Content uploaded by Yi-Ling Lai
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yi-Ling Lai on Apr 11, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
The effectiveness of workplace
coaching: a meta-analysis of
contemporary psychologically
informed coaching approaches
Qing Wang
School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University,
Shanghai, China
Yi-Ling Lai
Organizational Psychology, Birkbeck University of London, London, UK
Xiaobo Xu
School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University,
Shanghai, China, and
Almuth McDowall
Organizational Psychology, Birkbeck University of London, London, UK
Abstract
Purpose –The authors examine psychologically informed coaching approaches for evidence-based work-
applied management through a meta-analysis. This analysis synthesized previous empirical coaching research
evidence on cognitive behavioral and positive psychology frameworks regarding a range of workplace
outcomes, including learning, performance and psychological well-being.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors undertook a systematic literature search to identify primary
studies (k520, n5957), then conducted a meta-analysis with robust variance estimates (RVEs) to test the
overall effect size and the effects of each moderator.
Findings –The results confirm that psychologically informed coaching approaches facilitated effective work-
related outcomes, particularly on goal attainment (g51.29) and self-efficacy (g50.59). Besides, these identified
coaching frameworks generated a greater impact on objective work performance rated by others (e.g. 360
feedback) than on coachees’self-reported performance. Moreover, a cognitive behavioral-oriented coaching
process stimulated individuals’internal self-regulation and awareness to promote work satisfaction and
facilitated sustainable changes. Yet, there was no statistically significant difference between popular and
commonly used coaching approaches. Instead, an integrative coaching approach that combines different
frameworks facilitated better outcomes (g50.71), including coachees’psychological well-being.
Practical implications –Effective coaching activities should integrate cognitive coping (e.g. combining
cognitive behavioral and solution-focused technique), positive individual traits (i.e. strength-based approach)
and contextual factors for an integrative approach to address the full range of coachees’values, motivators and
organizational resources for yielding positive outcomes.
Originality/value –Building on previous meta-analyses and reviews of coaching, this synthesis offers a new
insight into effective mechanisms to facilitate desired coaching results. Frameworks grounded in
Coaching
psychology
meta-analysis
© Qing Wang, Yi-Ling Lai, Xiaobo Xu and Almuth McDowall. Published in Journal of Work-Applied
Management. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create
derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full
attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://
creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
The authors would like to thank Dr Alanna Henderson, who read our first draft and provided
constructive comments.
Received 2 April 2021
Revised 22 April 2021
Accepted 28 April 2021
Journal of Work-Applied
Management
Emerald Publishing Limited
2205-2062
DOI 10.1108/JWAM-04-2021-0030
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2205-2062.htm
psychotherapy and positive appear most prominent in the literature, yet an integrative approach appears most
effective.
Keywords Workplace coaching, Coaching psychology, Meta-analysis, Psychological well-being,
Learning and development
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
Given the ever-growing popularity of coaching which some populist publications expect to
surpass consultancy (Forbes, 2018) as a workplace learning and development (L&D) activity
of choice, the effectiveness of coaching has attracted increasing attention from scholars,
practitioners and clients. Several meta-analyses (e.g. Jones et al., 2016;Theeboom et al., 2014)
have established that taking part in coaching activities has positive effects on individual-level
outcomes. Yet, we still know little about “how”does coaching work from a psychological
perspective (Bono et al., 2009;Smither, 2011); what are the “active ingredients”and potential
mechanisms that make coaching successful (Theeboom et al., 2014). Recent meta-analysis
(Graßmann et al., 2020) confirmed the working alliance which refers to the coach–coachee
relationship, as an antecedent of desired coaching outcomes. Our meta-analysis aims to
synthesize extant psychologically informed coaching research evidence (e.g. cognitive
behavioral approaches) to elicit better understanding of potential mechanisms to contribute
to the development of work-applied management.
We framed workplace coaching (hereafter coaching) as a facilitative process for the purpose
of coachees’L&D and a greater working life (e.g. psychological well-being) through
interpersonal interactions between the coach and coachee (Grant, 2017;Passmore and
Fillery-Travis, 2011). The present analysis only included coaching offered by independent
contracted specialists who use a wide variety of behavioral techniques and methods to help the
coachee achieve a mutually identified set of goals, including professional performance, personal
satisfaction as well as the effectiveness of the coachee’s organization within a formally defined
coaching agreement (Kilburg, 1996, p. 142). Whereas certain organizations often conduct
coaching through internal specialists such as in-house human resource (HR) professionals,
external coaching engagements has larger influences on coachees’affective learning outcomes
and workplace well-being than internal coaching (Jones et al.,2018). These affective and
psychological welfare related outcomes are important determinants of sustainable behavior or
performance improvement (Kraiger et al., 1993). Accordingly, our primary study objective is to
investigate whether coaching provided by independent practitioners applying psychologically
informed approaches promotes longstanding outcomes.
Our study extends previous meta-analyses by focusing on psychological perspectives, for
instance psychotherapy (Graßmann et al., 2020;Gray, 2006) and positive psychology (Grant
and Cavanagh, 2007), and draws on compatible paradigms and theoretical constructs to
explain potential mechanisms of coaching interventions. Previous analyses (e.g. Jones et al.,
2016;Theeboom et al., 2014) outlined several frequently used psychologically informed
coaching approaches, including cognitive behavioral coaching (CBC) [1]. Nevertheless, we
have sparse evidence on how different coaching approaches compare to one another in terms
of outcomes produced (Athanasopoulou and Dopson, 2018;Smither, 2011). In addition, we
contend that contemporary literature has neglected social complexity in workplace coaching
settings; hence, coaches should apply integrative and flexible approaches to acknowledge
fluctuating and complex organizational management scenarios (Shoukry and Cox, 2018).
Accordingly, our analysis investigated whether an integrative psychological approach (e.g.
CBC combined with other psychological approaches) with potentially more comprehensive
consideration of individuals’needs and organizational circumstances affects coaching
outcomes.
JWAM
Brief meta-review of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Given the growing number of coaching-focused meta-analyses and systematic reviews
referenced above, we undertook a succinct meta-review as summarized in Table 1 to inform
distinctions of our analysis.
Most reviews concurred that coaching overall had a positive impact on individuals’
workplace learning and performance. Meanwhile, Theeboom et al.’s synthesis (2014)
identified that coaching interventions have significant positive effects on employees’working
life and psychological states, including coping mechanisms (e.g. resilience) and well-being.
This finding accorded with the contemporary coaching literature suggesting that sustainable
behavioral changes should be underpinned by personal life and learning experiences (Grant,
2014;Stelter, 2014). Therefore, coachees’personal values and meaning of their life and work
are also important for desired coaching outcomes. In addition, three reviews specifically
stressed on the professional helping relationship in the coaching dyad (Graßmann et al., 2020;
Lai and McDowall, 2014;Sonesh et al., 2015) as central to coaching as a positive process and
good outcomes; the focus of working alliance has set a road map for the future research
between psychotherapy and coaching.
We noted the following implications for future research. First, there is a need for greater
clarity to distinguish approaches to coaching, since synthesized data of previous reviews
comprised different types of coaching, such as grouping together internal and external
coaching (Jones et al., 2016), group and peer coaching (Theeboom et al., 2014), or workplace
and life coaching (Graßmann et al., 2020). Yet there are fundamental differences between
coaching modalities (Jones et al., 2018) including purpose (life or work-related coaching) and
contracting (internal or external coaching). Second, all reviews suggested that future research
could emphasize sound theoretical constructs, including those derived from psychotherapy
or counselling to investigate more clearly articulated models for coaching outcomes. To date,
several psychological determinants appear important for the coaching process. For instance,
the strength of the working alliance, a concept originating in psychotherapy, has positive
impacts on coachees’self-efficacy and self-reflection (Graßmann et al., 2020). Although these
analyses conducted by Jones et al. (2016) and Theeboom et al. (2014) included several primary
studies drawn from psychology such as CBC and solution-focused coaching (SFC) [2], they
did not go as far as a comparative evaluation of different approaches, which we took on as a
key focus for the present study. Building on these review and synthesis results for a future
coaching research agenda, we propose a meta-analytic synthesis of existing psychologically
informed empirical evidence. Although we acknowledge the role other disciplines (e.g. adult
learning and management) play in coaching practice, a more extensive cross-examination
between psychology and other coaching domains was not feasible due to challenges
regarding literature searching and screening. This is because many existing coaching studies
do not specify coaching designs or paradigms in necessary detail (Jones et al., 2016). The
comprehensive theoretical foundations and explanations of our analysis are presented below.
