constitutes empirical research
evidence about coaching. Here I propose two categories: 1) coach-specific research and
2) coaching research that is not specific to coaching but can be considered to be coaching-
related research.
Coaching-specific research involves studies that specifically focus on coaching with
coaching as the primary focus. These could include, for example, studies that examine
the effectiveness of coaching, the impact of coaching on a range of variables, or
qualitative research into the nature of effective coach-coachee relationships amongst
others. This would also include models or techniques from other non-coaching areas or
disciplines which can be directly applied in coaching practice examples here could
include cognitive behavioural techniques from clinical psychology, action learning
principles or adult learning theory.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://ijebcm.brookes.ac.uk/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 14, No. 1, February 2016
Page 80
Coaching-related research involves studies that are not specifically focused on
coaching, but produce data that could be used in coaching practice or might indirectly
inform coaching practice. These could include, for example, research from economics,
management or organisational research, philosophical paradigms, systems theory,
neuroscience etc. However, in understanding what constitutes empirical evidence these
are not the only categories that count. We also need to consider the rigour and strength
of the evidence presented.
Strong evidence can be understood as information and evidence from well-designed
and peer-reviewed studies where the methodology is eminently suitable for the research
question being addressed, and the results have been replicated in a range of populations
where appropriate. It should be emphasised that this is an inclusive position that does
not automatically privilege (for example) randomised controlled studies over case
studies, as is the case in the medical model. Nor does this position privilege quantitative
research over qualitative research. Both approaches have much to offer. Rather this
position acknowledges that different research designs and approaches have utility for
addressing different research questions.
In contrast, weak evidence is when there are a small number of studies, limited
numbers of researchers/sources, limited numbers of research methodologies with limited
populations, or poor quality research design, for example with low statistical power or
inappropriate analyses. Typically, these are not peer reviewed, and this would include
opinion articles or anecdotal, unsubstantiated reports.
A two-by-two framework
A useful way to present the concepts discussed in this paper is through a two-by-two
diagram (see Figure 3). This figure is presented as a useful heuristic through which to
categorise and classify different bodies of research. No doubt there would be a wide
range of opinions as to which studies or which bodies of knowledge should sit within
each quadrant – and it should be noted that this framework is designed to be an aid to
those who wish to develop a more sophisticated understanding of evidenced-based
coaching rather than a definitive typology. Nevertheless, I would argue that well-
designed randomised controlled studies with a range of populations would be situated in
the top right hand quadrant (for examples see Theeboom, Beersma, & van Vianen, 2013),
along with other methodologies such as well-designed case studies (e.g., Libri & Kemp,
2006; Schnell, 2005), robust mixed method work (Bachkirova, Arthur, & Reading, 2015)
or extensive qualitative research (de Haan & Nies, 2015).
The bottom right hand quadrant encompasses research that is coaching-specific but
is not highly rigorous. This is not to say that such researchers set out to purposefully
produce research of low rigour. Such research may have been negatively impacted by
hard-to-access participant samples, major changes in research context (e.g., redundancies
or shifts in economic climate) over the course of the research, or any of the all-to-frequent
logistical challenges of conducting field research. Such studies could include
quantitative coaching-specific research that has a small size or is exploratory in nature
(e.g., Sherlock-Storey, Moss, & Timson, 2013). This section could also include
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://ijebcm.brookes.ac.uk/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 14, No. 1, February 2016
Page 81
qualitative coaching-specific research that has been poorly designed, or survey research
that has been conducted as a means of promoting a business offering or coaching service
(Corbett, 2006).
The top left hand quadrant represents well-designed coaching-related research; that
is research that closely aligns with coaching, but is not specifically about coaching.
Examples here could include empirical studies of the role of self-concordance in goal
striving and well-being (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999), review articles on the relationship
between goals and performance (Locke, 1996), reports on the impact of positive
psychology interventions (Bolier et al., 2013) or explorations of self-regulation
(Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007) amongst others. Included here also could be coaching-
related qualitative research exploring (for example) the lived experience of a person
undertaking a program of positive thinking (Thatcher, 2014).
