Proof Coaching Works

Independent, Fact-Based, Methodologically-Valid Research

  • Losch, Traut-Mattausch, Mühlberger, & Jonas (2016) – Field study on the relative effectiveness of individual coaching versus group training versus self-study
    • Participants’ satisfaction was significantly higher for individual coaching and group training , compared to the control group, whereas self-coaching did not significantly differ from the control group
    • Scores achieved on the multiple-choice tests were significantly higher for participants receiving group training compared to individual coaching and self-coaching
    • Goal attainment progress was significantly higher from individual coaching compared to the control group, while self-coaching and group training results did not significantly differ from the control group
    • Individual coaching reduced procrastination significantly more than no intervention; group training reduced procrastination marginally significantly more than no intervention; and self-coaching did not significantly differ from the control group in the reduction of procrastination
  • Grant, Curtayne, & Burton (2009) – Randomized Controlled Trial* (RCT) evaluating executives provided with 360-degree feedback, a half-day leadership workshop, and just four coaching sessions for over a ten week period
    • Coaching enhanced goal attainment
    • Coaching enhanced resilience
    • Coaching enhanced workplace well-being
    • Coaching reduced depression
    • Coaching reduced stress
    • Coaching helped participants deal with organizational change
  • Spence, Cavanagh, & Grant (2008) – RCT evaluating adults taking part in mindfulness-based health coaching over eight weeks
    • Coaching enabled greater goal attainment than using an educative/directive format
  • Spence & Grant (2007) – RCT of adults participating in a Solution Focused/Cognitive Behavioral (SF/CB) life coaching program
    • Professional coaching was significantly more effective than peer coaching in increasing goal commitment
    • Professional coaching was significantly more effective than peer coaching in goal attainment
    • Professional coaching was significantly more effective than peer coaching in environmental mastery
  • Duijts, Kant, van den Brandt & Swaen (2007) – RCT assessing the effectiveness of a preventive coaching program on sickness and absenteeism due to psycho-social health complaints
    • Coaching significant improvements in health
    • Coaching significant improvements in life satisfaction
    • Coaching significant improvements in burnout
    • Coaching significant improvements in psychological well-being
  • Green, Grant & Rynsaardt (2007) – RCT in which female high school students took part in SF/CB life coaching program for 10 individual coaching sessions over 2 school terms
    • Coaching increased cognitive hardiness
    • Coaching increased mental health
    • Coaching increased hope
  • Green, Oades & Grant (2006) – RCT of adults taking part in SF/CB life coaching program
    • Coaching increased goal attainment
    • Coaching increased well-being
    • Coaching increased hope
    • A 30-week follow-up found that those gains were maintained
  • Evers, Brouwers & Tomic (2006) – QEFS of managers of the federal government using a coaching group and a control
    • Coaching increased outcome expectancies
    • Coaching increased self-efficacy
  • Gyllensten & Palmer (2005) –  Quasi-Experimental Field Study** (QEFS) of participants from a UK finance organization
    • Coaching decreased anxiety more in the coaching group than the control group
    • Coaching decreased stress more in the coaching group than in the control group
  • Wasylyshyn (2003) – Executive Coaching Outcome Study
    • 76% of executives reacted significantly positive to working with a coach
    • 88% reported sustainability of behavior change and learning

Of course individual results can, and do, vary. But this is bona fide academic research cited here, not just opinion or conjecture.

LeadershipTraction’s RROI Data

Post-engagement feedback is collected from clients completing coaching engagements with Barry Zweibel, regarding the following categories:

  • Client Satisfaction
  • Leadership Competency Growth and Development
  • The “Rapid” Return on Investment (RROI*)

* LeadershipTraction uses the term Rapid Return on Investment (RROI) is used instead of the more-standard ROI because specific client behavioral and attitudinal improvements typically begin to occur during the very first coaching interaction…and continue throughout the engagement…and beyond.

Learn more at www.leadershiptraction.com/roi.

—–
Sources: Grant, A.M. (2009) Workplace, Executive and Life Coaching: An Annotated Bibliography from the Behavioural Science and Business Literature (May 2009), Coaching Psychology Unit, University of Sydney, Australia; Wasylyshyn, Karol M. (2003) Executive Coaching: An Outcome Study, Leadership Development Forum.

* Randomized Controlled Trial: (RCT) A study in which people are allocated at random (by chance alone) to receive one of several clinical interventions. One of these interventions is the standard of comparison or control. The control may be a standard practice, a placebo (“sugar pill”), or no intervention at all. Someone who takes part in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is called a participant or subject. RCTs seek to measure and compare the outcomes after the participants receive the interventions. Because the outcomes are measured, RCTs are quantitative studies. In sum, RCTs are quantitative, comparative, controlled experiments in which investigators study two or more interventions in a series of individuals who receive them in random order. The RCT is one of the simplest and most powerful tools in clinical research. (Source: http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=39532.)

** Quasi-Experiment Field Study is a scientific research method primarily used in the social sciences. “Quasi” means likeness or resembling, so therefore quasi-experiments share characteristics of true experiments which seek interventions or treatments. The key difference in this empirical approach is the lack of random assignment. Another unique element often involved in this experimentation method is use of time series analysis: interrupted and non-interrupted. Experiments designed in this manner are referred to as having quasi-experimental design. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-experimental_design.)


LeadershipTraction®
Leadership • Teamwork • Professional Development

Helping leaders, teams, and team members with those nagging workplace performance issues – the ones that keep making it harder to make a real difference.

CALL or CLICK to begin.
Or, if you prefer, let's start with you asking a question.