Psychologically informed approaches to coaching
Given the central importance of psychological theories in previous reviews, we revisit these in
the context of contemporary coaching literature. Several theoretical frameworks originating
from psychotherapy and positive psychology have been frequently applied in extant coaching
practice regardless of concrete empirical evidence for their effectiveness (Palmer and Lai, 2019).
Grant (2001) carried out a pioneering literature review of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT),
addressing identifying negative cognitive patterns and solution-focused therapy (SFT),
emphasizing self-developed and future focused plans for behavior change, as L&D
interventions for nonclinical population coaching. This review indicated that understanding
coachees’socio-cognitive characteristics, such as psychological mindedness, self-awareness
Coaching
psychology
meta-analysis
Meta-analysis
References Coaching types
No. of
papers Main finings Future suggestions
Theeboom et al.
(2014)
(1) Workplace coaching
(2) Both external and
internal
k518 Effect sizes from g50.43 (coping) to g50.74 (goal-
directed self-regulation)
A need for theoretical enrichment, such as self-determent
theory (SDT), working alliance, characteristics of
coaches and motivational components
Sonesh et al. (2015) Executive, leadership and
business coaching
k524 The impact of coaching on overall relationship outcomes
was significant (g50.32, 95% CI [0.27, 0.38])
(1) To what extent is coaching effectiveness
attributable to positive shifts in coachees’
relational and psychological states?
(2) What specific coach behaviors contribute to
a strong positive coach-coachee
relationship?
(3) What coach behaviors, strategies, and
techniques contribute to successful coaching
engagements?
Jones et al. (2016) (1) Workplace coaching
(2) Both external and
internal
k517 (1) Coaching had a positive effect on all
outcomes (d50.36, 90% CI [0.16, 0.50])
(2) Coaching had greater outcomes when
coaching was provided without multisource
feedback (d50.88 vs d50.21)
(3) Research design does not appear to moderate
the effects of coaching on outcome coaching
provided in the face-to-face format with
blended formats
(4) The effects of coaching on outcomes were
weaker for external coaches in comparison
with internal coaches
(5) Neither longevity in weeks of the coaching
intervention nor number of coaching sessions
moderated overall coaching effectiveness
(1) To examine cognitive, team or
organizational-level results’outcome criteria
(2) To examine how the relative impact of
coaching on different kinds of criteria and
compare this with other forms of L&D
intervention (e.g. training)
(3) A need for the development of theory
concerning why, how and in what ways
coaching leads to the positive effects we
reported in this study
(continued )
Table 1.
A meta-review of
contemporary meta-
analyses and
systematic reviews on
coaching
JWAM
Meta-analysis
References Coaching types
No. of
papers Main finings Future suggestions
Burt and Talati
(2017)
Workplace and life coaching k511 Coaching had a moderate significant positive effect on
coachees, b
p50.42
(1) The need for more performance rating and
the coach–coachee relationship evaluation in
the coaching literature
(2) A need to conduct longitudinal explorations
and measure engagement across teams and
the wider organizational level outcomes
Graßmann et al.
(2020)
Workplace, life and career
coaching
k527
(n53,563)
A moderate and consistent overall relationship between a
high-quality working alliance and coaching outcomes for
clients (r50.41, 95% CI [0.34, 0.48], p< 0.001)
To examine the role of the coaching relationship
perspective in more detail
Systematic review
Lai and McDowall
(2014)
Workplace, life and personal
coaching
k5140 (1) Key factors for a positive coaching
relationship were identified, such as building
trust, two-way communication and
transparent contracting process
(2) Essential attributes required for a
professional coach in psychology area:
theoretical knowledge (e.g. psychology and
leadership), attitude (e.g. non-judgmental)
and interpersonal skills
The future research should emphasize on the
improvement of research methods and coaching result
evaluation approaches to ensure producing more
rigorous and replicable study results
Blackman et al.
(2016)
Business coaching (external
only)
k5111 (1) Coaching had positive effects on individual
L&D outcomes
(2) There is no sufficient evidence to indicate
coaching was more effective than other L&D
approaches
(3) Key factors were identified to contribute to
effective business coaching outcomes: the
coach’s (e.g. communication skills) and
coachee’s (e.g. self-efficacy) characteristics,
coach–coachee relationship and
organizational context
(4) Skills or expertise in the sector or in executive
management were preferable
The future research should focus on developing sound
theoretical models based on more sophisticated research
(continued )
Table 1.
Coaching
psychology
meta-analysis
Meta-analysis
References Coaching types
No. of
papers Main finings Future suggestions
Grover and Furnham
(2016)
Executive, leadership and
business coaching (both
external and internal)
k552 (1) In general, coaching had positive effects on
coachees’self-efficacy
(2) Coaching had positive effects on
psychological outcomes, such as stress,
anxiety, well-being, etc.
(3) There were mixed results between coaching
and coachees’work or like satisfaction and
performance
(4) Current research evidence indicated coaching
generated longitudinal outcomes; however,
more empirical research is required
(5) There was no adequate empirical evidence to
confirm that coaching had positive impact on
organizational-level outcomes
(6) Several mechanisms were identified:
coachees’self-efficacy and motivation,
coaches’interpersonal skills and the quality
of coaching relationship, etc.
To establish an independent working group that
consists of coaches, academics, organizations that use
coaching and any stakeholders, and the research method
should include methodological and statistical
procedures, minimum sample sizes and a set of outcome
variables
Athanasopoulou and
Dopson (2018)
Executive coaching (external
only)
k5110 (1) It is difficult to integrate the research
evidence due to the diversity of research
methods
(2) Social context and organizational-level
outcomes have been overlooked in current
research
(3) The research evidence on the effectiveness of
coaching was not mixed
(1) The future research should be a more
context-sensitive based and better research
designed
(2) 25 future research questions were outlined,
such as compare coaching models’level of
effectiveness and what makes outcomes
sustainable?
Bozer and Jones
(2018)
Workplace coaching (both
external and internal)
k5117 Seven essential factors were identified: self-efficacy,
coaching motivation, goal orientation, trust, interpersonal
attraction, feedback intervention and supervisory
support
15 future research questions were outlined, such as
(1) Is coaching motivation an affective outcome
of workplace coaching?
(2) Is learning goal orientation an affective
outcome of workplace coaching?
Table 1.
JWAM
and self-regulation, can advance coachees’purposeful behavioral changes. The application of
theories in psychotherapy offers a holistic picture of coachees, including their intrinsic
motivations, personal history and current life, and may make a significant contribution to
coachees’sustainable changes (Williams et al.,2002). Nevertheless, the workplace coaching
usually requires a systematic focus and developmental partnership and often involves a
complicated as triadic contracting process among the coach, coachee and organization (Louis
and Fatien Diochon, 2014;Smither, 2011); hence, theories and techniques in coaching might
matter more than in psychotherapy. To revisit the boundaries between coaching and
psychotherapy, Grant and Cavanagh (2007) proposed that positive psychology, which is
identifying and utilizing positive traits of people, may strengthen coaching outcome, such as
workplace satisfaction, performance and well-being can be enhanced. Nevertheless, there is still
lack of rigor in many of the claims and much of the published work in coaching. Accordingly,
the future coaching research should focus on in what way psychology can contribute to
coaching (Bono et al.,2009) and directly compares the efficacy of different theoretical
frameworks and approaches to executive coaching (Smither, 2011).
Outcome criteria for workplace coaching
Outcome criteria in contemporary coaching research have been criticized due to the lack of
consistency and validity (Lai and Palmer, 2019); hence, we drew on established criterion
models from similar interventions, such as training and learning for coaching evaluations. To
build on previous meta-analyses, we combined multi-level training evaluation (Kraiger et al.,
1993) with the Engagement and Well-being Matrix®(Grant, 2014) in the present analysis.
Given that expectations of coaching have been expanded to a broader view of working life,
including employee relations, engagement, motivation to change and psychological
well-being (Grant, 2014), our coaching outcome evaluation criteria across four individual
domains are affective, cognitive, behavioral (skills/performance) outcomes and psychological
well-being (See Table 2 below).