Figure 3: A Two-by-two Framework for Determining the Relevance of Research to
Coaching Practice
The bottom left hand quadrant represents the poorest evidence for coaching.
Research in this area could include studies with low statistical power or inappropriate
analysis, conceptual incoherency or research with a focus that is only marginally related
to coaching. A useful example here is the use of fMRI brain scans and related aspects of
neuroscience being put forward as “proof” that coaching works (Rock & Schwartz,
2006). Despite much marketing material trumping the value of neuroscience as a
foundation for coaching practice, there are virtually no fMRI studies exploring the direct
links between coaching and specific regions of brain activity (for one interesting
exception see Jack, Boyatzis, Khawaja, Passarelli, & Leckie, 2013). Although
neuroscience studies may shine an informative light on the dynamics of brain
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://ijebcm.brookes.ac.uk/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 14, No. 1, February 2016
Page 82
functioning, very little (if any) of this body of research is directly related to observable
behavioural change in non-clinical populations – the main goal of coaching. In addition,
much neuroscience research has been heavily criticised for low statistical power and
inappropriate analysis (Button et al., 2013), thus further limiting the direct contribution
of neuroscience to an evidenced-based approach to coaching at this point in time.
Other examples in the bottom right quadrant could include research on body language
and non-verbal communication as applied to coaching (Matsumoto, Hwang, & Frank,
2016), the applicability of learning styles to the coaching relationship (Freedman &
Stumpf, 1978; Kolb & Kolb, 2013), research on emotional intelligence (Salovey &
Mayer, 1989) or research on the influence of birth order on career progression and
responsiveness to career coaching interventions (Leong, Hartung, Goh, & Gaylor, 2001).
The main point here is that research in this quadrant is typically only indirectly related to
coaching or that such research is either poorly conducted and/or has attracted significant
controversies.
The above examples in all four quadrants have been presented as illustrative
examples only. Coaches and researchers will themselves have to determine how they
would personally categorise the different types of research that they draw on in their own
coaching practice. Nevertheless, the framework presented here gives a useful tool for
refining understanding of the relative relevance of different bodies of research to
evidence-based coaching practice.
Summary
As the research related to coaching continues to grow, practitioners and researchers
both need ways of categorising the relevance of different bodies of research and their
relatedness to an evidence-based approach to coaching. The two-by-two framework
presented here may be one way that this can be achieved. As articulated in this article, a
more nuanced view of evidence-based practice than is typically found in medical contexts
is important, as coaching engagements are not medical interventions that follow
prescribed regimes. We need to continue to look beyond the medical model and
appreciate that all forms of research have something to contribute to the evidenced-based
coaching enterprise. We need to ensure that the contributions of both quantitative and
qualitative approaches are valued and utilised. Moreover, researchers and academics
must ensure that the voice of the practitioner continues to be heard. The responsibility
for the development of “evidenced-based” coaching sits not only with academics or
professional researchers –practitioners’ contributions are also a vital part of the
conglomeration of ideas, experience and research that coalesce to form evidence-based
coaching. In this way, evidence-based approaches to coaching can continue to develop
and to make important contributions to the well-being and performance of the individuals
and organisations which we serve.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://ijebcm.brookes.ac.uk/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 14, No. 1, February 2016
Page 83
References
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1992). On organizational learning. Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell.
Bachkirova, T., Arthur, L., & Reading, E. (2015). Evaluating a coaching and
mentoring programme: Challenges and solutions. International Coaching
Psychology Review, 10(2), 175-189.
Bartlett II, J. E., Boylan, R. V., & Hale, J. E. (2014). Executive coaching: An
integrative literature review. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability
Studies, 2(04), 188.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-
control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 351-355.
Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2009). The dark side of information: Overload, anxiety
and other paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 180-
191.
Beattie, R. S., Kim, S., Hagen, M. S., Egan, T. M., Ellinger, A. D., & Hamlin, R. G.
(2014). Managerial coaching a review of the empirical literature and development
of a model to guide future practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources,
16(2), 184-201.
Bolier, L., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G. J., Riper, H., Smit, F., & Bohlmeijer, E.
