research on coaching

The effectiveness of workplace coaching: a meta-analysis of contemporary psychologically informed coaching approaches

Journal of Work-Applied Management

ISSN : 2205-2062

Article publication date: 21 June 2021

Issue publication date: 5 April 2022

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 ( k = 20, n = 957), then conducted a meta-analysis with robust variance estimates (RVEs) to test the overall effect size and the effects of each moderator.

The results confirm that psychologically informed coaching approaches facilitated effective work-related outcomes, particularly on goal attainment ( g = 1.29) and self-efficacy ( g = 0.59). 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 ( g = 0.71), 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 psychotherapy and positive appear most prominent in the literature, yet an integrative approach appears most effective.

Workplace coaching
Coaching psychology
Meta-analysis
Psychological well-being
Learning and development

Wang, Q. , Lai, Y.-L. , Xu, X. and McDowall, A. (2022), "The effectiveness of workplace coaching: a meta-analysis of contemporary psychologically informed coaching approaches", Journal of Work-Applied Management , Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-04-2021-0030

Emerald Publishing Limited

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

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.

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 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).

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?

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.

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).

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 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 ( k = 20, n = 957, 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's g as the indicator of effect size, which adjusts the small sample overestimation bias of Cohen's d ( 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 , Z or t values 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 . For POWC 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 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 estimate the variance. As this information was 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 ( r = 0.80) 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 R package 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 ( r = 0.5) ( Borenstein et al. , 2009 ). Then, we conducted the Orwin's fail-safe N analysis ( Orwin, 1983 ) and the trim-and-fill analysis ( Duval and Tweedie, 2000 ) with the R package 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 ( g = 0) would have to be added to reduce the present average effect size to a trivial level ( g = 0.1, 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.

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 ( g = 0.51, 95% CI, 0.35–0.66 and p < 0.01). However, the relatively large effect size of goal attainment in Grant's (2010, g = 2.06) 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 ( g = 0.48, 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 effectiveness of various frequently used psychological coaching frameworks

The large amount of heterogeneity in the effect sizes ( T 2 = 0.12 and I 2 = 79.37) 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 ( g = 0.39, 95% CI, −0.03–0.82 and p = 0.07), GROW ( g = 0.44, 95% CI, 0.18–0.70 and p < 0.01), PPC ( g = 0.57, 95% CI, 0.28–0.85 and p = 0.02) and integrative ( g = 0.71, 95% CI, 0.21–1.21 and p = 0.02). Overall, we did not find evidence that coaching method significantly moderated coaching effect, F (3, 6.27) = 0.78 and p = 0.54.

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 ( g = 0.71, 95% CI, 0.21–1.21 and p = 0.02) was higher than for single coaching method ( g = 0.45, 95% CI, 0.27–0.64 and p < 0.01), yet the difference was not significant, F (1, 6.15) = 1.41 and p = 0.28.

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 g = 0.25 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 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 ( g = 0.44), such as 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 ( g = 0.28) 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 ( g = 0.24). 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.

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 analysis suggests that the effect sizes of different psychologically informed coaching approaches were homogeneous. Precisely, there was no particular psychological approach 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 ( g = 0.39) compared with other psychological frameworks ( g = 0.55), 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 ( g = 0.71) was stronger than a singular formed framework ( g = 0.45) on evaluative outcomes, though the difference was not significant. However, we note that only six studies ( n = 233) used an integrating approach and 14 studies ( n = 724) 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 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.

Conceptual framework of the present meta-analysis

Funnel plot

A meta-review of contemporary meta-analyses and systematic reviews on coaching

Proposed coaching evaluation criteria framework

Characteristics of psychologically informed studies and nonpsychologically informed studies included in this meta-analysis

Note(s) : k = number of studies; n = number of correlations; F = HTZ-F test comparing the levels of a given moderator. A = affective outcomes (e.g. organizational commitment, satisfaction and turn over intention); B1 = general perceived efficacy and other cognitive outcomes (e.g. self-awareness, self-efficacy, attribution and self-regulation); B2 = goal-attainment (e.g. goal setting and goal attainment); C1 = self-rated performance; C2 = other-rated performance (e.g. 360-degree multifactor evaluation) and D = workplace well-being (e.g. burn out, stress and anxiety)

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).

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).

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).

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).

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 .

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. 4 No. 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. 1 5 , pp. 81 - 85 .

David , O.A. , Ionicioiu , I. , Imbăruş , 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 .

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/package=MAd .

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. , Schölmerich , 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 .

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 .

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. , Ferrón-Vílchez , V. and Cordón‐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 .

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 für Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie A&O , Vol. 64 , pp. 149 - 169 .

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr Alanna Henderson, who read our first draft and provided constructive comments.

Corresponding author

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.

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.

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Publications
Account settings
Advanced Search
Journal List

Workplace coaching: a meta-analysis and recommendations for advancing the science of coaching

Janis a cannon-bowers, clint a bowers, catherine e carlson, shannon l doherty, jocelyne evans.

Author information
Article notes
Copyright and License information

Edited by: Stewart Ian Donaldson, Claremont Graduate University, United States

Reviewed by: Niclas Schaper, University of Paderborn, Germany; Thomas Reio, Florida International University, United States; Ana Moreira, University Institute of Psychological (ISPA), Portugal

*Correspondence: Clint A. Bowers, [email protected]

Received 2023 Apr 11; Accepted 2023 Sep 6; Collection date 2023.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Workplace coaching has experienced a dramatic rise in popularity over the past decade and is one of the fastest growing performance-enhancing interventions used by modern organizations. Yet, despite its popularity, workplace coaching has not been the subject of much empirical research and a true science of coaching has yet to be developed. The purpose of this research was to update prior meta-analyzes that investigated the impact of coaching on organizational outcomes and to provide recommendations for how the field needs to evolve. Results indicated that, consistent with prior meta-analyzes, workplace coaching is effective in achieving positive organizational outcomes. The effects of several moderators were also investigated. Finally, we discuss the results in terms of recommendations for future directions that we believe will establish and advance the science of coaching .

