Workplace coaching is effective in achieving positive organisational outcomes, confirms research.
The meta-analysis of research carried out since 2018 builds on earlier meta-analyses which also concluded that coaching works.
The study, published in Frontiers in Psychology, finds no difference in effectiveness between virtual and face-to-face coaching, nor between coaching stemming from a process/facilitation framework and coaching based on an outcome/goal-setting framework. Neither did the number of coaching hours or sessions make a difference to the success of the coaching.
Despite the popularity of workplace coaching in practice, scientists have historically lamented the lack of empirical research in this area. The researchers said that the dramatic uptick in studies examining coaching effectiveness over the past decade, along with a rise in the popularity of workplace coaching drove the need for another review of the scientific literature to allow them to assess the state of the art and to suggest directions for future research.
“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,” said the researchers.
The US-based researchers expected coaching informed by process/facilitation to be more effective than outcome/goal-setting informed coaching for affective-based measures than cognitive or skill-based measures and vice versa. However, the research didn’t show this to be the case – there was no significant difference between the two types of coaching when it came to affective versus skills outcomes.
Another hypothesis was that self-reported outcomes will be more positive than either evaluation by supervisors or evaluation by subordinates, but this didn’t play out either. Positive outcomes were reported regardless of evaluation source, with manager-rated outcomes the highest-rated. Subordinate-rated outcomes were also positive although slightly – insignificantly – lower than the other two categories.
The researchers set out to “provide a set of prescriptions that will move the field towards a true science of coaching.” Recommendations for advancing the ‘science of coaching’ include that future researchers:
- Include details on the type of coaching approach being followed, and the types of outcomes that can be expected from coaching, attempting to associate specific coaching approaches and features with expected outcomes
- Specify coaches’ credentials, looking at the relationship between these and effectiveness, which could inform how coaches are trained
- Employ actual coaching clients or if volunteers are used, define better who the clients are
- Consider whether coaching is effective in achieving more targeted outcomes such as improved conflict resolution skills) as well as more generic ones
- Consider longitudinal, within-studies designs that track outcomes more precisely over time
- Carry out research that is more theoretically grounded, striving to better understand the mechanisms of action of coaching, which could inform the development of more effective and possibly efficient coaching strategies.
The researchers’ original search yielded 114 papers which were evaluated for potential inclusion. Some were excluded because they didn’t deal with workplace outcomes, the rest because they didn’t include the data to evaluate coaching outcomes. Eleven were included for the final analysis.
- Read the paper at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1204166/full