(2013). Positive psychology interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized
controlled studies. BMC public health, 13(1), 119.
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E.
S. J., et al. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the
reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(5), 365-376.
Corbett, K. (2006). The Sherpa Report, Ohio: Sasha Corp.
Cox, E. (2011). Coaching philosophy, eclecticism and positivism: A commentary.
Annual Review of High Performance Coaching, special supplement of The
International Journal ofSports Science and Coaching, 59-63.
Cox, E., & Ledgerwood, G. (2003). Editorial: The new profession. International
Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 1(1), 4-5.
de Haan, E., & Nies, C. (2015). Differences between critical moments for clients,
coaches, and sponsors of coaching. International Coaching Psychology Review,
10(1), 56-61.
Drake, D. B. (2009). Evidence is a verb: A relational approach to knowledge and
mastery in coaching. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and
Mentoring, 7(1), 1-12.
Freedman, R. D., & Stumpf, S. A. (1978). What can one learn from the learning
style inventory? The Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), 275-282.
Grant, A. M., Passmore, J., Cavanagh, M. J., & Parker, H. M. (2010). The state of
play in coaching today: A comprehensive review of the field. In G. P. Hodgkinson
& J. K. Ford (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology 2010 (pp. 125-167). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://ijebcm.brookes.ac.uk/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 14, No. 1, February 2016
Page 84
Jack, A. I., Boyatzis, R. E., Khawaja, M. S., Passarelli, A. M., & Leckie, R. L.
(2013). Visioning in the brain: An fMRI study of inspirational coaching and
mentoring. Social Neuroscience, 8(4), 369-384.
Kaptchuk, T. J. (2001). The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54(6), 541-549.
Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. A. (2013). Kolb Learning Style Inventory: Lsi workbook. New
York: Hay Group.
Larsen, J. B., Kilburn, T. R., & Myszak, A. (2007). Developing evidence-based
coaching practices in Denmark. The Coaching Psychologist, 3(2), 90-93.
Leong, F. T., Hartung, P. J., Goh, D., & Gaylor, M. (2001). Appraising birth order
in career assessment: Linkages to Holland's and Super's models. Journal of Career
Assessment, 9(1), 25-39.
Libri, V., & Kemp, T. (2006). Assessing the efficacy of a cognitive behavioural
executive coaching programme International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(2), 9-
20.
Locke, E. A. (1996). Motivation through conscious goal setting. Applied &
Preventive Psychology, 5(2), 117-124.
Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. C., & Frank, M. G. (2016). The body: Postures, gait,
proxemics, and haptics. In D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang & M. G. Frank (Eds.),
APA Handbook of Nonverbal Communication (pp. 387-400). Washington, DC,
US: American Psychological Association.
OED. (2012). Oxford English Dictionary Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Revans, R. W. (1982). What Is action learning? Journal of Management
Development, 1(3), 64-75.
Rock, D., & Schwartz, J. M. (2006). A brain-based approach to coaching.
International Journal of Coaching in Organizations, 4(2), 32-44.
Sackett, D. L., Haynes, R. B., Guyatt, G. H., & Tugwell, P. (1996). Evidenced
based medicine: What it is and what is isn't. British Medical Journal, 13, 71-72.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1989). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition
& Personality, 9(3), 185-211.
Schnell, E. R. (2005). A case study of executive coaching as a support mechanism
during organizational growth and evolution. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice & Research, 57(1), 41-56.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and
longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 76(3), 482-497.
Sherlock-Storey, M., Moss, M., & Timson, S. (2013). Brief Coaching for resilience
during organisational change–an exploratory study. The Coaching Psychologist,
9(1), 19.
Stober, D. R., & Grant, A. M. (2006). Evidence based coaching handbook: Putting
best practices to work for your clients. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Thatcher, S. (2014). Making a habit of happiness: A three week lived experience of
positive thinking. Mission of the Journal of Excellence, 16, 37.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://ijebcm.brookes.ac.uk/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 14, No. 1, February 2016
Page 85
Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & van Vianen, A. E. M. (2013). Does coaching work?