To summarize, the first two questions guiding our meta-analysis are as follows:
Outcome criteria Description Measurement
(A) Affective outcomes Attitudinal, commitment and motivational
outcomes
Organizational commitment, job
satisfaction and intention to leave
(B) Cognitive outcomes Knowledge acquisition, knowledge organization
and cognitive strategies (i.e. meta-cognition), such as
clients’self-reflection, self-awareness and self-
understanding of learning progress and strategy
(B1) General perceived
efficacy
Self-awareness of knowledge gain and deficiency.
Planning, monitoring and revising goal appropriate
behaviors
Self-awareness and self-efficacy
(B2) Goal attainment Trainees’self-assessment of specific learning
outcomes
Goal attainment scaling
(C) Skill-based/
Performance
outcomes
The development of technical skills that links goal
(C1) Self-rated
performance
Perceived improvements in work performance Self-rated performance questionnaire
(C2) Other-rated
performance
Objective improvements in work performance 360-degree assessment or the
multifactor leadership questionnaire
(MLQ)
(D) Workplace
psychological well-
being
Self-acceptance, purpose in life, positive relations
with others, environmental mastery and autonomy
Psychopathology (mental health) or
resilience
Table 2.
Proposed coaching
evaluation criteria
framework
Coaching
psychology
meta-analysis
Q1. Do psychologically informed coaching approaches have positive effects on the
following learning outcomes; (a) affective; (b) cognitive; (c) skills-based/performance
and (d) psychological well-being?
Q2. Is there a difference among the effectiveness of various frequently used
psychological frameworks such as CBC and SFC on coaching outcomes?
Contextual factors in the coaching process
Despite certain prominent psychologically informed approaches (e.g. CBC) having been
widely applied in coaching studies, contextual factors (e.g. organizational characteristics)
have been overlooked in research evidence (Shoukry and Cox, 2018). Indeed, workplace
coaching requires comprehensive approaches due to a sophisticated triangular relationship
between the coach, coachee and organization (Louis and Fatien Diochon, 2014). Therefore,
coaching is regarded as a social process where contingent factors including organizational
structure, political dynamics and power relationships are important influences on the
coaching relationship (Louis and Fatien Diochon, 2018;Shoukry and Cox, 2018). Specifically,
interpersonal interactions between the coach and coachee were altered by the context and
relation-specific scenarios (de Haan and Nieß, 2015;Ianiro et al., 2015), in which a more flexible
and integrated coaching process is essential.
Consequently, our third review question is
Q3. Do integrative psychologically informed coaching frameworks have better effects on
coaching outcomes than a singular formed coaching framework?
Based on the above, we developed a conceptual model to guide our analysis (See Figure 1 below).
Method
Literature search and screening
We used a systematic search strategy to identify relevant peer-reviewed papers, unpublished
doctoral theses and conference proceedings (Denyer and Tranfield, 2011). Search terms
Workplace
coaching
Psychologically
informed approaches
Affective outcomes
Cognitive outcomes
Skilled-based outcomes
Psychological well-
being
Q1b
Q1c
Q1d
Q1a
CBC
Q2
PPC
GROW
Integrative
psychologically
informed
coaching
Q3
Figure 1.
Conceptual framework
of the present meta-
analysis
JWAM
associated with psychologically informed coaching approaches (e.g. cogniti* and coaching)
and psychological assessments (e.g. psychometric* and coaching) were used across eight
databases, such as PsyINFO and Business Source Complete. Inclusion criteria were (1)
written in English; (2) published between 1995 and 2018; (3) empirical quantitative trial
settings with clear research methods, participants, evaluations and outcomes; (4) focused
external one-on-one workplace coaching; (5) clearly stated psychologically informed coaching
approaches and frameworks, such as CBC, SFC GROW [3] and so forth. Please see Figure 2
for the flow chart of literature search process.
A total of 20 studies (k520, n5957, 63 effect sizes) meeting the above criteria were
included in the final review. Overall, most of the included studies were conducted in English
speaking countries (e.g. UK, USA and Australia) and continental Europe (e.g. Italy,
Netherlands, Spain, etc.). This aligns to a recent global coaching consumer report by the
International Coach Federation (ICF, 2017), indicating USA and Europe as established
coaching markets. A comparative analysis between countries was out of scope due to
insufficient numbers of primary studies. An overview of the included studies is displayed in
Table 3.
Calculating the effect sizes
We used Hedges’sgas the indicator of effect size, which adjusts the small sample
overestimation bias of Cohen’sd(Hedges, 1981) and is usually interpreted as the standardized
mean difference calculated by using the means, standard deviations and sample sizes of
treatment and comparison groups. In cases when the above statistic information was not
available, we estimated this indicator by transforming F,Zor tvalues according to the
formula described in Card (2011, p. 97).
There are three types of research design in the present meta-analysis: (1) posttest only
with control design (POWC), (b) single group pretest–posttest design (SGPP) and (c)
pretest–posttest with control design (PPWC). For those which employed two cohorts with
nonequivalent control design (e.g. MacKie, 2014;MacKie, 2015), we aggregated the
precoaching and postcoaching data of the first coaching group and the waitlist first group
and treated them as SGPP. Accordingly, we employed different formulas to calculate the
effect sizes and variances for each research design as illustrated in Table 4.ForPOWC
research design studies, the effect size was defined as the difference between the mean
posttest scores of the treatment and control groups divided by the pooled standard
deviation of the two groups (Carlson and Schmidt, 1999, p. 852, 855; Rubio-Aparicio et al.,
2017, p. 2059). For SGPP research design studies, the effect size was defined as the average
Undertaking the literature
searching and intially
screening the references
Determining search strategy (1) 58 searching terms
(2) 8 electronic databases
duplicated
k =1,201
psychologically
informed
coaching models
(i.e. trials )
(k= 39)
lack of
sufficient
presented data
(k= 19)
k= 20
constructive
coaching
relationship s
(k= 32)
effective
attributes for
a coach
(k= 30)
general
investigatio n
of coaching
(k= 132)
psychometric
assessments
(k= 4)
initial
search
k= 25,615
Figure 2.
Literature search and
screening
Coaching
psychology
meta-analysis
Authors and date
of publication NCoaching method
Research
design Outcome
Outcome
Category gResearch location
Duration of
the trial
Bozer and Sarros
(2012)
96 CBC BET Self-reported job
performance
C1 0.12 Israel 10–12 weeks
Self-awareness B1 0.25
Job affective commitment A 0.17
Career satisfaction A 0.83
Job performance rated by
supervisor
C2 0.03
Supervisory-rated task
performance
C2 0.67
Bright and
Crockett (2012)
115 CBC BET Performance strategy C1 0.03 USA 9–10 weeks
Burke and Linley
(2007)
26 GROW WSD Self-concordance A 0.35 United Kingdom 1 session
Personal values A 0.26
Commitment A 0.90
Cerni et al. (2010a,
b)
14 CBC BET Transformational leadership C2 0.07 Australia 10 weeks
David et al. (2016) 59 CBC WSD Psychopathology (mental
health)
D 0.19 Italy 24 weeks
Performance C2 0.13
Irrational beliefs B1 0.92
Irrational cognition B1 1.28
Evers et al. (2006) 60 GROW BET Goal attainment B2 0.09 Netherlands 16 weeks
Acting with balance B1 0.26
Living and working
mindfully
B1 0.25
Transformational
leadership-supervisor rated
C2 0.30
Transformational
leadership-self rated
C1 0.02
(continued )
Table 3.
