does executive coaching work

582 vol 27 no 8 august 2014

Baron, L. & Morin, L. (2012). The workingalliance in executive coaching: Itsimpact on outcomes and howcoaches can influence it. In E. deHaan & C. Sills (Eds.) Coachingrelationships (pp.213–226).Farringdon: Libri.

Berglas, S. (2002). The very real dangersof executive coaching. HarvardBusiness Review, 80, 86–92.

Bono, P., Purvanova, P., Towler, A. &

Peterson, D. (2009). A survey ofexecutive coaching. PersonnelPsychology, 62, 361–404.

Bowles, S.V., Cunningham, C.J.L., De LaRosa, G.M. & Picano, J.J. (2007).Coaching leaders in middle andexecutive management: Goals,performance, buy-in. Leadership &Organization Development Journal, 28,388–408.

Boyce, L.A., Jackson, R.J. & Neal, L.J.

(2010). Building successfulleadership coaching relationships:Examining impact of matchingcriteria in a leadership coachingprogram. Journal of ManagementDevelopment, 29, 914–931.

De Haan, E. & Burger, Y. (2005). Coachingwith colleagues: An action guide forone-to-one learning. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.

De Haan, E., Culpin, V. & Curd, J. (2011).

Executive coaching in practice: Whatdetermines helpfulness for clients ofcoaching? Personnel Review, 40,24–44.

De Haan E. & Duckworth, A. (2013).Signalling a new trend in coachingoutcome research. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 8(1),6–20.

De Haan, E., Duckworth, A., Birch, D. &Jones, C. (2013). Executive coaching

The field of executive coaching hasgrown considerably in recent times.The empirical research conductedto explore the effectiveness ofexecutive coaching, which hasstruggled to keep pace withdevelopments in the field, suggeststhere are many personal andorganisational benefits fromengaging in an executive coachingrelationship. However, the researchstudies provide an uncertainmessage about what makes aneffective coaching relationship andhow this might differ for all partiesinvested in the coaching journey –client, coach and organisationalsponsor. This article provides abrief review of the field of executivecoaching and summarises theactive ingredients of effectiveexecutive coaching that have beenidentified in the empirical researchto date.

Executive coaching is a form oforganisational learning through one-to-one conversations that facilitates

development for a leader. It can be usedin a variety of ways, for example, gettingpast an impasse, removing a stumblingblock or drawing out and building onstrengths. Undoubtedly, there has been a flurry of activity around coaching, andpeople are asking why. Why are there somany books, so many courses, evenmaster’s programmes, on executivecoaching? Why are so many consultantsand therapists interested in becomingcoaches? Why do you see professionalcoaching accreditation, internationalfoundations and conferences?

The first reason is probably the mostinfluential. Over the last 15 years or sothere’s been a profound change in howcoaching is viewed. In the past it was seen as remedial: if you heard the wordcoaching you’d assume there was aproblem. Now coaching has progressedfrom having a stigma attached to it toaffording status: coaching has become anindication that one’s company considersone worth an investment. Moreover, wethink this is because something else hashappened in many business cultures –people are more willing to admit tothemselves and to others that they needthe help of professionals to understandthemselves and to grow and develop intheir working environment. Seniorexecutives now often acknowledge thatthey have had coaching and that it hasinformed them as leaders and influencedtheir value systems, the way they deal withother people or their approach to their

work. This is increasingly seen assomething to be proud of, asdemonstrating emotional intelligence and insight.

The second development is thatnowadays coaches are much less interestedin making dogmatic statements about oneview or another. They want to usewhatever works, borrowing ideas fromdifferent approaches, like sports coachingfor example. They ask themselves whatwill work for this particular person, at thisparticular moment, with this particularquestion.

Third, the coaching profession globallyis becoming more professional, mature andregulated. The 2012 InternationalCoaching Federation Global CoachingStudy reported the number of professionalcoaches was estimated to be 47,500worldwide and it is continuing to grow.Coaching is also becoming more prevalentin organisations. In 2004 the CharteredInstitute of Personnel Development in theUK reported that 64 per cent oforganisations surveyed use externalcoaches, 92 per cent of the surveyparticipants judged the coaching to be‘effective’ or ‘very effective’, and 96 per centreported that coaching is an effective wayto promote learning in organisations(Jarvis, 2004). In the same year, theHarvard Business Review reported thatbusiness coaching – including mentoring – was a $1 billion industry in the US and a $2 billion industry worldwide (Sherman& Freas, 2004).