A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an
organizational context. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1-18.
Dr Anthony Grant established the world's first Coaching Psychology Unit at the School of
Psychology at Sydney University where he is the director. He has co-written and co-edited
five books on evidence-based coaching and has many coaching-related publications in the
peer-reviewed and professional press. His books on coaching have been translated into eight
languages, and his is widely recognised as a key pioneer of coaching psychology.
... More specifically, this relates to the population that a theory can generalise to (such as whether a clinical theory can generalise to a general adult population), or the form of intervention the theory informs (such as whether a psychotherapeutic intervention can generalise to a coaching intervention). Grant (2016) proposes coaching-specific research (which has a specific focus on coaching contexts) provides stronger evidence for coaching than coaching-related research (which indirectly informs coaching practice, but is not specifically focused on coaching e.g., psychotherapy research). The psychological theories included in this chapter meet this criterion as they have informed interventions in coaching-specific research. ...
... De Meuse et al., 2009;Lai & McDowall, 2014;Grover & Furnham, 2016). Grant (2016) advises that coaching studies that are well designed, peer-reviewed, and use a methodology suitable to their research question, generate strong coaching-specific evidence. Methods from psychology can offer a template for best practice when assessing the effectiveness of coaching interventions (Lowman, 2005). ...
... However, there may be benefits in exploring both the efficacy and effectiveness of coaching interventions. Grant (2016) suggests well-designed coaching-specific randomised controlled trials with relevant populations provide strong evidence for coaching. Using the recommendations for methodologically rigorous coaching studies outlined above, the existing literature can be evaluated against these criteria. ...
Thesis
Full-text available
This thesis presents a programme of research designed to examine the impact of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) informed performance and development coaching. A preliminary repeated measures study tested the impact of a brief ACT-informed coaching intervention on coachee general mental health, generalised self-efficacy, life satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, goal-directed thinking, goal attainment, and psychological flexibility with 53 UK adults. Data were collected at four time points over 5 weeks. Analyses revealed significant increases in general mental health, life satisfaction, goal-directed thinking, and goal attainment. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) study tested the impact of a more substantial ACT-informed coaching intervention on coachee work performance, general mental health, generalised self-efficacy, job satisfaction, job motivation, goal- directed thinking, goal attainment, and psychological flexibility with 126 senior managers in the UK Civil Service. Participants were randomly allocated to either an ACT-informed coaching intervention (n = 65) or a waitlist control condition (n = 61). Data were collected at four time points over 13 weeks. Analyses showed significant increases in general mental health, generalised self-efficacy, goal-directed thinking, goal attainment, and psychological flexibility in the ACT group compared to the control condition. Consistent with ACT theory, analyses indicated that increases in psychological flexibility mediated improvements in general mental health, generalised self-efficacy, goal-directed thinking, and goal attainment. A final parallel mediation study compared the effects of psychological flexibility and working alliance (a plausible alternative mediator) using data from the coaching arm of the RCT study. These analyses revealed that significant increases in psychological flexibility mediated increases in generalised self-efficacy, goal-directed thinking, and goal attainment. Despite significant increases in working alliance over time, no mediation effects for increases in study variables were found. Overall, findings suggest that ACT-informed coaching is an effective approach to performance and development coaching, and psychological flexibility mediates the beneficial impact of the ACT coaching intervention.
... This call for evidence continues to date, albeit a little "broader and less reductionist" (Grant, 2016a, p.76). Indeed, in terms of EBE, Grant (2016) argues specifically against the medical model's hierarchy of evidence, with its preference for RCTs and almost total disregard towards qualitative research, as this limited approach does not match the reality of what informs and shapes the richness within coaching. This also aligns with broader criticisms of EBP as discussed earlier. ...
... This is particularly interesting as it contrasts with the strong call for EBP from science. This distinction may be driven in part by the differing goals practitioners and academic researchers wish to achieve with research (Grant, 2016). The lack of demand may also be due to EBE requiring sufficient resource and knowledge. ...