Keywords: workplace coaching, executive coaching, coaching, leadership development, coaching effectiveness

1. Introduction

Coaching has experienced a dramatic increase in interest and use in the past several years. In fact, coaching has been described as one of the fastest-growing specialties within the Human Resources profession ( Bozer and Delegach, 2019 ). The International Coaching Federation (ICF) reported that there were more than 71,000 coaching professionals in 2019 ( International Coaching Federation, 2020 ), a number that has more than tripled in the past 10 or so years ( Theeboom et al., 2014 ). Indeed, coaching in the workplace has been so well accepted that many organizations provide it as part of a benefit package to their most valued employees. The ICF estimates that over two billion US dollars per year is invested in workplace coaching worldwide ( International Coaching Federation (ICF), 2020 ).

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

Despite the popularity of workplace coaching in practice, scientists have lamented the lack of empirical research in this area ( Jones et al., 2016 ; Silzer et al., 2016 ). Critics have questioned whether coaching is actually empirically based ( Sherman and Freas, 2004 ; Greif et al., 2022 ) or worth level of investment ( Sonesh et al., 2015 ). Fortunately, however, researchers have begun to respond to this need, with a dramatic uptick in research examining coaching effectiveness over the past decade ( Kotte and Bozer, 2022 ).

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

Ultimately, our goal is to provide a set of prescriptions that will move the field toward a true science of coaching . At present, the field of coaching is still relatively immature (albeit very popular) in the sense that we do not understand exactly what works, what the underlying mechanisms of action are, which coaching approaches are most effective, or how long coaching needs to take to achieve results. Our analyzes and subsequent discussion and conclusions will attempt to address these questions.

1.1. Definition of coaching

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

Where the definitions diverge somewhat, is in how they define the coaching process itself. Indeed, coaching has been described using a wide variety of words such as: counseling, behavior modification, facilitation, appreciative inquiry, problem solving, goal setting, etc. ( Greif et al., 2022 ). Unfortunately, this conceptual confusion and lack of specificity around the exact nature of the coaching process makes it difficult to evaluate coaching research, to compare outcomes across coaching studies or to provide guidance for training new coaches. Moreover, if coaching is defined as any type of interaction between coach and client, with few documented strategies, approaches, tools or prescriptions unacceptable variability in outcomes is to be expected. That means that some coaching situations succeed better than others for reasons that cannot be easily discerned.

While it is unlikely that a single, agreed upon definition of coaching will be accepted any time soon, one way to begin to establish parameters around the various approaches to coaching is to understand the “mechanisms of action.” That is, we need to better understand the theoretical justification for why various coaching approaches are expected to achieve desired outcomes. To date, several theoretical bases have been proposed to guide coaching practice. These are reviewed in the following section.

1.2. Theoretical bases of coaching

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

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

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

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

It should be noted that the two approaches outlined above are not mutually exclusive—a coaching session can include elements of both; the distinction is based more on the overarching focus of the coaching and what it is trying to achieve. That said, we were interested in operationalizing this distinction to see if it had an effect on outcomes. Hence, in the present meta-analysis, we attempted to investigate whether one of these overarching approaches was more effective than the other by including the theoretical foundation of coaching (process versus outcome) as a moderator variable.

1.3. Coaching outcomes

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

Past research into coaching has employed a variety of effectiveness indicators that represent all levels of the frameworks described above. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be much theoretical concordance between the coaching technique employed and the outcomes assessed. In other words, past researchers have not attempted to draw differential hypothesizes predicting that specific outcomes will be influenced more or less based on the nature of the coaching being studied. For example, it might make theoretical sense to expect affective outcomes to be more affected by facilitation/process-based approaches than outcome/goal setting-based approaches.

In the present meta-analysis we attempted to investigate this question by conducting sub-analyzes that crossed type of outcome by theoretical foundation so that we could assess whether there were differential effects. To do this, we coded the effectiveness outcomes using the same framework as Jones et al. (2016) (i.e., affective, cognitive, skill and results) and looked at two questions. First, was there an overall effect for outcome type and second, did the type of coaching have differential effects on the outcome types.

1.4. Previous meta-analyzes

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

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

Jones et al. (2016) also considered several potential moderator variables. Contrary to Theeboom et al. (2014) , Jones et al. (2016) did not find a significant difference between within-subject and mixed research designs. However, like Theeboom et al. (2014) , Jones et al. (2016) found no effect of the number of coaching sessions on outcomes.

Additionally, Jones et al. (2016) investigated some potential moderators not considered previously. For example, they reported that internal consultants were significantly more effective than those who were external to the organization. Additionally, they reported no difference between face-to-face versus mixed-modes of delivery. Finally, Jones and her colleagues investigated the impact of multi-source feedback (feedback given not only from a supervisor but also subordinates, peers, clients etc.) in the coaching process. Surprisingly, they found that having multi-source feedback was associated with worse outcomes.

Like Jones et al. (2016) , Burt and Talati (2017) sought to improve the Theeboom et al. (2014) analysis. Specifically, they tightened the inclusion criteria to include only pre & post test for treatment and control groups, included unpublished studies and added studies for additional years. They found that, while the overall effect size was somewhat smaller than reported by Theeboom et al. (2014) , there was still a moderate positive effect of coaching. There were no moderating effects of age, type of measure, or authors.

1.5. The present meta-analysis

Several years have passed since the last meta-analysis of the literature on the effectiveness of workplace coaching. As previously noted, the number of coaches has more than tripled in this timeframe ( Passmore and Sinclair, 2020 ). Moreover, the investment in coaching is estimated at over two billion US dollars a year ( International Coaching Federation, 2020 ). As with many other techniques that promise to improve performance in the workplace, this increase in coaching has been largely uninformed by empirical effectiveness research. And while there is some evidence that coaching can have positive outcomes ( Theeboom et al., 2014 ; Jones et al., 2016 ), it is not all clear whether some coaching approaches are superior to others, which outcomes are most influenced by coaching or even if coaching can have negative, unintended consequences. Therefore, there is a need to analyze any new data to provide a more current estimate of the effects of coaching and the factors that may influence its effectiveness.