Characteristics of
psychologically
informed studies and
nonpsychologically
informed studies
included in this meta-
analysis
JWAM
Authors and date
of publication NCoaching method
Research
design Outcome
Outcome
Category gResearch location
Duration of
the trial
Grant et al. (2009) 42 INTEGRATIVE
(CBC þSFC þGROW)
BET Goal attainment B2 1.61 Australia 10 weeks
Resilience D 0.90
Psychopathology (mental
health)
D 0.41
workplace well-being D 0.47
Grant et al. (2010) 44 INTEGRATIVE
(CBC þSFC þGROW)
BET Goal attainment B2 2.06 Australia 20 weeks
Resilience D 0.46
Psychopathology (mental
health)
D 0.40
Workplace well-being D 0.49
Grant (2014) 31 INTEGRATIVE (CBC þSFC) WSD Goal attainment B2 1.38 14 geographical
locations
16 weeks
Solution-focused thinking B1 0.38
Change readiness B1 0.23
Leadership self-efficacy B1 0.35
Psychopathology (mental
health)
D 0.19
Resilience D 0.21
Workplace satisfaction A 0.02
Ladegard and
Gjerde (2014)
30 INTEGRATIVE (SFC þPPC) BET Leader role efficacy B1 1.20 Norway 24 weeks
Leader’s trust in
subordinates
A 1.58
Turnover intentions A 0.75
MacKie (2014) 28 POSITIVE WSD Multi-factor leadership C2 0.53 Australia 12 weeks
MacKie (2015) 27 POSITIVE WSD Coaching readiness B1 0.70 Australia 12 weeks
Core self-evaluation B1 0.50
Developmental readiness B1 0.46
Markus (2016) 71 CBC BET Goal attainment B2 1.27 USA 8 weeks
(continued )
Table 3.
Coaching
psychology
meta-analysis
Authors and date
of publication NCoaching method
Research
design Outcome
Outcome
Category gResearch location
Duration of
the trial
Nielsen et al. (2015) 101 GROW BET Safety leadership C2 0.51 Denmark 16 weeks
Safety knowledge C2 0.53
Safety involvement C2 0.48
Safety behavior C2 0.05
Safety representatives
commitment
A0.01
Affective commitment A 0.07
Trust A 0.27
Safety participation C1 0.38
Ratiu et al. (2017) 11 CBC WSD Multi-factor leadership C2 0.14 Romania 32 weeks
Sherlock-Storey
et al. (2013)
12 POSITIVE WSD Psychological capital B1 0.77 United Kingdom 6 weeks
Change efficacy B1 0.81
Vidal-Salazar et al.
(2012)
40 CBC BET Skill application C1 0.47 Ceuta, Spain 24 weeks
Weinberg (2016) 76 INTEGRATIVE
(SFC þGROW)
BET General health D 0.36 United Kingdom 3 years
Workplace environment B1 0.30
Williams and
Lowman (2018)
64 GROW WSD leadership competence C2 0.50 USA 16–24 weeks
Leadership practice C2 0.44
Yu et al. (2008) 10 INTEGRATIVE (CBC þSFC) WSD Goal attainment B2 1.44 Australia 24 weeks
Subjective well-being D 0.60
Psychological well-being D 0.26
Meta-cognition B1 0.55
Proactivity C1 1.22
Role-breadth self-efficacy B1 1.52
Core performance behavior C2 0.23
Note(s): WSD 5within subject design; BET 5between subject design; A 5affective outcomes (e.g. organizational commitment, satisfaction and turn over intention);
B1 5general perceived efficacy and other cognitive outcomes (e.g. self-awareness, self-efficacy, attribution and self-regulation); B2 5goal-attainment (e.g. goal setting
and goal attainment); C1 5self-rated performance; C2 5other-rated performance (e.g. 360 degree multifactor evaluation) and D5workplace well-being (e.g. burn out,
stress and anxiety)
Table 3.
JWAM
Study
design Effect size Variance
POWC d¼h1−3
4ðn1þn2Þ−9i$y
1−y
2
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðn1−1ÞS2
1þðn2−1ÞS2
2
n1þn2−2
qb
σ
2
d¼n1þn2
n1$n2þd2
2ðn1þn2Þ
SGPP d¼h1−3
4ðn−1Þ−1i$
y
pos −y
pre
Spre b
σ
2
d¼13
4ðn−1Þ−12
$2ð1−rÞ
n$n−1
n−3$ 1þn$d2
2ð1−rÞ!−d2
PPWC d¼h1−3
4ðnEþnC−2Þ−1i$
ðy
pos;E−y
pre;EÞ−ðy
pos;C−y
pre;CÞ
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðnE−1ÞSpre;E2þðnC−1ÞSpre;C2
nEþnC−2
qb
σ
2
d¼213
4ðnEþnC−2Þ−12
$ð1−rÞ$nEþnC
nEnC$nEþnC−2
nEþnC−4 1þnEnCd2
2ð1−rÞðnEþnCÞ!−d2
Note(s): POWC 5posttest only with control; SGPP 5single group with pretest and posttest and PPWC 5pretest and posttest with control
Table 4.
Effect size calculation
formulas for three
kinds of study design
Coaching
psychology
meta-analysis
pretest-follow-up change, divided by the pretest standard deviation (Morris and DeShon,
2002, p.114; Rubio-Aparicio et al., 2017, p. 2059). Finally, for PPWC research design studies,
the effect size index was computed as the difference between the average pretest-follow-up
change of the experimental and control groups, divided by a pooled estimate of the pretest
standard deviations of the two groups (Morris, 2008, p. 369; Rubio-Aparicio et al., 2017,
p. 2060). For SGPP and PPWC, Pearson correlation coefficient between the pretest and
follow-up measures must be available to estimatethevariance.Asthisinformationwas
seldom reported in the studies, a value of 0.70 was assumed for r, as recommended by
Rosenthal (1991).
Meta-analysis with robust variance estimates
When a study provides multiple effect size estimates, a traditional approach is to aggregate
effect sizes drawn from the same study (Borenstein et al., 2009). However, this method
usually eliminates the possibility of comparing multiple levels of a moderator within a
single study. To overcome this limitation, the present study conducted a meta-analysis with
robust variance estimates (RVEs; Hedges et al., 2010), which can comprehensively analyze
all the effect sizes and effectively accommodate the multiple sources of dependencies.
Considering 70.00% (14 out of 20 studies) of the studies provided multiple effect sizes, this
study employed the correlated effects weighting scheme for RVE, with the default assumed
correlation (r50.80) among dependent effect sizes within each study.
Testing overall effects and moderators
To test the overall effect size and the effects of each moderator, we conducted an intercept-
only random-effects meta-regression model with RVE using the R package, robumeta (Fisher
and Tipton, 2015). The intercept of this model can be interpreted as the precision weighted
overall effect size, adjusted for correlated-effect dependencies. Categorical moderators (e.g.
coaching method and outcome category) were first dummy coded and then entered into meta-
regression equations. To test whether there were significant differences across all levels of
each moderator, we conducted approximate Hotelling-Zhang with small sample correction
tests using the Rpackage clubSandwhich (Pustejovsky, 2015). This test produced an F-value,
an atypical degree of freedom, and a p-value that indicated the significance of moderating
effect.
Examining publication bias
Publication bias refers to the tendency of studies that report small or nonsignificant
effects to be underrepresented in the published literature. Since publication bias analyses
cannot be performed with RVEs, we used the R package MAd (Del Re and Hoyt, 2010)to
aggregate dependent effect sizes with a prespecified correlation (r50.5) (Borenstein
et al., 2009). Then, we conducted the Orwin’s fail-safe Nanalysis (Orwin, 1983)andthe
trim-and-fill analysis (Duval and Tweedie, 2000)withtheRpackage metafor
(Viechtbauer, 2010), based on the aggregated 20 effect sizes (one effect size per study).
Orwin’s fail-safe N indicates how many studies with null results (g50) would have to be
added to reduce the present average effect size to a trivial level (g50.1, Hyde and Linn,
2006). Trim and Fill analysis indicated how many missing studies were needed to make
the funnel plot symmetrical (Duval and Tweedie, 2000). The results indicated that it takes
87 overlooked studies with effect sizes of 0 to reduce our results to a trivial level.
Furthermore, the results of Trim and Fill analysis implied that no studies were added in
the funnel plot (Figure 3). Taken together, publication bias was probably not a problem in
this meta-analysis.
JWAM
Findings
RQ 1. The effectiveness of psychologically informed coaching approaches on workplace
outcomes
With regards to our first research question, the results of meta-regression with RVEs
indicated a moderately positive effect across outcomes (g50.51, 95% CI, 0.35–0.66 and
p< 0.01). However, the relatively large effect size of goal attainment in Grant’s (2010, g52.06)
study prompted us to perform a sensitivity analysis; namely, the above analysis was repeated
while excluding the result of this outcome. The overall effect size dropped slightly but
remained significant (g50.48, 95% CI, 0.33–0.64 and p< 0.01), indicating that the overall
effect was not altered when Grant’s (2001) study was excluded.