... Furthermore, academics and practitioners have different approaches to research and evaluation. Among these tensions is the desire by practitioners for real world benefit and impact, whereas researchers aim to contribute to the knowledge base and theory (Grant, 2016). De Haan and Duckworth (2013) capture this tension when stating that, ethically, the researcher-practitioner needs to prioritise fulfilling their coaching commitment, even if in doing so, they might disrupt the clinically detached studying of effectiveness by deviating from standardised aspects of an experimental design. ...
Article
Full-text available
Workplace coaching has grown in popularity and is increasingly used for a plethora of purposes across organisations. As a growing field, coaching is still in need of a continuing commitment to evidence-based evaluation, especially considering the current unsystematic outcome literature. However, this need for scientific, evidence-based evaluation is not actioned and there is indication that coaching evaluation is even less rigorous in practice. This position paper explores what might be the barriers against a scientific, evidence-based coaching evaluation in practice. Suggestions grounded in the literature are presented with the aim that these might inform future research and practice. Keywords: coaching evaluation; evidence-based practice, evidence-based evaluation
... At least a dozen published empirical critical reviews or meta-analyses have examined the findings from the global literature of evaluation studies of workplace and executive coaching [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]. The general consensus from this body of work is that individual workplace coaching typically has positive effects on employee work performance and overall well-being. ...
... Hours of total scheduled work (i.e., 40 At Pre, the typical coaching client was performing at a 70% level of productivity. By comparison, other research indicates the average worker in the U.S. works at about an 85% level of performance (see review in [61]). ...
Article
Full-text available
This was an applied naturalistic study examining changes in work and clinical outcomes after using individual mental health coaching services from an employee assistance program in the United States. The data was from 872 employee users at CuraLinc Healthcare during the years 2020 to 2022. The coaching intervention included individual sessions that focused on helping the employee with personal goal setting, problem-solving and skill-building. Over two-thirds of clients engaged in coaching for support with mental health issues (anxiety 47%, depression 12% or other 9%) while others had issues of stress (19%), personal relationships (marital 8%, family 4%) or work (2%). The coaching was delivered online and usually lasted about five weeks. The study features a Pre to Post single-group research design with self-report data collected at the start of use and again at follow-up after the last session. Repeated measures ANOVA tests found significant improvement with each result being a large size statistical effect for the outcomes: work absenteeism hours were reduced by 88% (d=0.42); work productivity level was increased by 32% (d=0.79); severity of depression symptoms was reduced by 66% (d=0.67). Exploratory analyses indicated that improvement on outcomes was experienced consistently across different subgroups of clients based on age, gender, employer and service use factors. Having an absence problem was reduced from 42% of all clients at Pre to 7% at Post. Specific hours of missed work in the past month (measured by the Workplace Outcome Suite) changed from 6.7 hours at Pre to less than 1 hour at Post. Employees with a problem with their work productivity (i.e., low performance and lack of focus, measured by Stanford Presenteeism Scale) was reduced from 27% of clients at Pre to 1% at Post. Among the subsample of clients initially with a work productivity problem, 94% achieved "reliable recovery" with a larger than chance level increase in their productivity score. The average total hours of absence and lost work productivity combined in the past month was reduced from 52.8 hours at Pre to 14.5 hours at Post. The percentage of all employees at-risk for clinical depression (measured by the PHQ-9) was reduced from 20% of coaching clients at Pre to zero at Post. Within this at-risk subgroup, 85% achieved "reliable recovery" such that the differences in their scores was greater than at chance level. Coaching services thus appear to be a viable alternative to counseling for employees interested in more goal-oriented, solution-focused type of support.