2. Hypotheses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1. Search strategy

A variety of approaches were taken to collect relevant published and unpublished research findings relevant to the meta-analysis. Papers after 2014 (the last meta-analysis) were considered for inclusion. Electronic databases (Web of Science, PsychInfo, JSTOR Business, ERIC, Google Scholar, and ProQuest) were searched using the keywords “coaching,” crossed with “workplace,” “executive,” “effectiveness,” “impact,” and “evaluation.” Additionally, Dissertation Abstracts were searched to seek unpublished studies. Finally, unpublished studies were sought by emailing authors that have been active in the area. No unpublished results were received.

Each article was evaluated for inclusion using the criteria described by Theeboom et al. (2014) . Namely, included studies must have been conducted in the workplace by trained coaches. The included studies also needed to provide results regarding work-related outcomes. Included studies needed to include sufficient data to compute an effect size. Finally, only studies that reported individual-level outcomes (as opposed to group or team) were included.

The original search yielded a total of 114 papers that were evaluated for inclusion. After evaluating each study against the inclusion criteria, 11 papers were included for the final analysis. These studies are summarized in Table 1 . The associated PRISMA flowchart is presented in Figure 1 . Several papers were excluded because they did not deal with workplace outcomes. The remainder were excluded because they did not include the data to evaluate coaching outcomes. There were no disagreements among the raters.

Details about variables and participants of the included studies.

Prisma flow diagram.

3.2. Meta-analytic software

We used Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA v4; Borenstein et al., 2022 ). This software is advantageous in that a) it allows the entry of multiple data formats and b) it allows consideration of both categorical and continuous moderators (through meta-regression).

3.3. Calculation of effect sizes

Like Theeboom et al. (2014) , we decided that effect sizes based on standardized means were the best fit for this data set, as all included studies reported means and standard deviations and is recommended for small data sets. We also found that the original justification to use the Hedges and Olkin (1984) approach to estimating effect sizes also held for the present data. Namely, it provides a relatively conservative estimate of the lower boundary of the confidence interval ( Johnson et al., 1995 ). Additionally, all estimates were created using the random effects model as recommended by Borenstein et al. (2021) . This estimate assumes that the studies are a sample of a larger universe of studies. In so doing, the estimate considers two possible sources of variance: a) within-study error and b) variation of true effects across studies. Again, this is considered to be the more conservative approach as compared to the fixed-effects model ( Borenstein et al., 2021 ).

Heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran’s Q ( Cochran, 1954 ) and the I 2 statistic ( Higgins and Thompson, 2002 ). This analysis yielded a Q value of 126.45 (df = 11, p < 0.001), indicating heterogeneity of effect sizes among the studies. The associated I 2 value was 91.3, indicating that a substantial portion of the variance can be attributed to true effect differences rather than sampling error. However, we noted the presence of a substantial outlier when reviewing the average effect sizes in the individual studies (see Figure 1 ). Namely, the effect size estimates of Onyishi et al. (2021) were substantially higher than the other included studies (Hedge’s g = 3.52). After removing this study, the Q value was reduced to 12.64 (df = 10, p > 0.05), indicating a homogeneous pool of effect sizes. Further, the I 2 was reduced to 20.09, indicating much less variance in the true score estimate. Given that, the subsequent analyzes were conducted without the Onyishi et al. (2021) study as it was a clear outlier.

Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot (see Figure 2 ). Inspection of the plot suggests that the standard errors were generally symmetrical with regard to the means.

Funnel plot of standardized error by standardized difference in means.

3.4. Moderator variables

3.4.1. theoretical foundation.

As noted, we categorized the studies according to whether the coaching approach used a process/facilitation framework or an outcome/goal setting framework by using consensus ratings generated by the authors. The classification ratings were carried out by taking reference to the above-mentioned aspects of the two different theoretical orientations. If the coaching included discussion of achievement of specific outcomes and/or setting of specific goals, we categorized it as outcome/goal. Otherwise, studies that emphasized discussion, identifying obstacles to success and general facilitation by the coach were categorized as process/facilitation. Since there is virtually no literature regarding the relative effectiveness of coaching approaches, we were not able to make a formal prediction about which would yield higher outcomes. Hence, we did not have a hypothesis for this variable.

3.4.2. Outcome type

Individual studies used a variety of outcome measures to assess the effects of coaching. To allow synthesis of these outcomes, we adopted the categorization approach used by Jones et al. (2016) as described above. Outcomes measures were assigned to one of three categories by the first two authors. No discrepancies between the raters occurred. The first category was Affective. This category included attitudinal, emotional, and motivational measures. The cognitive category included outcomes to knowledge, procedures, and strategies. Finally, the skill category refers to measures that involve the development of new skills. None of the included papers reported results that would have fit into the “results” category described by Jones et al. (2016) .

We did not have a strong basis for an a priori hypothesis regarding the relative expected change in outcomes since previous studies have not shown any differences. We did, however, hypothesize that there would an effect of coaching type on outcomes, such that the process/facilitation-based programs would have a higher impact on affective measures while outcome/goal setting-based programs would yield higher scores on cognitive and skill outcomes.

3.4.3. Evaluation source

Studies of the effectiveness of coaching combine several methods of estimating coaching outcomes. These include self-evaluation, evaluation by supervisors, and evaluation by subordinates. However, previous research has indicated that these assessment sources might yield very different outcomes ( cf. Dunning, 2013 ). Therefore, we analyzed the data to determine if the source of the evaluation source moderated coaching outcomes.

3.4.4. Modality

Several studies have reported that technology-based communication may be substantially different than face-to-face communication (see Walther et al., 2015 for a review). It is reasonable to hypothesize that the differences may result in different coaching outcomes depending on modality. Therefore, we analyzed face-to-face versus virtual modalities as a possible moderator variable.