Despite an increase in prevalence, thecoaching profession remains in a state offlux and it is only just beginning to beregulated. There is a large degree ofdiversity in the professionals who claim topractise coaching as well as in the range offields in which coaching interventions aredelivered (Bono et al., 2009). Individualsare entering coaching from very diversebackgrounds, such as clinical andoccupational psychology, seniormanagement, organisation development,and counselling. They bring influences asfar apart as the GROW-model, solution-focused brief therapy, positive psychology

references

resources

questions

De Haan, E. (2008). Relational coaching –journeys towards mastering one-to-onelearning. Chichester: Wiley.

www.ashridge.org.uk/centreforcoaching

Why is there is a large degree ofdiversity in executive coaching and what are the implications of this? What variables have been identified as ‘active ingredients’ of effectivecoaching? Are these the same forclients and coaches?

ARTICLE

Does executive coaching work? … and if so, how? Nadine Page and Erik de Haan consider the evidence.

and person-centred counselling (De Haan& Burger, 2005). Individual professionalstherefore tailor coaching interventions totheir own background, theoreticalorientation and interests, as well as to theneeds and interests of the individual clientor ‘coachee’.

With the tightening of trainingbudgets, and more variability, visibility and scrutiny in the coaching profession as a whole, it is critical to consider theactive ingredients of effective coachingrelationships and their impact, if any, onoutcomes. Needless to say, there have beentoo few serious attempts to explore suchactive ingredients of coaching practices ina reliable and validated way (as noted byGrant, Passmore et al., 2010). This is,perhaps, because there is no centralcommissioning for the profession, a lack of funding for research, and little pressureand demand from coaching clients toconduct rigorous outcome research. Thosecoaches who do engage with research oftendo so because of personal curiosity andinterest. This has resulted in very fewrobust quantitative and objectiveexaminations of effective coaching.Arguably, none of these satisfy the ‘goldstandard’ of large randomised control-group trials that are used in otherdisciplines, such as medicine or

psychotherapy (see Wampold, 2001). Of course it is a big and costly

commitment to conduct a rigorousoutcome study, and it is right that coachesseek to satisfy the needs of their clientsand their own coaching commitments firstrather than studying, with detachment,their own effectiveness. However, it is alsoimportant and necessary for the practice todevelop a better understanding of overallcoaching outcomes based on true scientificevidence rather than assumptions. If this isneglected, then the profession is vulnerableto criticism, and open to risks such asmisjudging the situation, aggravating thestatus quo, or abusing the coach’s power(Berglas, 2002).

Even if we make this commitment torobust research on coaching effectiveness,what do we ask? Consider questions suchas: ‘What is effective coaching?’ ‘Does ourcoaching work, i.e. can it be demonstratedto be effective?’ ‘Does it help clients withtheir critical objectives?’ ‘What are theactive ingredients?’ ‘Under whatcircumstances do they work best?’ Therecan be significant variability in theoperationalisation of what is beingmeasured as an outcome as well as a largedegree of subjectivity in what counts as‘good’ or effective. Moreover, theheterogeneity of issues that can be the

focus of a coachingintervention and the rapidgrowth and diversificationof the profession as a wholehave, we believe, impededthe development of anobjective outcome-orientedevidence base on effectivecoaching. Empiricalresearch struggles to keeppace with developments incoaching practice.

In this article weattempt to do just that, toanswer the question ‘doescoaching work?’ and todefine the potentialindicators of coaching

effectiveness. We then seek to distinguish the ‘active

ingredients’ of effective coaching andexplore how each of these can be shown to be critical to the success of executivecoaching relationships. Some of the factorsthat we present are supported by our ownempirical research, the largest quantitativestudy on coaching effectiveness to date. To bring these coaching factors to life, wepresent a case example to illustrate howsome of the active ingredients of effectivecoaching work in practice, during a livecoaching conversation.

What can we expect fromexecutive coaching research?Outcome studies on executive coachinghave tended to favour a qualitativeapproach, with robust quantitativeresearch on executive coaching laggingbehind (Jones et al., 2014; Theeboom etal., 2014). Individual studies on coachingeffectiveness are often commissioned byorganisations or as part of a leadership-development or organisational-changeprogramme. The data collected are oftenbased on smaller, select and potentiallyhomogeneous samples of participants.This makes it very difficult to draw firmconclusions based on cross-studycomparisons.