... According to Anthony Grant: "professional coaching can be considered an emerging cross-disciplinary occupation, its primary purpose being to enhance wellbeing, improve performance and facilitate individual and organizational change" [14]. Grant also pointed out that an evidencebased approach is essential [14,15]. Consequently, the term "evidence-based coaching" was introduced in 2003 by Coaching Psychology Unit at the University of Sydney [14]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Abstract Literature suggests that palliative care professionals and informal caregivers could be at risk of side effects of active participation in care. Therefore, different methods of support that can be offered to carers should be sought. Coaching is an intervention that facilitates another person to learn, grow and take responsibility for the level to which results are achieved. There are arguments which indicate the possibility and need to use coaching interventions to support nurses in their development and daily practice. Moreover, coaching can be used to implement interventions to improve informal caregivers' knowledge and skills, as well as to increase their sense of self-efficacy and psychological resilience. Consequently, this paper is aimed at introducing coaching as a method enhancing work and wellbeing among formal and informal carers, especially in palliative care. Coaching might be an appropriate approach in the context of palliative care. Regarding end-of-life care and its complexity it is worth considering implementing it as a part of an interdisciplinary program. Consequently, it would be tailored to caregivers’ needs. Keywords: coaching, caregiver, nurses, palliative care. https://journals.viamedica.pl/palliative_medicine_in_practice/article/view/98085
... Nevertheless, an established evidence base is lacking despite the widespread use of the SOC method. Rigorous research on this method, as defined by Grant (2016), is still in its infancy, and insight into its purposefulness and effectiveness is limited (Binder, 2005;Jirásek & Jirásková, 2015;Scholtens et al., 2021). Like many other coaching methods, the SOC method is derived from practice with minimal scientific theoretical or empirical inputs (Grant & O'Connor, 2019;Scholtens et al., 2021). ...
Article
Full-text available
Systemic constellations are widely used in organisational coaching and consulting to provide a systemic perspective on organisations and teams. However, the method is derived from practical experience and lacks definitional and procedural clarity, which could lead to ineffective application and could hamper quality monitoring and scientific evaluation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conceptualise the systemic organisational constellation method by developing a shared definition and delivering a procedure for its application. The methodology comprised two parts. First, a clear definition and outline of a procedure for applying the systemic organisational constellation method were formulated through a comprehensive review of the academic literature. Second, this definition and procedure were evaluated using inputs provided by 273 professionals who have used this method. We implemented an online survey between December 2020 and June 2021 to evaluate the definition and procedure, which was subsequently adjusted considering the respondents’ suggestions. The shared definition and procedure resulting from this study may enhance the quality and effectiveness of the method’s implementation, and may clear the way for evidence-based practice.
... De Meuse, Dai, & Lee, 2009;Lai & McDowall, 2014;Grover & Furnham, 2016). Grant (2016) suggests well-designed, peer-reviewed, coachingspecific randomised controlled trials with relevant populations provide strong evidence for the efficacy of coaching interventions. Methodological practices from psychological research offer a template for best practice when assessing the effectiveness of coaching interventions (Lowman, 2005). ...
Article
For the coaching research agenda to support evidence-based practitioners, coaching research needs to provide the best possible external research evidence to support practitioners in answering particular questions of interest. Quantitative coaching research has an important role to play in supporting evidence-based practitioners to answer questions around the efficacy and generalisability of coaching interventions. This paper outlines three key criteria for designing and conducting rigorous quantitative coaching intervention studies: (i) methodological rigour in the study design; (ii) rigour in outcome measurement in coaching intervention studies; and (iii) investigating processes of change in coaching interventions. The intention is that coaching psychology researchers can use these methodological recommendations to design quantitative coaching intervention studies that meet criteria for quality and rigour in the future.
... For this up-skilling, an evidence base is sorely needed. Evidence-based practice (Grant, 2016) is a key element in coaching where practitioners draw on their own knowledge from various disciplines, including their professional expertise as coaches and coaching psychologists. Guek-Nee Ke argued for the inclusion of research methods training to equip practitioners with the necessary skill to contribute their expertise to a growing evidence base that can inform such lifelong learning and upskilling. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Coaches and coaching psychologists have been in a unique position to support the wellbeing of clients, teams, leaders and organisations through the challenges created by the pandemic. Based on a panel discussion at the International Psychology Conference Dubai (IPCD) 2021, hosted by Heriot-Watt University Dubai, it was argued that coaches have a role to play that extends beyond the present. Their work may also shape the future, contribute to the UN sustainable development goals and foster an environment of greater inclusion and equity. To do so, coaches also need to adapt, learn and change with continued learning about systemic and team coaching, leadership coaching in virtual and dispersed teams as well as coaching for wellbeing and positive psychology (PP). Coach wellbeing is key to this. By coaches ensuring they are at their best, with practitioner self-care, supervision sessions as well as coach support networks and peer-coaching groups, systemic transformation in wellbeing is more likely to take place. A new set of coaching skills and competencies may be called for, as well as ethics and industry frameworks to support it. The need for research in this field has never been greater to guide and inform these transitions. About the Panellists: Silvia King (MA, MAPPCP, MBPsS; Positivity International) is a positive psychology coach based in the UAE and UK. Her interests include cultural aspects of positive psychology and coaching/coaching psychology.
