Studies tend to involve very few people, tend not to have meaningful control groups (i.e. a replica group of people subject to the same conditions who don't get coaching, for comparison purposes), don't account for differences in coach style, approach and quality, or find companies willing to fund it. Added to this, coaching is still a relatively new area so there is limited solid information on effectiveness available (although many coach training programmes suggest otherwise by reporting on coaching studies most of which are not robust or authoritative).
- being interested in learning and improving (i.e. they did not have a fixed mindset and were not over-confident)
- having good levels of self-efficacy (i.e. had confidence in their ability to develop)
- being well motivated to take part
- trusting the coach and being comfortable to speak openly
This supports the findings from other studies. In our one-to-one coaching programmes, coachees are invited to take a self-assessment to check their readiness for coaching. Our coaches all undertake a 'willingness and readiness for coaching' assessment as part of the initial engagement.
The authors found less evidence to support:
To discuss our approach to workplace coaching do get in touch.
Ex-Finance Directors or ex-lawyers do not make better coaches for Finance Directors or lawyers. Coach quality and experience is the key.