3.4.5. Number of sessions/hours of coaching

Previous meta-analyzes have demonstrated that the amount of coaching was not related to coaching outcomes. This runs counter to the traditional dose–response relationship that one might expect in areas such as psychotherapy. Due to the variability in past coaching practice, it is possible that the correlation between the amount of coaching and coaching outcomes was obscured. Since modern coaches are more likely to have had formal training than in the past and it can be expected that the coaching practices are more oriented to certain standards, it might be that this hypothesis is now supported.

4.1. Aggregated effect sizes

The weighted effect sizes, averaged across outcomes is presented in Table 2 . As illustrated in the Table, the point estimate was significant. This result indicates that, across studies and outcome measures, coaching interventions are likely to have a medium positive effect. Although the I 2 was relatively low [after excluding the Onyishi et al. (2021) study], we evaluated select moderator variables in the service of replicating and extending the existing meta-analyzes. The details of this analysis are presented in Table 3 .

Aggregated and weighted effect sizes, averaged across the outcomes for each included study.

*Combined indicated that multiple outcomes were aggregated.

Results of the meta analyzes with reference to aggregated effect sizes and the moderator factors.

4.2. Moderating effect of theoretical foundation

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

Theoretical approach (process vs. outcome) was analyzed as a moderator variable. There was no significant difference between the two approaches. Process-oriented coaching yielded a point estimate of g = 0.45 while Outcome-oriented coaching indicated a point estimate of 0.39. The details of this analysis are presented in Table 3 .

4.3. Moderating effect of outcome type

To test this hypothesis, we evaluated the degree to which reported outcomes vary as a result of the type of outcome by computing effect sizes separately for each outcome type. Outcomes related to skill yielded a significant point estimate of g = 0.72. Affective outcomes yielded a point estimate of g = 0.41. The effect sizes were not significantly different. The details of this analysis are presented in Table 3 . None of the studies assessed cognitive outcomes according to the definition outlined above.

4.4. Effects of coaching type on outcome type

To assess the hypothesis that different types of coaching would create different outcomes, we conducted separate analyzes on the skill and affective outcome types using coaching type as a moderator. When considering Affective outcomes, process-based coaching yielded an effect estimate of g = 0.42. Outcome-based coaching yielded a similar point estimate (g = 0.48). The details of this analysis are presented in Table 3 .

Looking at skill outcomes, process-based coaching was associated with a point estimate of 0.53. However, this was not significant, likely due to the small sample size. Outcome-based coaching yielded a point estimate of 0.42. The details of this analysis are presented in Table 3 .

Due to the limited number of studies, we were only able to evaluate Hypothesis 3 for outcome based coaching. The results indicate no significant difference in creating skill versus affective outcomes (Z Diff = 0.77, p = n.s.).

4.5. Moderating effect of evaluation source

The results of our analysis of this hypothesis indicated that positive outcomes were reported regardless of evaluation source. The highest point estimate resulted from manager-rated outcomes (g = 0.50). Self-reported outcomes were also associated with positive estimates ( g = 0.41). However, the one study that investigated evaluations from subordinates yielded a smaller positive, but not significant, point estimate ( g = 0.24). This estimate was significantly lower than the other two categories (Q(2) = 0.39, p > 0.05). Again, however, since the employee-rated effect size was based on only one study, it may change as more studies investigate this effect. The details of this analysis are presented in Table 3 .

4.6. Moderating effect of modality

To examine this hypothesis, we explored the differences in face-to-face versus virtual modalities in coaching outcomes. The results indicate that both face-to-face and virtual coaching were associated with significant positive outcomes. Face-to face coaching yielded a point estimate of g = 0.48, Virtual coaching yielded a point estimate of g = 0.35. The difference between the two groups was not significant (Q(1) = 0.67, p > 0.05). The details of this analysis are presented in Table 3 .

4.7. Moderating effect of number of sessions

To test this hypothesis, a meta-regression was used to evaluate whether number of sessions ( k = 9) was related to coaching outcomes. The result of this analysis indicates that the number of sessions was not a significant predictor of overall coaching outcomes (Z = 1.03, p = 0.30).

4.8. Moderating effect of hours of coaching

To test this hypothesis, a meta-regression was used to evaluate whether total hours of coaching ( k = 8) was related to coaching outcomes. The result of this analysis indicates that the number of sessions was not a significant predictor of overall coaching outcomes (Z = 0.1.15, p = 0.25).

5. Discussion

There has been an explosion in the popularity and use of workplace coaching since the last published meta-analysis, with considerable resources (time and money) invested in it. The goal of the present study was to evaluate how coaching has evolved and whether there has been a change in its estimated impact or a better understanding of the variables that might moderate its effectiveness. We hoped that the results of this study could shed light on the best approaches for training coaches and guidance for optimizing the delivery of coaching in the workplace. While we partially accomplished this goal, perhaps the strongest contribution of this work is highlighting what still needs to be done. We begin by reviewing what we found (in this section) and then turn our discussion toward outlining what we believe is needed to move the field forward.

After removing one clear outlier, the overall effect of coaching was positive and of moderate effect size. Interestingly, this effect was relatively homogenous (Q = 12.64) as compared to past analyzes. Similar to past analyzes ( Theeboom et al., 2014 ; Jones et al., 2016 ), this finding was also positive across all outcome types. That is, there was no difference in the effectiveness of coaching as a function of which outcome measure was used. Overall, based on three meta-analyzes (representing thousands of data points) it is safe to conclude that coaching is an effective workplace intervention.

That said, we were interested in seeing whether we could meaningfully distinguish different types of coaching based on the theoretical framework upon which they were developed. The data did not yield positive results in this regard; indeed, there was no difference between coaching that stemmed from a process/facilitation framework versus an outcome/goal setting framework. There are several reasons this might be the case.

First, the level of homogeneity just mentioned was so high, that there was insufficient variance to detect a difference given the sample size. Second, the two approaches might actually be equally effective. Or third—and most likely—the approaches are not sufficiently differentiated to allow meaningful comparisons. Unfortunately, the vast majority of studies lacked enough detail to make clear determinations.

For likely similar reasons, we did not find the hypothesized relationship between coaching type and outcome type. Specifically, process/facilitation-based coaching did not have a greater impact on affective outcomes nor did the outcome/goal setting-based coaching have a greater impact on skill outcomes. Given the level of detail in the studies, it is impossible to know why this was the case for the reasons noted above.