Article
Full-text available
A sample of 115 professional coaches provided benefit estimates of four types of coaching(leadership, performance, life/personal, third generation) believed to result when coachingoccurs within four distinct organization cultures (hierarchical, market, clan, and adhocracy). Allforms of coaching were estimated to have higher benefits within clan and adhocracy culturesthan within hierarchical and market cultures. Leadership coaching was assessed as mostbeneficial across all benefits and organizational cultures, though benefit estimates of othercoaching types varied depending on culture and the specific benefit under consideration.Averaging across all cultures and coaching types, coaching was estimated as most beneficialfor promoting personal growth.
Chapter
Successful education systems invest in teacher development for their professional growth. Professional teacher development varies from country to country. This chapter describes professional coaching of teachers as one effective approach to early career teacher development in schools. The aim of this chapter is twofold: First, to clarify the conception of coaching and its links to mentoring, and second, to illustrate empirically how schools implement professional coaching as part of their strategies to improve learning and wellbeing of their teachers and students. Conclusion is that when coaching is well defined and strategically implemented as part of overall improvement plan of the school, it can significantly support early career teachers' professional growth, enhance student outcomes, and help schools to retain their teachers.
Article
Full-text available
Objectives Previous studies on the effectiveness of coaching have focused on positive outcomes that clients, coaches and organisational colleagues attribute to engaging in coaching overall. In this study descriptions of critical moments of coaching as experienced by executive coaching clients, their coaches and their sponsors are analysed and compared, to find out more about how coaching conversations are experienced. In this sense the objective of this research was to understand more about ‘sub-outcomes’ of coaching: mini-outcomes as they arise within the process and as a result of the coaching process. Design We extend previous studies in two ways. First, we take a process-oriented, qualitative approach by investigating which events are regarded as critical by clients and coaches within their coaching contracts to date. Second, we consider the perspective of sponsors of coaching who refer to the same coaching assignments as clients and coaches have done. Methods One-hundred-and-seventy-seven critical-moment descriptions were collected (49 from clients, 49 from coaches and 79 from sponsors of coaching), of which 147 could be matched between coach, client and sponsor working on the same assignment. They are coded with an existing and a new coding scheme and analysed with reference to a larger dataset comprising 555 critical moment descriptions from executive coaching assignments. Results Our results suggest that clients and coaches are considerably more aligned in what they regard as critical in their coaching assignments when compared to their alignment with sponsors’ views. Whilst clients and coaches mainly refer to moments of new insight and attitudinal change as critical, sponsors underline changes in the clients’ behaviour, such as their communication or interpersonal skills. Conclusions Alongside earlier studies we have found further indications that clients and coaches conducting normal coaching conversations seem to identify critical moments to a large extent with new learning, perspectives and insight, and they pick the same moments well above chance rates. At the same time, organisational sponsors of coaching seem to prioritise more new actions and changes initiated by coaching clients.
Article
Full-text available
Whereas coaching is very popular as a management tool, research on coaching effectiveness is lagging behind. Moreover, the studies on coaching that are currently available have focused on a large variety of processes and outcome measures and generally lack a firm theoretical foundation. With the meta-analysis presented in this article, we aim to shed light on the effectiveness of coaching within an organizational context. We address the question whether coaching has an effect on five both theoretically and practically relevant individual-level outcome categories: performance/skills, well-being, coping, work attitudes, and goal-directed self-regulation. The results show that coaching has significant positive effects on all outcomes with effect sizes ranging from g = 0.43 (coping) to g = 0.74 (goal-directed self-regulation). These findings indicate that coaching is, overall, an effective intervention in organizations.