The effect sizes of each outcome category are illustrated in Table 5. Our analysis showed
that coaching had significant positive effects on (1) cognitive outcomes with both general
perceived efficacy (g50.59, 95% CI, 0.30–0.88 and p< 0.01) and goal attainment (g51.29,
95% CI, 0.56–2.01 and p< 0.01), (2) other-rated performance (g50.24, 95% CI, 0.00–0.48 and
p50.05) and (3) workplace psychological well-being (g50.28, 95% CI, 0.08–0.49 and
p50.02). In contrast, coaching had positive but not significant effects on affective outcomes
(g50.44, 95% CI, 0.14–1.01 and p50.10) and self-rated performance (g50.30, 95% CI,
0.22–0.81 and p50.18). Although the coaching effect size was slightly higher for self-rated
performance (g50.30) than for other-rated performance (g50.24), the difference was not
significant (F (1, 4.46) 50.01 and p50.92). Similarly, as the overall effect size estimation, we
repeated the analysis for coachees’goal attainment level excluding the results of Grant’s
(2010, g52.06) study. Although the effect size dropped from 1.29 to 1.13, it remained
significant (g51.13, 95% CI, 0.33–1.93 and p50.02).
RQ2. The effectiveness of various frequently used psychological coaching frameworks
The large amount of heterogeneity in the effect sizes (T
2
50.12 and I
2
579.37) suggested
there may be meaningful differences that could be further explored through moderator
analyses. Table 5 contains effect size estimates for each level of moderator analyses.
We first examined whether different coaching methods (CBC, GROW, PPC and integrative
coaching) varied in their effects on outcomes addressing the second research question. The
results indicated positive effects across all coaching methods: CBC (g50.39, 95% CI, 0.03–
0.82 and p50.07), GROW (g50.44, 95% CI, 0.18–0.70 and p< 0.01), PPC (g50.57, 95%
CI, 0.28–0.85 and p50.02) and integrative (g50.71, 95% CI, 0.21–1.21 and p50.02). Overall,
we did not find evidence that coaching method significantly moderated coaching effect,
F(3, 6.27) 50.78 and p50.54.
−0.5
0.429 0.214
0.5
0
Observed Outcome
Standard Error
0
11.5 Figure 3.
Funnel plot
Coaching
psychology
meta-analysis
Considering that CBC has been the most documented psychologically informed coaching
approach in contemporary empirical studies (Lai and Palmer, 2019), we further compared the
effect size between CBC and other coaching methods. The results indicated that the average
effect size of other methods (g50.55, 95% CI, 0.40–0.70 and p< 0.01) was higher than
CBC (g50.39, 95% CI, 0.03–0.82 and p50.07), but the difference was not significant,
F(1, 11.80) 50.88 and p50.37.
RQ3. Integrative vs singular psychologically informed coaching frameworks
Addressing our third review question, we compared the effect size between studies
employing integrative coaching methods and those based on a single coaching method. The
average effect size for integrative coaching methods (g50.71, 95% CI, 0.21–1.21 and
p50.02) was higher than for single coaching method (g50.45, 95% CI, 0.27–0.64 and
p< 0.01), yet the difference was not significant, F(1, 6.15) 51.41 and p50.28.
Discussion
The effects of psychologically informed coaching approaches on evaluative outcomes
The results demonstrated that coaching constructs, informed by psychotherapy and positive
psychology, had an overall effective impact on all evaluative outcomes including individuals’
cognitive and affective learning outcomes, objective work performance improvement and
psychological well-being. The effective sizes ranged from g50.25 to 1.29. Whereas several
previous meta-analyses (e.g. Theeboom et al., 2014) also indicated support for effective
coaching outcomes, these syntheses did not differentiate between psychological and
nonpsychological coaching approaches as well as formats of coaching (e.g. peer and group
coaching). Our analysis makes the distinction that psychologically informed approaches
contribute to external workplace coaching processes and outcomes. This present analysis
Moderator (italics) and level kEffect size ngF 95% CI p
Outcome type 20 63 1.48 0.33
A Affective outcomes 5 10 284 0.44 0.14–1.01 0.10
B1 General perceived efficacy 9 17 401 0.59 0.30–0.88 <0.01
B2 Goal attainment 6 6 258 1.29 0.56–2.01 <0.01
C1 Self-reported performance 5 5 422 0.30 0.22–0.81 0.18
C2 Other-rated performance 8 13 443 0.24 0.00–0.48 0.05
D Workplace psychological well-being 6 12 262 0.28 0.08–0.49 0.02
Coaching method 20 63 0.78 0.54
CBC 7 15 406 0.39 0.03–0.82 0.07
GROW 4 20 251 0.44 0.18–0.70 <0.01
PPC 3 6 67 0.57 0.28–0.85 0.02
integrative 6 22 233 0.71 0.21–1.21 0.02
CBC vs Others 20 63 0.88 0.37
CBC 7 15 406 0.39 0.03-0.82 0.07
others 13 48 551 0.55 0.40–0.70 <0.01
Single vs Integrative 20 63 1.83 0.23
single 15 41 724 0.45 0.27–0.64 <0.01
integrative 5 22 233 0.71 0.21–1.21 0.02
Note(s):k5number of studies; n5number of correlations; F5HTZ-F test comparing the levels of a given
moderator. A 5affective outcomes (e.g. organizational commitment, satisfaction and turn over intention);
B1 5general perceived efficacy and other cognitive outcomes (e.g. self-awareness, self-efficacy, attribution and
self-regulation); B2 5goal-attainment (e.g. goal setting and goal attainment); C1 5self-rated performance;
C2 5other-rated performance (e.g. 360-degree multifactor evaluation) and D 5workplace well-being (e.g. burn
out, stress and anxiety)
Table 5.
Moderator analyses
JWAM
revealed that psychological coaching approaches had significant impacts particularly on
goal-related outcomes; this finding reflects on Bono et al.’s (2009) comparative analysis
between psychologist and nonpsychologist coaches that the former tended to set specific
“goals”triggering behavioral changes. In addition, our analysis identified that
psychologically informed coaching approaches had substantial impacts on individuals’
cognitive learning outcomes; for instance, meta-cognitive skills which process and organize
information for the development and to plan, monitor and revise goal-oriented behaviors
(Brown et al., 1983;Kraiger et al., 1993). Considering that coaching has been described as a
reflective process to simulate people’s self-awareness (Passmore and Travis, 2011), our
analysis tallied with literature of learning that individuals’internal self-regulation and
cognition stimulate purposeful mental (internal) and behavioral (external) changes (e.g. goal-
attainment) through a continuous cognitive process (Anderson, 1982).
The second largest effect size in our analysis was the impact on coachees’affective outcomes
(g50.44), suchas work attitudes, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and intention to
leave. Workplace coaching is a type of investment in people through supporting coachees’
professional and personal development. This sort of social support either from the organization
or supervisors indeed reinforced coachees’satisfaction of the coaching process (Zimmermann
and Antoni, 2020) and therefore encouraged their motivation and efforts to change (Baron and
Morin, 2010;Bozer and Jones, 2018). Our analysis indicated psychologically informed coaching,
which provides a more holistic facilitation of coachees by understanding their internal
motivators, emotions and unconscious assumptions (Gray, 2006), increased coachees’
organizational commitment and job satisfaction listed above. Therefore, our study
further clarifies that coaching approaches addressing self-directed process and underlying
cognitive issues advanced coachees’perceived social support and attitude to organizational
objectives.
Coachees’psychological well-being evaluative outcomes took place the third largest effect
size (g50.28) in our analysis. This finding is an incremental contribution as previous meta-
analyses mainly emphasized workplace performance or behavioral related evaluative
indicators. Instead, we recognized people’s quality of working life and challenges as
important indicators for a sustainable behavioral or performance change (Grant, 2014). Our
analysis indicated psychologically informed coaching emphasizes improvement of coachees’
mental health, resilience, positive moods and reducing stress and psychopathologies (Grant,
2014;Yu et al., 2008). Interestingly, most of the studies that examined psychological health
outcomes adopted an integrative coaching approach (Grant, 2014;Grant et al., 2009,2014;
Weinberg, 2016;Yu et al., 2008). This finding is distinct to some contemporary coaching
literature that advocates theories in positive psychology are the predominant ingredient to
flourish individuals’workplace experiences and satisfaction (Biswas-Diener and Dean, 2007;
Biswas-Diener, 2010). This synthesis result informs us that the combined approach of
coaching may offer a comprehensive pathway to understand the full range of coachees’
emotions, feelings and passion for life to promote their mental health.
