What are the deciding factors for effective workplace coaching?

This article is a reprint of a?Coaching Research in Practice?(November, 2015). All ReciproCoaches receive complimentary limited-time access to each new issue (10 per year). For unlimited access to more than 10 years of Coaching Research in Practice archives, purchase a membership or a subscription.

?

As the body of research into the effectiveness of coaching grows, it is helpful to have a bird’s-eye view of the current ‘state of play’.

?

This issue of Coaching Research in Practice reviews a particularly useful piece of research that examined a collection of 17 studies of workplace coaching and revealed the collective findings related to its effectiveness and the influential factors.

?

COACHING RESEARCH:

?

In 2015, Jones, Woods and Guillaume conducted a meta-analysis study of workplace coaching research. This was a particularly interesting study because it examined existing studies on workplace coaching in order to highlight the combined findings. To this end, it identified 54 published and unpublished studies that related to the effectiveness, outcomes, impact and evaluation of coaching. It then reduced the list to 17 studies that examined coaching effectiveness using an internal or external coach (manager and peer coaching studies were excluded) within an organizational setting. Each adequately described coaching activity in a work context, evaluated its effectiveness and measured the impact.

?

Firstly, Jones et al.’s study hypothesized that “coaching will demonstrate positive effects for affective, skill-based, and individual-level results outcome criteria” (p. 6):

?

• Affective outcomes?include outcomes related to changes in attitudes or motivation such as self-efficacy, well-being and satisfaction, usually measured by self-report questionnaires.
• Cognitive outcomes?include outcomes related to declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and cognitive strategies, such as problem solving and usually measured by recognition and recall tests.
• Skill-based outcomes?include outcomes related to the compilation and automaticity of new skills, such as leadership skills, technical skills or competencies and usually measured by behavioural observation in the workplace, like multisource feedback or via questionnaire.
• Results outcomes?include outcomes related to individual, team and organizational performance and usually measured by financial results, objective/goal achievement and productivity.

?

Not surprisingly, the study determined that “coaching had a positive effect on all outcomes” (p. 16). However, more interestingly, the study also indicated “coaching has a stronger effect on individual-level results outcomes than on affective and skill-based outcomes” (p. 16).

?

Secondly, the study hypothesized that several factors could have an impact on the effectiveness of a coaching intervention. Below is an overview of these factors, including whether or not they influenced how effective the coaching had been:

?

• With or without multisource feedback??Workplace coaching is often accompanied by multisource, otherwise known as 360 degree feedback. A very interesting outcome of this study highlighted that while coaching with and without multisource feedback has a positive effect, findings suggested that “this effect was greater on outcomes when coaching was provided without multisource feedback” (p. 16).
• Which coaching format??The study compared the effects of face-to-face versus blended face-to-face and phone coaching formats and found that outcomes were similar, regardless of the format of the coaching.
• Internal or external coach??The findings of this study indicated that “the effects of coaching on outcomes were weaker for external coaches in comparison with internal coaches” (p. 18) i.e. internal coaches had a greater impact on coaching outcomes.
• How long and how frequent??Interestingly, “neither longevity in weeks of the coaching intervention nor number of coaching sessions moderated overall coaching effectiveness” (p. 18) i.e. the duration of the coaching relationship or the frequency of sessions during the coaching intervention did not appear to have an impact on how effective the coaching was.

?

Thus, while the coaching format, duration and frequency did not appear to impact on coaching effectiveness, internal coaches appeared to be more effective than external coaches, and coaching without multisource feedback appeared to be more effective than coaching with multisource feedback.

?

?

IN PRACTICE:

?

This piece of research has some useful application for practice. Firstly, it defines several different aspects of positive impact that workplace coaching can have, including affective, skill-based and individual-level results. An understanding of these impact areas, the way they show up in practice and the way they are measured is useful in marketing coaching, talking about coaching and designing a coaching arrangement, such as benchmarks for ROI (Return on Investment).

?

Secondly, the findings of this research question the use of multisource feedback in effective coaching engagements. The discussion suggested that “feedback (especially negative feedback) received by the coachee in the coaching session may divert attention so that the coachee becomes pre-occupied with the content of the feedback” (p. 20), limiting attentional resources and positive benefits of the session. Alternatively, multisource feedback “instruments are often focused on leadership behaviour, which may be rather distal from the development objectives of the coachee” (p. 20). If you currently use multisource feedback it may be worth trialling an approach without this, measuring the difference in impact or using a different instrument.

?

Finally, this study highlights the value of internal coaches over external coaches. The discussion postulated explanations such as “cultural bias and readiness, as some organizations prefer to use ‘homegrown’ solutions versus those generated by external consultants” as well as “internal coaches inevitably hav[ing] a better understanding of the organization’s culture and climate” and therefore being “better placed to enable the coachee to be more productive in their specific workplace (i.e., by setting goals in such a way that organization-specific barriers or facilitators to their achievement are realistically discussed, addressed and incorporated into development)” (p. 21). Understandably, many coaches are external coaches and so this finding may not be all that welcome. However, even as an external coach, it could serve you to consider the factors that may make internal coaches more effective than external coaches and find ways to gain that perspective and incorporate it into your coaching.

?

Do you have experience, knowledge or opinions to share about the factors that affect workplace coaching? Share it?here.

?

Reference:

Jones, R. J., Woods, S. A., & Guillaume, Y. R. F. (2015). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching.?Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 10.1111(12119), 1-29. Retrieved from?ResearchGate.

?

Translating coaching research into coaching practice,

Kerryn Griffiths (PhD –?The Process of Learning in Coaching) Global ReciproCoach Coordinator

?