Article
Full-text available
Executive coaching literature was investigated to uncover common themes within definitions, models and approaches, and effectiveness. An integrative literature review of 533 publications found relationship, goals, performance, and learning to be keywords used most often in defining executive coaching. The most prominent approaches included cognitive, and goal oriented coaching. Effectiveness was most often described as goal achievement, quality of relationships, and levels of trust and support. Finally, executive coaching was summarized as consisting of two critical tasks: 1) establishing a collaborative relationship, and 2) enhancing the vision of the learner. Effectiveness was determined by success in developing and implementing a systematic process that may be adapted to each learner and demonstrating the patience necessary to allow change to occur.
Article
Objectives: Cognitive behavioural techniques have been the mainstay of psychological treatment for many psychologists in clinical practice. However, there is little known in relation to the efficacy of cognitive behavioural techniques for performance enhancement within a non-clinical setting, such as those found in organisational environments. The present study examined the effects of a cognitive behavioural based executive coaching intervention for a finance sales executive. Design: A within subject, ABAB single case design was utilised in this study. Methods: The participant was a 30-year-old Australian male, employed as a full-time finance sales executive. Each phase of the single case design had a duration of three weeks. Follow-up measures were taken at six months (week 36) and at 18 months (week 88) after the conclusion of the intervention. Results: It was shown that a cognitive behavioural executive coaching programme enhanced a 30-year-old Australian male finance executive’s sales performance, core self-evaluation, and global self-ratings of performance following his participation in an executive coaching intervention. Conclusions: The present study suggests that executive coaches should consider incorporating cognitive behavioural techniques into their coaching programmes. Further research into executive coaching models, approaches and outcomes, is needed, particularly by academics within the field of organisational psychology.
Article
In this article we describe a recent and important development within the Danish Psychological Association with the creation of the Society of Evidence-based Coaching, the first society in Danish psychological history to deal specifically with coaching and psychology as a distinct profession. Being three of the founding psychologists and elected members of the board of the Society, we present some of the reasons for having a society of this kind, the attitude changes within the Danish psychological profession that are needed if coaching is to develop as a profession amongst psychologists, how we wish to conduct a ‘dialogue of inclusion’ with other professions and players in the field, the need and wish for international relations and our hopes for the future development and the positive impact of the society and evidence-based coaching.
Article
Objectives This paper describes an independently conducted research study to develop appropriate measures and evaluate the coaching/mentoring programme that the London Deanery had been running for over five years. It also aims to explore specific challenges in the evaluation of a large-scale coaching programme and to suggest new solutions. Design The challenges to evaluation included the need to use established but also context-relevant measures and the need for a rigorous but also pragmatic design that took into account a number of practical constraints. Overall it was a mixed method research design consisting of a within-subject quantitative study with support of a qualitative grounded theory methodology conducted in parallel. Method The selected measures for the quantitative part of the study included employee engagement, self-efficacy and self-compassion. An additional questionnaire SWRQ (Specific Work-Related Questionnaire) was developed as the result of a qualitative investigation with stakeholder representatives. It included a self-estimation by the coached clients of the extent to which they could attribute each change to the coaching received rather than any other factor. The qualitative part of the study included interviews with stakeholders and the analysis of responses to an open question in the SWRQ. Results 120 (78 per cent) of matched responses pre- and post-coaching were analysed and seven stakeholders interviewed. The results of the quantitative and qualitative analysis show improvement in all chosen scales. The analysis also shows that coaching was a major contributor to these changes. Conclusions The paper argues for the development of additional methods in outcome research on coaching programmes that are aligned with the main principles and philosophy of coaching as a practice.
Article
This article outlines a small-scale exploratory study focusing upon the impact of a brief coaching intervention on participant levels of resilience in the face of organisational change. The study sought to pilot a brief, three-session resilience coaching programme and explore the impact upon participants’ reported levels of resilience and attitudes towards organisational change.