With respect to the modality of coaching, the COVID-19 pandemic heightened interest in the effectiveness of virtual coaching. Therefore, we considered the differences between virtual and live coaching. Our analysis revealed no significant difference between the two modalities, supporting the assertion that virtual coaching can be a useful tool in effecting workplace effectiveness. This is consistent with Jones et al.’s finding about hybrid coaching. It is an important finding because it gives remote coaches confidence that coaching can be as effective if carried out virtually as it is in face-to-face interactions. This profoundly increases the possible pool of both coaches and clients and could help coaching become even more popular in the future.

Like previous analyzes, we also investigated the moderating effect of the number of coaching sessions. Also like the previous analyzes, we found this variable not to be a significant moderator of coaching outcomes. Because we were concerned that studies “sessions” are of varying length, we also considered the total number of hours of coaching received. Again, this effect was not significant. Besides being durable, this is an interesting finding that requires further consideration. On the one hand, it could reflect a sort of demand characteristic where the act of being coached (independent of the actual coaching) is responsible for the positive outcomes. This seems unlikely ( McCambridge et al., 2012 ), but given the current data, it is feasible. More likely, the number of sessions required to achieve desired outcomes varies considerably across studies.

Finally, we considered the moderating impact of the source of evaluator used to judge the perceived impact of coaching. The results indicated that both self-reports and supervisor reports yielded moderate, positive, and significant point estimates. However, the one study that reported results based on employee (subordinate) ratings yielded a negative, but not significant, estimate. This is an issue that requires additional investigation in future studies of coaching effectiveness.

5.1. Directions for future research

Including the present study, reviews and meta-analyzes have been consistent in reporting a moderate, positive effect of coaching for over a decade. This effect seems robust across outcomes, number of sessions, and modality—clearly something is working! The question now becomes, how can coaching outcomes be optimized? We attempted to begin answering this question by investigating whether the theoretical bases of coaching could determine which approaches are more successful than others. We were unable to do this, and it is unclear why the distinctions we drew were not meaningful.

Our strongest conclusion from this exercise is that future researchers would do the field a great service by including details about the coaching approach when publishing studies. This would allow us to better understand the similarities and differences between approaches so that they can be better associated with specific outcomes. In fact, the science of coaching might benefit from a taxonomy of standardized coaching approaches, strategies, and techniques to assist us in better understanding which interventions are best for any given client, situation and/or desired outcome.

Another set of observations pertains to the outcome measures themselves. While we are not advocating that the Kraiger et al. (1993) categorization of outcomes, or one based on Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy, or any other is superior, we are suggesting that some theoretical framework of outcome types be used when studies are conceived. Indeed, the field would be well served by thinking through which outcomes are expected to be affected by coaching in general and which are expected to change due to specific elements or approaches of coaching in particular. In addition, like Jones et al., none of the studies included in our analysis used outcomes as the results level. At this point in the history of coaching as an organizational intervention, it is important for research to establish positive influences on organizational results as a function of coaching. Without this, it will be impossible to conduct cost–benefit analyzes to justify continued investment in coaching.

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

Likewise, studies of coaching include very little information about the nature of coaching clients. For the most part, the studies reported here used volunteers in large organizations as the clients. However, this may not generalize well to the actual clients who seek out or are offered coaching. Almost nothing is reported about the client’s coaching goals or previous experiences. So, while it’s valuable that coaching “can” create good outcomes (as defined by the researcher), it would be better to demonstrate that coaching can help clients achieve their goals. This may represent the more externally valid outcome. Hence, we recommend that future research into coaching effectiveness take a more client-centric view, specifically reporting whether outcomes were consistent with the client’s goals and desires.

Another observation regarding passed studies into coaching effectiveness is that they have focused on an undifferentiated (or at least undefined) set of desired changes. However, there is a trend in the industry towards coaching designed to address a specific set of skills and outcomes--e.g., conflict resolution ( Brinkert, 2016 ) or leadership ( Wise and Hammack, 2011 ). This is another area where additional outcome research may provide more targeted guidance to the coaching community.

In another vein, a viable question that remains unanswered is “how many coaching sessions (or hours) are needed to see results?.” All three meta-analyzes have found that the number of sessions/h does not predict outcomes. As noted, this could be some sort of demand characteristic, but is more likely due to the coarseness of the data. Future researchers would do well to adopt more precise measurement schemes that can track outcomes over the course of a coaching relationship (e.g., longitudinal, within-subjects designs). This would reveal when outcomes are changing and help answer the question of how much coaching is needed. It might also uncover important individual differences in coaching effectiveness.

The issue of unwanted effects stemming from coaching also requires further study. Schermuly and Graßmann (2019) presents a number of possible side effects that could possibly occur. These include relationship problems with supervisors, dependence on the coach, and possible reduction in job satisfaction. At this point, it is unknown how prevalent these—or other—unwanted effects occur as a function of coaching. This should be the subject of future research.

Finally, scholars in the area of workplace coaching have repeatedly called for more theory-focused research (i.e., Theeboom et al., 2014 ; Bozer and Jones, 2021 ). Ideally, scientists would advance theories that propose a “mechanism of action” for specific coaching outcomes. Examples could include goal setting, appreciative inquiry, cognitive-behavioral approaches, positive psychology, and others ( Sutton, 2020 ). Empirical research could then test these mechanisms with the goal of identifying the specific coaching activities that could support the client’s goal. However, researchers in this area have been slow to adopt this approach. There is a clear need for additional theoretical work to support the explosion of interest in workplace coaching and to guide future research.

5.2. Limitations

Despite the increase in interest regarding workplace coaching, the empirical literature in this area is still quite limited. As noted above, there is a lack of detail about the coaches, the coachees, and the content of coaching sessions. Furthermore, there is often a lack of detail regarding the setting in which the coaching was provided. This makes it difficult to build a knowledge base in any meaningful way. Furthermore, there is simply a lack of controlled studies. As noted in the results, some moderator variables only included one study, limiting the confidence one can have in the conclusions. Finally, several studies did not include adequate statistical data to allow inclusion in the meta-analysis. It would be helpful if journals in this area enforced for stringent requirements for reporting results.