Lastly, psychologically informed coaching had a positive impact on objective work
performance rated by others (g50.24). Interestingly, coachees’self-reported work
performance was not significantly improved after coaching. A possible explanation for
this finding could be due to the self-reporting bias in interventional studies (Kumar and Yale,
2016;Rosenman et al., 2011). The reference standards of respondents’judgment may change
over time as coachees gain more realistic understating of respective strengths and
weaknesses, a beta change (Millsap and Hartog, 1988). A similar phenomenon was noted in
Mackie’s study (2014) where senior managers in the experimental group reported less
improvement in their leadership development after receiving coaching, although their
“actual”improvements in leadership behaviors were better than participants in the control
group, evaluated by objective 360-degree assessment.
Coaching
psychology
meta-analysis
The outcome equivalence of psychologically informed coaching frameworks
To offer a further insight of psychologically informed coaching approaches, we carried out a
comparative analysis among all identified coaching constructs, namely, CBC, GROW, positive
psychology coaching (PPC [4]) and integrative approaches (e.g. CBC combined with SFC). Our
analysissuggeststhattheeffectsizes of differentpsychologicallyinformedcoachingapproaches
were homogeneous. Precisely, therewas no particular psychologicalapproach to coaching more
effective than others in terms of evaluative outcomes. This result is aligned with “outcome
equivalence”in therapeutic research that there is no significant distinction in effectiveness
between different approaches and techniques (Ahn and Wampold, 2001). Meanwhile, this
synthesis clarifies the long-standing debate on coaching approaches by indicating that none of
the popular and commonly used constructs are prominent than others (Smither, 2011).
Whereas CBC had the most empirical data and largest sample size in our included papers,
we found lower effects of CBC on desired coaching outcomes (g50.39) compared with other
psychological frameworks (g50.55), although the difference was not significant. A possible
explanation is that CBC, which combines cognitive-behavioral, imaginal and problem-solving
techniques and strategies to enable clients to overcome blocks to change and achieve their
goals (Palmer and Szymanska, 2019), may require a prolonged coaching program to cultivate
or transfer the values and meanings of certain situations. Other psychologically informed
coaching frameworks, such as SFC and PPC, are more outcome-oriented, competence-based
and goal-focused procedures, and they may demonstrate effects in the short term that satisfy
expectations in workplace coaching settings. We cannot rule out the possibility that a
particular psychologically informed coaching framework generates better outcomes than
other frameworks. However, we were not able to conduct a meta-analysis between each
framework due to the small number of empirical studies up-to-date. Future research could
investigate whether specific psychological approaches are more strongly associated with
specific coaching effects.
Integrative coaching frameworks may work better than a single approach
Whereas recent coaching literature implied that a singular formed coaching framework
understates the complexity of coaching processes (Shoukry and Cox, 2018), our study
discovered several psychologically informed coaching frameworks were commonly used in
an integrative way; for example, CBC was often combined with SFC (e.g. Grant, 2014). Our
meta-analysis results revealed that the effectiveness of using an integrative approach
(g50.71) was stronger than a singular formed framework (g50.45) on evaluative outcomes,
though the difference was not significant. However, we note that only six studies (n5233)
used an integrating approach and 14 studies (n5724) used singular formed models in our
included papers. The discrepancy of study numbers and sample sizes was a limitation for
robustly comparing these two groups, and yet integrative frameworks still demonstrated
stronger impacts on evaluative outcomes. This result indicates that a more comprehensive
approach may have addressed the social complexity in coaching process and captured a
thorough picture of coachees’and organizational characteristics to facilitate desired coaching
outcomes (Shoukry and Cox, 2018). Overall, our meta-analysis indicates the positive impact of
psychologically informed coaching approaches on relevant outcomes. However, we do not
suggest a degree in psychology as prerequisite for all coaches. Rather, we advocate that a
sound understanding of cognitive-behavioral-based science and appreciation of the coachee’s
work-related context is a helpful basis for effective coaching processes.
Future research directions and practical implications
This study takes an initial step to synthesize relevant studies and confirms the role
psychology plays in promoting certain workplace coaching outcomes; we draw out several
JWAM
implications for future research following a number of limitations. In addition to the common
suggestions in previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews demanding more thorough
and rigorous studies and assessing longitudinal effects of coaching, we emphasize that, first,
explicit coaching constructs or frameworks should be adequately addressed and discussed in
future research since large numbers of existing empirical studies did not specify coaching
design in sufficient detail. Second, a transparent data analysis and presentation is crucial as
we had to disregard several studies due to missing data or unclear clarification from authors.
Third, a comparison between psychologically informed approaches and other coaching
disciplines (e.g. adult learning or management) might offer more comprehensive
understanding of contemporary coaching research evidence on coachees’transformation
and growth. Others may also wish to build on our groundwork to additionally investigate in
what way coaches’cultural backgrounds and qualification impact on coaching outcome in
both the internal and external coaching setting.
In terms of practical implications, we suggest that using integrative psychologically
informed coaching frameworks with consideration of individual differences and social
complexity in organizations is important. Our meta-analysis points out outcome equivalence
of contemporary commonly used psychologically informed coaching frameworks (including
CBC, SFC and PPC), thus corresponding with recent coaching practice trend that workplace
coaching is associated with complex social factors. In other words, a combined approach may
facilitate greater desirable outcomes. Our purpose is not to claim that applying psychological
frameworks is the exclusive influential factor in coaching but rather to promote evidence-
based practice by integrating scientific evidence of psychology. As the first meta-analysis of
coaching that focuses on one specific theoretical domain, psychology, our review results
indeed disclose that future practice need to pay more attention to the coaching process rather
than use one particular coaching framework. Our review results can be considered a
benchmark for coaches to reflect on their practice to facilitate sustainable coaching outcomes,
for instance, whether coaches integrate coachees’cognitive coping, positive traits and
strengths as well as social dynamics in the coachee’s work environment. In addition, this
analysis offers coaches a preliminary guideline to review whether their coaching evaluations
consist of comprehensive angles, such as affective and cognitive learning, performance-
related outcomes and psychological states.
Notes
1. CBC is an integrative approach which combines the use of cognitive, behavioral, imaginal and
problem-solving techniques and strategies within a cognitive behavioral framework to enable
coachees to achieve their realistic goals (Palmer and Szymanska, 2019, p. 108).
2. SFC is an outcome-oriented, competence-based approach to coaching. It helps coachees to achieve
their preferred outcomes by evoking and co-constructing solutions to their problems (O’Connell and
Palmer, 2019, p. 270).
3. The GROW model is grounded in behavioral science as a structured, process-derived relationship
between a coach and coachee or group which includes the four action-focused stage: goal, reality,
options and way forward (Passmore, 2018, pp. 99–101).
4. PPC is a scientifically-rooted approach to helping clients increase well-being, enhance and apply
strengths, improve performance and achieve valued goals (Boniwell and Kauffman, 2018, p. 153).
References
Ahn, H.N. and Wampold, B.E. (2001), “Where oh where are the specific ingredients? A meta-analysis
of component studies in counseling and psychotherapy”,Journal of Counseling Psychology,
Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 251-257.
Coaching
psychology
meta-analysis
Anderson, J.R. (1982), “Acquisition of cognitive skill”,Psychological Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 369-406.
Athanasopoulou, A. and Dopson, S. (2018), “A systematic review of executive coaching outcomes: is it
the journey or the destination that matters the most?”,The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 29
No. 129, pp. 70-88.
Baron, L. and Morin, L. (2010), “The impact of executive coaching on self-efficacy related to
management soft-skills”,Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp.
18-38.
Biswas-Diener, R. and Dean, B. (2007), Positive Psychology Coaching: Putting the Science of Happiness
to Work for Your Clients, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.
Biswas-Diener, R. (2010), Practicing Positive Psychology Coaching: Assessment, Diagnosis, and
Intervention, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.