The quantitative research on executivecoaching that has been conducted comesfrom two main classes of outcomeresearch, one that includes a control groupand one that does not (see De Haan &Duckworth, 2013, for a review). Thestudies without a control group haveshown the effectiveness of executivecoaching using the techniques ofmultisource ratings from self, managersand coach (Peterson, 1993), and also whenoutcomes are measured by variousdifferent behavioural indicators including:productivity (Bowles et al., 2007; Oliveroet al., 1997); leadership effectiveness(Thach, 2002); and leadership behavioursas observed in meetings and rated by thecoach (Perkins, 2009).

When a control group is included inthe design (e.g. Evers et al., 2006; Smitheret al., 2003; Sue-Chan & Latham, 2004), it

read discuss contribute at www.thepsychologist.org.uk 583

coaching

outcome research: The contributionof common factors such asrelationship, personality match, andself-efficacy. Consulting PsychologyJournal: Practice and Research, 65,40–57.

De Haan, E. & Page, N. (2013a). Outcomereport: Conversations are key toresults. Coaching at Work, 8(4), 10–13.

De Haan, E. & Page, N. (2013b). Making itcount. Training Journal, August,

66–69. Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality

structure: Emergence of the FiveFactor Model: Annual Review ofPsychology, 41, 417–440.

Evers, W.J.G., Brouwers, A. & Tomic, W.(2006). A quasi-experimental studyon management coachingeffectiveness. Consulting PsychologyJournal: Practice and Research, 58,174–182.

Grant, A.M., Curtayne, L. & Burton, G.(2009). Executive coaching enhancesgoal attainment, resilience andworkplace well-being: A randomisedcontrolled study. Journal of PositivePsychology 4(5), 396–407.

Grant, A.M., Green, L.S. & Rynsaardt, J.(2010). Developmental coaching forhigh school teachers: Executivecoaching goes to school. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and

Research 62, 151–168.Grant, A.M., Passmore, J. Cavanagh, M.

& Parker, H. (2010). The state of playin coaching. International Review ofIndustrial & Organizational Psychology.25, 125–168.

Green, L.S., Grant, A.M. & Rynsaardt, J.(2007). Evidence-based life coachingfor senior high school students:Building hardiness and hope.International Coaching Psychology

People are now more willing to admit to needing help


coaching

is often done so opportunistically ratherthan through a process that is trulyrandom. The inclusion of a control groupmakes it possible to identify and comparethe effective characteristics in a moresystematic way, to tease out the ‘activeingredients’ or common factors of theapproach. Smither et al. (2003) conductedone of the largest impact studies onexecutive coaching to date. It included1202 senior managers assessed over twoconsecutive years. The results showed that multisource feedback from clients’supervisors, peers and subordinates, as well as evaluations by independentresearchers, was found to be overall morepositive for those managers who did workwith a coach. The specific areas ofimprovement were goal-setting, solicitingideas for improvement, and ratings fromdirect reports and superiors.

Over the past decade there has alsobeen a small series of studies that haveadopted truly randomised controlled trials.These, however, have generally beensmaller scale and they have exploredmainly self-scoring rather thanindependent outcome measurements.Grant et al. (2009) found that executivecoaching significantly enhanced goalattainment, resilience and workplace well-being, and reduced depression and stressin healthcare managers in comparison to a wait-list control group. Similar patternsof results were also found for high-schoolteachers who received work-relatedcoaching compared to a random wait-listcontrol group (Grant, Green et al., 2010).Some of these findings are substantial butthey may well be influenced by same-source or common-methods bias (seeGrant, Passmore et al, 2010).

The overall effectiveness of executivecoaching has also been reported in tworecent meta-analyses. Theeboom et al.(2014) found that executive coaching hadmoderate and positive impacts onindividual-level performance and skills,well-being, coping, work attitudes andgoal-directed self-regulation. They

concluded that coaching is an effective intervention inorganisations. Jones et al. (2014)further reported that executivecoaching also has a greaterimpact on performancecompared with other popularworkplace development tools.

So what can we concludefrom this body of research?First, that outcome research incoaching is developing but thatthe holy grail of executivecoaching – proof of effectivenessfrom a controlled study withrandom assignment andmultiple, objective behaviouraland performance outcomemeasures – is yet to be found(see De Haan & Duckworth,2013, for an overview). Second,there is no agreed researchstandard like the randomised controlledtrials used in psychotherapy outcomeresearch (see Wampold, 2001). Third,there is a large degree of variability in theresearch designs that might themselvesaffect outcome. And fourth, effect sizes aresubstantially larger when the data are self-reported.