5.3. Recommendations for advancing the science of coaching

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

Future researchers need to include details on the type of coaching approach being followed. As noted, ultimately, a taxonomic approach that defines various approaches and their attributes is desirable. For the moment, researchers need to at least describe the approach in enough detail that readers understand the way the coaching was carried out.

Future research needs to better explicate the types of outcomes that can be expected from coaching and also attempt to associate specific coaching approaches and features with expected outcomes. Further, longer term, results-level outcomes of coaching need to be investigated more often.

Future research would benefit from specification of the coach’s credentials. While there seems to be a desire on the part of clients for coaches to have credentials/certifications, an empirical look at the relationship between these and effectiveness would be useful. For example, the results of such analyzes could inform the manner in which coaches are trained.

Future research should employ actual coaching clients or, if volunteers are used, at least define better who the clients are.

Future researchers need to consider whether coaching is effective in achieving more targeted outcomes (e.g., improved conflict resolution skills) as well as more generic ones.

Future researchers should consider longitudinal, within-studies designs that track outcomes more precisely over time.

Future research needs to be more theoretically grounded and strive to better understand the “mechanisms of action” of coaching. This is related to the first recommendation focusing on coaching approaches but goes further by seeking to understand the specific aspects of the coaching relationship that can account for desired outcomes. Findings from such studies can inform the development of more effective and possibly efficient coaching strategies.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary materials, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

JC-B and CB were responsible for conceptualizing this research project and conducting all analyzes. CC, SD, JE, and JH were responsible for identifying relevant articles, evaluating articles against inclusion criteria and coding moderator variables. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of interest

JC-B was employed by Cannon-Bowers Consulting.