Blackman, A., Moscardo, G. and Gray, D.E. (2016), “Challenges for the theory and practice of business
coaching: a systematic review of empirical evidence”,Human Resource Development Review,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 459-486.
Boniwell, H. and Kauffman, C. (2018), “The positive psychology approach to coaching”, in Cox, E.,
Bachkirova, T. and Clutterbuck, D. (Eds), The Complete Handbook of Coaching, 2nd ed., SAGE,
London, pp. 153-166.
Bono, J.E., Purvanova, R.K., Towler, A.J. and Peterson, D.B. (2009), “A survey of executive coaching
practices”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 361-404.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P. and Rothstein, H.R. (2009), Introduction to Meta-Analysis,
Wiley, New Jersey, NJ.
Bozer, G. and Jones, R.J. (2018), “Understanding the factors that determine workplace coaching
effectiveness: a systematic literature review”,European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 342-361.
Bozer, G. and Sarros, J.C. (2012), “Examining the effectiveness of executive coaching on coachees’
performance in the Israeli context”,International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and
Mentoring, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 14-32.
Bright, D. and Crockett, A. (2012), “Training combined with coaching can make a significant
difference in job performance and satisfaction”,Coaching: An International Journal of Theory,
Research and Practice, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 4-21.
Brown, A.L., Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A. and Campione, J. (1983), “Learning, understanding, and
remembering”, Mussen, P.H., Flavell, J.H. and Markman, E.M. (Eds), Handbook of Child
Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 77-167.
Burke, D. and Linley, P.A. (2007), “Enhancing goal self-concordance through coaching”,International
Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 62-69.
Burt, D. and Talati, Z. (2017), “The unsolved value of executive coaching: a meta-analysis of outcomes
using randomised control trail studies”,International Journal of Evidence-Based Coaching and
Mentoring, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 17-24.
Card, N.A. (2011), Applied Meta-Analysis for Social Science Research, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Carlson, K.D. and Schmidt, F.L. (1999), “Impact of experimental design on effect size: findings from the
research literature on training”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 851-862.
Cerni, T., Curtis, G.J. and Colmar, S. (2010a), “Increasing transformational leadership by developing
leaders’information-processing systems”,Journal of Leadership Studies,Vol.4No.3,
pp. 51-65.
Cerni, T., Curtis, G.J. and Colmar, S.H. (2010b), “Executive coaching can enhance transformational
leadership”,International Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 5 No. 15, pp. 81-85.
David, O.A., Ionicioiu, I., Imb
arus
¸, A.C. and Sava, F.A. (2016), “Coaching banking managers through
the financial crisis: effects on stress, resilience, and performance”,Journal of Rational-Emotive
and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 267-281.
JWAM
de Haan, E. and Nieß, C. (2015), “Differences between critical moments for clients, coaches, and
sponsors of coaching”,International Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 38-61.
Del Re, A.C. and Hoyt, W.T. (2010), “MAd: meta-analysis with mean differences (R package version
0.8–2)”, available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package5MAd.
Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2011), “Producing a systematic review”, in Buchanan, D. and Bryman, A.
(Eds), The Sage Handbook of Organisational Research Methods, 2nd ed, SAGE, London,
pp. 671-689.
Duval, S. and Tweedie, R. (2000), “Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and
adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis”,Biometrics, Vol. 56, pp. 455-463.
Evers, W.J., Brouwers, A. and Tomic, W. (2006), “A quasi-experimental study on management
coaching effectiveness”,Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 58 No. 3,
pp. 174-182.
Fisher, Z. and Tipton, E. (2015), “Robumeta: an R-package for robust variance estimation in meta-
analysis”, available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02220.
Forbes (2018), “15 trends that will redefine executive coaching in the next decade”, available at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2018/04/09/15-trends-that-will-redefine-
executive-coaching-in-the-next-decade/#36ba0f476fc9 (accessed 1 April 2021).
Grant, A.M. (2001), Toward a Psychology of Coaching: The Impact of Coaching on Metacognition,
Mental Health and Goal Attainment, Doctoral thesis, Coaching Psychology Unit, University of
Sydney, Sydney.
Grant, A.M. (2014), “The efficacy of executive coaching in times of organisational change”,Journal of
Change Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 258-280.
Grant, A.M. (2017), “The third ‘generation’of workplace coaching: creating a culture of quality
conversations”,Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 37-53.
Grant, A.M. and Cavanagh, M.J. (2007), “Evidence-based coaching: flourishing or languishing?”,
Australian Psychologist, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 239-254.
Grant, A.M., Curtayne, L. and Burton, G. (2009), “Executive coaching enhances goal attainment,
resilience and workplace well-being: a randomised controlled study”,The Journal of Positive
Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 396-407.
Grant, A.M., Green, L.S. and Rynsaardt, J. (2010), “Developmental coaching for high school teachers:
executive coaching goes to school”,Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,
Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 151-168.
Gray, D. (2006), “Executive coaching: towards a dynamic alliance of psychotherapy and
transformative learning processes”,Management Learning, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 475-497.
Graßmann, C., Sch€
olmerich, F. and Schermuly, C. (2020), “The relationship between working alliance
and client outcomes in coaching: a meta-analysis”,Human Relations, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 35-58.
Grover, S. and Furnham, A. (2016), “Coaching as a developmental intervention in organisations: a
systematic review of its effectiveness and the mechanisms underlying it”,PloS One, Vol. 11
No. 7, e0159137.
Hedges, L.V. (1981), “Distribution theory for glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators”,
Journal of Educational Statistics, Vol. 6, pp. 107-128.
Hedges, L.V., Tipton, E. and Johnson, M.C. (2010), “Robust variance estimation in meta-regression
with dependent effect size estimates”,Research Synthesis Methods, Vol. 1, pp. 39-65.
Hyde, J.S. and Linn, M.C. (2006), “Gender similarities in mathematics and science”,Science, Vol. 314
No. 5799, pp. 599-600.
Ianiro, P.M., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. and Kauffeld, S. (2015), “Coaches and clients in action: a
sequential analysis of interpersonal coach and client behavior”,Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 435-456.
Coaching
psychology
meta-analysis
International Coach Federation (2017), “Global consumer awareness study”, available at: https://
cplatform-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/resources/ICF_2017_Survey.pdf (accessed 21
April 2021).
Jones, R., Woods, S. and Guillaume, Y. (2016), “The effectiveness of workplace coaching: a meta-
analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching”,Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 2, pp. 249-277.
Jones, R.J., Woods, S.A. and Zhou, Y. (2018), “Boundary conditions of workplace coaching outcomes”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 33 Nos 7/8, pp. 475-496.
Kraiger, K., Ford, J.K. and Salas, E. (1993), “Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories
of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation”,Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 311-328.
Kilburg, R. (1996), “Toward a conceptual understanding and definition of executive coaching”,
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 482, pp. 134-144.
Kumar, C.S. and Yale, S.S. (2016), “Identifying and eliminating bias in interventional research studies
–a quality indicator”,International Journal of Contemporary Medical Research, Vol. 3 No. 6,
pp. 1644-1648.
Ladegard, G. and Gjerde, S. (2014), “Leadership coaching, leader role-efficacy, and trust in
subordinates. A mixed methods study assessing leadership coaching as a leadership
development tool”,Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 631-646.
Lai, Y. and McDowall, A. (2014), “A systematic review (SR) of coaching psychology: focusing on the
attributes of effective coaching psychologists”,International Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 120-136.
Lai, Y. and Palmer, S. (2019), “Psychology in executive coaching: an integrated literature review”,
Journal of Work-Applied Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 143-164.
Louis, D. and Fatien Diochon, P. (2014), “Educating coaches to power dynamics: managing multiple
agendas within the triangular relationship”,Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational
Culture, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 31-47.
Louis, D. and Fatien Diochon, P. (2018), “The coaching space: a production of power relationships in
organizational settings”,Organization, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 710-731.
MacKie, D. (2014), “The effectiveness of strength-based executive coaching in enhancing full range
leadership development: a controlled study”,Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 118-137.
MacKie, D. (2015), “The effects of coachee readiness and core self-evaluations on leadership coaching
outcomes: a controlled trial”,Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and
Practice, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 120-136.
Markus, I. (2016), “Efficacy of immunity-to-change coaching for leadership development”,The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 215-230.