The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

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

* indicates inclusion in the analysis.
*Allan J., Leeson P., Martin S. (2018). Application of a 10 week coaching program designed to facilitate volitional personality change: Overall effects on personality and the impact of targeting. Int. J. Evid. Based Coach. Mentor., 16, 80–94, doi: 10.24384/000470 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
*Auer E. M., Hutchinson D., Eatough E., Carr E. W., Sinar E. F., Kellerman G. (2022). The buffering effects of virtual coachingduring crisis: A quasi-experimental study ofchanges in well-being, work, and socialoutcomes before and during the COVID-19pandemic. Int. J. Evid. Based Coach. Mentor., 20 3–19, doi: 10.24384/ektn-xx15 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ballesteros-Sánchez L., Ortiz-Marcos I., Rodríguez-Rivero R. (2019). The impact of executive coaching on project managers’ personal competencies. Proj. Manag. J. 50, 306–321. doi: 10.1177/8756972819832191, PMID: 37219882 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bono J. E., Purvanova R. K., Towler A. J., Peterson D. B. (2009). A survey of executive coaching practices. Pers. Psychol. 62, 361–404. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01142.x, PMID: 36108091 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Borenstein M., Hedges L. E., Higgins J. P. T., Rothstein H. R. (2022). Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 4. In Biostat, Inc. Available at: www.Meta-Analysis.com
Borenstein M., Hedges L. V., Higgins J. P., Rothstein H. R. (2021). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons. Hoboken, NJ. [ Google Scholar ]
Bozer G., Delegach M. (2019). Bringing context to workplace coaching: A theoretical framework based on uncertainty avoidance and regulatory focus. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 18, 376–402. doi: 10.1177/1534484319853098 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bozer G., Jones R. J. (2021). Introduction to the special issue on advances in the psychology of workplace coaching. Appl. Psychol. 70, 411–419. doi: 10.1111/apps.12305 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Brinkert R. (2016). State of knowledge: Conflict coaching theory, application, and research. Confl. Resolut. Q. 33, 383–401. doi: 10.1002/crq.21162, PMID: 26229119 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Burt D., Talati Z. (2017). The unsolved value of executive coaching: A meta-analysis of outcomes using randomised control trial studies. Int. J. Evid. Based Coach. Mentor. 15, 17–24. doi: 10.24384/000248 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cochran W. G. (1954). The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 10, 101–129. doi: 10.2307/3001666, PMID: 37735349 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
*De Haan E., Gray D. E., Bonneywell S. (2019). Executive coaching outcome research in a field setting: A near-randomized controlled trial study in a global healthcare corporation. Acad. Manag. Learn. Edu., 18, 581–605, doi: 10.5465/amle.2018.0158 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dunning D. (2013). “The problem of recognizing one’s own incompetence: Implications for self-assessment and development in the workplace” in Judgment and decision making at work. eds. Highhouse S., Dalal R., Salas E. (England: Routledge; ), 57–76. [ Google Scholar ]
Freire T. (2013). “Positive psychology approaches” in The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology of coaching and mentoring. eds. Passmore J., Peterson D. B., Freire T. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; ), 426–442. [ Google Scholar ]
Grant A. M. (2003). The impact of life coaching on goal attainment, metacognition and mental health. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 31, 253–264. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2003.31.3.253 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Grant A. M. (2022). “Solution-focused coaching: The basics for advanced practitioners” in Coaching Practiced. eds. Tee D., Passmore J. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; ), 311–322. [ Google Scholar ]
Grant A. M., Cavanagh M. J. (2007). Evidence-based coaching: Flourishing or languishing? Aust. Psychol. 42, 239–254. doi: 10.1080/00050060701648175, PMID: 37667829 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Greif S., Möller H., Scholl W., Passmore J., Müller F. (2022). “Coaching definitions and concepts” in International handbook of evidence-based coaching: theory, research and practice. eds. Greif S., Möller H., Scholl W., Passmore J., Müller F. (New York: Springer International Publishing; ), 1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
Hedges L. V., Olkin I. (1984). Nonparametric estimators of effect size in meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 96:573. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.573, PMID: 35112575 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Higgins J. P., Thompson S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 21, 1539–1558. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
International Coaching Federation (2020). Global Coaching Study. Available at: https://coachingfederation.org/research/global-coaching-study
Johnson B. T., Mullen B., Salas E. (1995). Comparison of three major meta-analytic approaches. J. Appl. Psychol. 80:94. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.94, PMID: 34644040 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jones R. J., Woods S. A., Guillaume Y. R. (2016). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 89, 249–277. doi: 10.1111/joop.12119 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
*Junker S., Pömmer M., Traut-Mattausch E. (2021). The impact of cognitive-behavioural stress management coaching on changes in cognitive appraisal and the stress response: A field experiment. Coach. Int. J. Theory Res. Pra., 48, 134–144, doi: 10.1080/17521882.2020.1831563 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kilburg R. R. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding and definition of executive coaching. Consult. Psychol. J. Pract. Res. 62, 361–404. doi: 10.1037/1061-4087.48.2.134 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kotte S., Bozer G. (2022). “Workplace coaching research: Charted and uncharted territories” in International Handbook of Evidence-Based Coaching. eds. Siegfried G., Möller H., Scholl W., Passmore J., Müller F. (Cham: Springer; ), 971–982. [ Google Scholar ]
Kraiger K., Ford J. K., Salas E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. J. Appl. Psychol. 78:311. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
*MacKie D. (2014). The effectiveness of strength-based executive coaching in enhancing full range leadership development: A controlled study. Consult. Psychol. J., 66,:118, doi: 10.1037/cpb0000005 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
McCambridge J., de Bruin M., Witton J. (2012). The Effects of Demand Characteristics on Research Participant Behaviours in Non-Laboratory Settings: A Systematic Review. PLoS One 7:e39116. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039116, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Möeller H., Kotte S. (2022). “Assessment in coaching” in International handbook of evidence-based coaching: theory, research and practice. eds. Greif S., Möller H., Scholl W., Passmore J., Müller F. (Cham: Springer International Publishing; ), 55–64. [ Google Scholar ]
*Onyishi C. N., Ede M. O., Ossai O. V., Ugwuanyi C. S. (2021). Rational emotive occupational health coaching in the management of police subjective well-being and work ability: a case of repeated measures. J. Police Crim. Psychol., 36, 96–111, doi: 10.1007/s11896-019-09357-y [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Passmore J., Sinclair T. (2020). Becoming a Coach: The Essential ICF Guide. Springer, New York. [ Google Scholar ]
Passmore J., Peterson D., Freire T. (2013). “The psychology of coaching and mentoring” in The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology of coaching and mentoring. eds. Passmore J., Peterson D. B., Freire T. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; ), 1–11. [ Google Scholar ]
*Peláez M. J., Coo C., Salanova M. (2020). Facilitating work engagement and performance through strengths-based micro-coaching: a controlled trial study. J. Happiness Stud., 21, 1265–1284. doi: 10.1007/s10902-019-00127-5 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schermuly C. C., Graßmann C. (2019). A literature review on negative effects of coaching–what we know and what we need to know. Coach. Int. J. Theory Res. Pra. 12, 39–66. doi: 10.1080/17521882.2018.1528621 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sherman S., Freas A. (2004). The wild west of executive coaching. Harv. Bus. Rev. 82, 82–90. PMID: [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Silzer R., Church A., Rotolo C., Scott J. (2016). I-O Practice in Action: Solving the Leadership Potential Identification Challenge in Organizations. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 9, 814–830. doi: 10.1017/iop.2016.75 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sonesh S. C., Coultas C. W., Marlow S. L., Lacerenza C. N., Reyes D., Salas E. (2015). Coaching in the wild: Identifying factors that lead to success. Consult. Psychol. J. 67:189. doi: 10.1037/cpb0000042 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
*Steketee A., Chen S., Nelson R. A., Kraak V. I., Harden S. M. (2022). A mixed-methods study to test a tailored coaching program for health researchers to manage stress and achieve work-life balance. Transl. Behav. Med., 12, 369–410, doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibab134, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sutton J. (2020) Coaching styles explained: 4 different approaches. Available at: Positivepsychology.com
Theeboom T., Beersma B., van Vianen A. E. (2014). Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context. J. Posit. Psychol. 9, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2013.837499 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Vandaveer V. V., Lowman R. L., Pearlman K., Brannick J. P. (2016). A practice analysis of coaching psychology: Toward a foundational competency model. Consult. Psychol. J. 68, 118–142. doi: 10.1037/cpb0000057 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Walther J. B., Van Der Heide B., Ramirez A., Jr., Burgoon J. K., Peña J. (2015). “Interpersonal and hyperpersonal dimensions of computer-mediated communication” in The handbook of the psychology of communication technology. ed. Sunhar S. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; ), 1–22. [ Google Scholar ]
Whitmore J. (2010). Coaching for performance: growing human potential and purpose: the principles and practice of coaching and leadership. Hachette UK. Edinburgh [ Google Scholar ]
*Williams J. S., Lowman R. L. (2018). The efficacy of executive coaching: An empirical investigation of two approaches using random assignment and a switching-replications design. Consult. Psychol. J. Pract. Res., 70,:227, doi: 10.1037/cpb0000115 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wise D., Hammack M. (2011). Leadership coaching: Coaching competencies and best practices. J. Sch. Leadersh. 21, 449–477. doi: 10.1177/105268461102100306, PMID: 37577254 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
*Zuberbuhler M. J., Salanova M., Martínez I. M. (2020). Coaching-based leadership intervention program: A controlled trial study. Front. Psychol., 10:3066, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03066 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

View on publisher site
PDF (683.1 KB)
Collections

Add to Collections

IOC Academy
Institute of Coaching

McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School Affiliate

Search form.

About Coaching
Coaching Science

Benefits of Coaching

Coaching Specialties
Becoming a Coach
NEW! Podcast
A Guide to Coaching in Today's World
Research Doses
Webinar Videos
Conference Videos
Expert Interviews
Coaching Reports
MasterClasses
COACHx Videos
Thought Leaders
by Coaching Specialty
by Content Type
Current Projects
2024 Conference
Live Seminars
Roundtables
Discussion Groups
Leadership Forum
Past Conferences
Human Centered Leadership
Competencies for those who coach physicians
Leading with Humanity
IOC ICF Awarded Grants
Grant Application Process
Harnisch Researchers
Featured Research
Research Community

Become a Member

Current Sponsors
Become a Sponsor
Fellow Directory

Establish and take action towards achieving goals
Become more self-reliant
Gain more job and life satisfaction
Contribute more effectively to the team and the organization
Take greater responsibility and accountability for actions and commitments
Work more easily and productively with others (boss, direct reports, peers)
Communicate more effectively

(source: Ken Blanchard Companies)

Coaching in organization and leadership settings is also an invaluable tool for developing people across a wide range of needs. The benefits of coaching are many; 80% of people who receive coaching report increased self-confidence, and over 70% benefit from improved work performance, relationships, and more effective communication skills. 86% of companies report that they recouped their investment on coaching and more (source: ICF 2009).

Coaching provides an invaluable space for personal development. For example, managers are frequently presented with employees struggling with low confidence. The traditional approach would be to send them to an assertiveness course and hope this addresses the issue. In the short-term, the employee learns new strategies for communicating which may improve confidence. Unfortunately, in isolation these courses rarely produce a sustained increase in confidence. Although external behavior may change; it needs to be supported by changes in their internal thought processes. This is often where coaching is most effective.

Managers should not underestimate the impact of coaching on their people as it frequently creates a fundamental shift in their approach to their work. For example, increased self-confidence enables employees to bring more of themselves into the workplace. This results in employees being more resilient and assertive.

The Benefits of Coaching in Organizations:

Empowers individuals and encourages them to take responsibility
Increases employee and staff engagement
Improves individual performance
Helps identify and develop high potential employees
Helps identify both organizational and individual strengths and development opportunities
Helps to motivate and empower individuals to excel
Demonstrates organizational commitment to human resource development

For more on executive coaching see The Executive Coaching Handbook: Principles and Guidelines for a Successful Coaching Partnership

Evidence-based Research on the Effectiveness of Coaching:

In the past few years a number of studies have been conducted that clearly demonstrate the value, efficacy, and impact of coaching in a number of contexts. For more information, please see the following articles on the specific benefits of leadership coaching, health and wellness coaching, and positive psychology.

Measuring Change: Evaluating Health and Wellness Coaching Performance, Outcomes and ROI
2014 Poster Award: The Coaching Ripple Effect: The Individual and Systemic Level Influence of Leadership Development
2013 Poster Award: The Impact of Emotional Intelligence and Executive Coaching on Leadership Effectivenes
Webinar: Vision based Coaching Optimizing Mind and Body for Leader Development
Applied Positive Psychology in Organizations
Coaching effectiveness survey instruments: taking stock of measuring the immeasurable
Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context
Sign up for emails
Meet our members
Attend our events

The IOC is a global community of coaches.

McLean Hospital
115 Mill Street, Mail Stop 314
Belmont, MA 02478
[email protected]

IMAGES

Research on coaching in education: where can we find it, and what does
The Impact Of Coaching Backed By Data
Developing an Eye for Coaching Science
4 of the Very Best Coaching Models All in One Place
Research Paper: The Use Of Assessment Tools In Coaching
The contributions of practice and research to evidence-based coaching

COMMENTS

The Grand Challenge for Research on the Future of Coaching
The popularity of coaching as a development activity in organizations has outpaced the research. To inspire research and strengthen our intellectual foundation, the Thought Leadership Institute of the International Coaching Federation invited 35 of the most recognized coaching scholars and 12 coaching leaders to three two-hour discussions.
The Future of Coaching: A Conceptual Framework for the Coaching Sector
The Implications for Positive Psychology - Coaching Research. In previous papers, we have proposed a model reviewing the journey of positive psychology coaching research (Passmore and Fillery-Travis, 2011). This offered a series of broad phases, noting the journey of published papers from case studies to more scientific methods, such as ...
Comparing the Effectiveness of Individual Coaching, Self-Coaching, and
Although an abundance of coaching literature exists, the majority of the published empirical papers consist of contextual or survey-based research, giving useful information about, for instance, the delivery of coaching services rather than about coaching effectiveness (Grant, 2013a). Two quantitative reviews have summarized the research on the ...
The effectiveness of workplace coaching: a meta-analysis of
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 ...
Workplace coaching: a meta-analysis and recommendations for advancing
Hence, we recommend that future research into coaching effectiveness take a more client-centric view, specifically reporting whether outcomes were consistent with the client's goals and desires. Another observation regarding passed studies into coaching effectiveness is that they have focused on an undifferentiated (or at least undefined) set ...
Coaching culture: an evidence review and framework for future research
Research on coaching cultures is in a developing stage, therefore any empirical type of study set in an organisational context was of interest. Both qualitative and quantitative studies were reviewed. Studies that adopt any definition of coaching culture and workplace populations from any sector were included in the review. All interventions ...
PDF Coaching models for leadership development: An integrative review
THE PRACTICE OF COACHING LEADS RESEARCH To meet increasing challenges in complex environments, coaching has become one of the top five strategies for leadership development and change over the last decade (Underhill, as cited in Bennett & Bush, 2009). Despite limited evidence of coaching's necessity and impact,
The Grand Challenge for Research on the Future of Coaching
discuss current, research-based knowledge about coaching and explore what is essen-tial to learn in the future. The desire was to achieve consensus on what we know about coaching based on rigorous research and to provoke and guide future research. The design for this ﬁrst convening intended to draw out critical and comparative thoughts
(PDF) Coaching psychology: Exploring definitions and research
The research and practice of coaching psychology has developed considerably over the past 10 years. However, if coaching psychology is to continue to grow and develop, an educational and teaching ...
Benefits of Coaching
Evidence-based Research on the Effectiveness of Coaching: In the past few years a number of studies have been conducted that clearly demonstrate the value, efficacy, and impact of coaching in a number of contexts. For more information, please see the following articles on the specific benefits of leadership coaching, health and wellness ...