Millsap, R.E. and Hartog, S.B. (1988), “Alpha, beta, and gamma change in evaluation research: a
structural equation approach”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 574-584.
Morris, S.B. (2008), “Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 11, pp. 364-386.
Morris, S.B. and DeShon, R.P. (2002), “Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated
measures and independent-groups designs”,Psychological Methods, Vol. 7, pp. 105-125.
Nielsen, K.J., Kines, P., Pedersen, L.M., Andersen, L.P. and Andersen, D.R. (2015), “A multi-case study
of the implementation of an integrated approach to safety in small enterprises”,Safety Science,
Vol. 71, pp. 142-150.
Orwin, R.G. (1983), “A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis”,Journal of Educational Statistics,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 157-159.
JWAM
O’Connell, B. and Palmer, S. (2019), “Solution-focused coaching”, in Palmer, S. and Whybrow, A. (Eds),
The Handbook of Coaching Psychology: A Guide for Practitioners, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York,
NY, pp. 270-281.
Palmer, S. and Szymanska, K. (2019), “Cognitive behavioural coaching: an integrative approach”,in
Palmer, S. and Whybrow, A. (Eds), The Handbook of Coaching Psychology: A Guide for
Practitioners, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 108-127.
Passmore,J.(2018),“Behavioural coaching”, in Palmer, S. and Whybrow, A. (Eds), The Handbook
of Coaching Psychology: A Guide for Practitioners, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY,
pp. 99-107.
Passmore, J. and Fillery-Travis, A. (2011), “A critical review of executive coaching research: a decade
of progress and what’s to come”,Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and
Practice, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 70-88.
Pustejovsky, J.E. (2015), ClubSandwich: Cluster-Robust (Sandwich) Variance Estimators with
Smallsample Corrections, R package version 0.0.0.9000, available at: https://github.com/
jepusto/clubSandwich.
Ratiu, L., David, O.A. and Baban, A. (2017), “Developing managerial skills through coaching: efficacy
of a cognitive-behavioral coaching program”,Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-
Behavior Therapy, Vol. 35, pp. 88-110.
Rosenman, R., Tennekoon, V. and Hill, L.G. (2011), “Measuring bias in self-reported data”,
International Journal of Behavioral Healthcare Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 320-332.
Rosenthal, R. (1991), Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research, Rev. ed, Sage, Newbury Park.
Rubio-Aparicio, M., Marin-Martinez, F., Sanchez-Meca, J. and Lopez-Lopez, J.A. (2017), “A
methodological review of meta-analyses of the effectiveness of clinical psychology
treatments”,Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 50, pp. 2057-2073.
Sherlock-Storey, M., Moss, M. and Timson, S. (2013), “Brief coaching for resilience during
organisational change—an exploratory study”,The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 19-26.
Shoukry, H. and Cox, E. (2018), “Coaching as a social process”,Management Learning, Vol. 49 No. 4,
pp. 413-428.
Smither, J.W. (2011), “Can psychotherapy research serve as a guide for research about executive
coaching? An agenda for the next decade”,Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 135-145.
Sonesh, S.C., Coultas, C.W., Lacerenza, C.N., Marlow, S.L., Benishek, L.E. and Salas, E. (2015), “The
power of coaching: a meta-analytic investigation”,Coaching: An International Journal of
Theory, Research and Practice, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 73-95.
Stelter, R. (2014), “Third generation coaching: reconstructing dialogues through collaborative practice
and a focus on values”,International Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 51-66.
Theeboom, T., Beersma, B. and van Vianen, A. (2014), “Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the
effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context”,Journal of
Positive Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Vidal Salazar, M.D., Ferr
on-V
ılchez, V. and Cord
on-Pozo, E. (2012), “Coaching: an effective practice for
business competitiveness”,Competitiveness Review, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 423-433.
Viechtbauer, W. (2010), “Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package”,Journal of
Statistical Software, Vol. 36, pp. 1-48.
Weinberg, A. (2016), “The preventative impact of management coaching on psychological strain”,
International Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 93-105.
Williams, J.S. and Lowman, R.L. (2018), “The efficacy of executive coaching: an empirical investigation
of two approaches using random assignment and a switching-replications design”,Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 227-249.
Coaching
psychology
meta-analysis
Williams, K., Kiel, F., Doyle, M. and Sinagra, L. (2002), “Breaking the boundaries: leveraging the
personal in executive coaching”, in Fitzgerald, C. and Berger, G.J. (Eds), Executive Coaching:
Practices and Perspectives, Davies-Black Publishing, Palo Alto, California, CA, pp. 119-133.
Yu, N., Collins, C.G., Cavanagh, M., White, K. and Fairbrother, G. (2008), “Positive coaching with
frontline managers: enhancing their effectiveness and understanding why”,International
Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 110-122.
Zimmermann, L.C. and Antoni, C.H. (2020), “Activating clients’resources influences coaching
satisfaction via occupational self-efficacy and satisfaction of needs”,Zeitschrift f€
ur Arbeits-und
Organisationspsychologie A&O, Vol. 64, pp. 149-169.
Further reading
Finn, F.A. (2007), Leadership Development through Executive Coaching: The Effects on Leaders’
Psychological States and Transformational Leadership Behaviour, Doctoral dissertation,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Jarzebowski, A., Palermo, J. and van de Berg, R. (2012), “When feedback is not enough: the impact of
regulatory fit on motivation after positive feedback”,International Coaching Psychology Review,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 14-32.
Jones, R.A., Rafferty, A.E. and Griffin, M.A. (2006), “The executive coaching trend: towards more flexible
executives”,Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 584-596.
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, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 363-369.
Luthans, F. and Peterson, S.J. (2003), “360-degree feedback with systematic coaching: empirical
analysis suggests a winning combination”,Human Resource Management: Published in
Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in
alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 243-256.
Moen, F. and Allgood, E. (2009), “Coaching and the effect on self-efficacy”,Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 69-81.
Nieminen, L.R., Smerek, R., Kotrba, L. and Denison, D. (2013), “What does an executive coaching
intervention add beyond facilitated multisource feedback? Effects on leader self-ratings and
perceived effectiveness”,Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 145-176.
Peterson, D.B. (1993), “Measuring change: a psychometric approach to evaluating individual coaching
outcomes”,Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San
Francisco, CA.
Smither, J.W., London, M., Flautt, R., Vargas, Y. and Kucine, I. (2003), “Can working with an executive
coach improve multisource feedback ratings over time? A quasi-experimental field study”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 23-44.
About the authors
Qing Wang (PhD, Cpsychol) is a chartered psychologist and accredited coaching psychologist. She is an
Associate Professor in Educational and Coaching Psychology and leads Educational Coaching Research
Group her current institution. Qing focuses her academic research and practice on coaching psychology
in the field of education, including theoretical development, model construction and implementation
with educators, teachers and students in various learning settings.
Yi-Ling Lai (PhD, CPsychol) is currently a Lecturer and Programme Director of MSc Organizational
Psychology at the Birkbeck University of London. Her main research areas include common factors for
an effective coaching alliance and the psychological effects on the workplace coaching outcomes. In
addition, Yi-Ling’s recent research project focuses on the application of psychological-focused
interventions into workplace well-being and resilience. Yi-Ling has published several journal papers and
book chapters on the psychological theories in the coaching process. Yi-Ling Lai is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: y.lai@bbk.ac.uk
JWAM
Xiaobo Xu (PhD) is now a postdoctoral researcher from East China Normal University. His research
interest focus on examining how family backgrounds (e.g. family socioeconomic status and parenting
styles) and personality traits (e.g. authenticity and openness to experience) interact to influence students’
learning outcomes and creative performance. He is also interested in conducting meta-analytic studies
on the aforementioned topics.
Almuth McDowall (PhD, CPyschol) is Professor of Organisational Psychology at Birkbeck
University of London where she leads her department and is part of her school’s executive team. Her
research has been funded by the Ministry of Defence, the College of Policing, the Chartered Institute of
Personnel and Development and the Home Office as well as a range of other funders. Almuth has won
awards for her research and her commitment to furthering the practice of psychology in the workplace in
the United Kingdom. She is regularly contributing to the media fuelled by her belief that research needs
to speak to organizations directly to have impact and contemporary relevance.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Coaching
psychology
meta-analysis