Overall, outcome research providessome indication that executive coaching is an effective intervention. It does not,however, conclusively identify thosefactors that contribute to effectiveness.

Active ingredientsAn emerging body of research assumesthe general effectiveness of coaching andthen compares conditions to determinethe degree to which various aspects ofcoaching relationship, such as the coachor the client, have an effect on outcomes.If one accepts the assumptions of generaleffectiveness, then the experimentalconditions of this type of research can be a lot less stringent. First, it is notnecessary to employ randomised controlgroups because the various conditions

create proper comparison samples withinthe study. Second, it is possible to useself-reports because in psychotherapy,studies using self-report data in realisticsettings have consistently corroboratedresults from more rigorous studies withrandomised controlled trials (Shadish etal., 2000; Stiles et al., 2008). However,self-reports tend to be a more reactivedependent variable and may well beoverestimated. This needs to beconsidered in future coaching research.

The studies that have explored whichcoaching factors are effective have includedthe personality profiles of both coach andclient, along with the self-efficacy of theclient; the strength of the coachingrelationship; and the type of coachingintervention. We briefly discuss theempirical research on these factors below.

PersonalityThere is a significant influence ofpersonality on coaching effectiveness.Stewart et al. (2008) explored how clientpersonality and client self-efficacyinfluence coaching outcome. In so doing,they measured the ‘Big-Five’ personality

Review 2(1), 24–32.Horvath, A.O. & Greenberg, L. (1986). The

development of the Working AllianceInventory. In L. Greenberg & W.Pinsoff (Eds.) Psychotherapeuticprocesses: A research handbook(pp.529–556). New York: Guilford.

Jarvis, J. (2004). Coaching and buyingcoaching services. London: CIPD.

Jones, R.J., Woods, S.A. & Guillaume, Y.(2014, January). A meta-analysis of

the effectiveness of executive coachingat improving work-based performanceand moderators of coachingeffectiveness. Paper presented at theBritish Psychological Society Divisionof Occupational Psychology AnnualConference, Brighton.

Meade, A.W., Watson, A.M. & Kroustalis,C.M. (2007, April). Assessing commonmethods bias in organizationalresearch. Paper presented at the

22nd Annual Meeting of the Societyfor Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, New York.

Myers, I.B., McCaulley, M.H., Quenk, N.L.& Hammer, A.L. (1998). MBTI manual.Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologist Press.

Olivero, G., Bane, K.D. & Kopelman, R.E.(1997). Executive coaching as atransfer of training tool: Effects onproductivity in a public agency. Public

Personnel Management, 26, 461–469. Perkins, R.D. (2009). How executive

coaching can change leaderbehaviour and improve meetingeffectiveness: An exploratory study.Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 61, 298–318.

Peterson, D.B. (1993, May). Measuringchange: A psychometric approach toevaluating individual coachingoutcomes. Paper presented at the 8th

Variables such as coach credibility and client–coachcompatibility positively impact the coaching outcome


coaching

traits (Digman, 1990) and general self-efficacy (Schwarzer et al., 1999) for 110coaching clients and correlated these withoutcome. They found moderate andpositive effects for Conscientiousness,Openness, Emotional Stability andgeneral self-efficacy. Considering thedesign of the study, they also cautionedthat other factors might also play a role as well.

Moreover, Scoular and Linley (2006)looked at how both (a) personality(dis)similarities between coach and clientin terms of Myer-Briggs Type Inventory(MBTI: Myers et al., 1998) profiles and (b) a ‘goal-setting’ intervention at thebeginning of the coaching conversationaffected perceived effectiveness. Theyfound that when the coach and clientdiffered more on aspects of their MBTIprofiles, the outcome scores weresignificantly higher. There was no effect of goal-setting.

RelationshipIn a study of 30 internal coach/clientpairs, Baron and Morin (2012) found thatthe coaching relationship, as measured byclients’ ratings of the Working AllianceInventory (Horvath & Greenberg, 1986),a commonly used measure of coachingrelationship, predicted thecoaching outcome of clientself-efficacy. The coaches’ratings of the workingalliance were not asignificant predictor.Client–coach relationshipshave also been found tomediate other dependencies. Boyce et al.(2010) found that variables such as coachcredibility and client–coach compatibilitypositively impact the coaching outcomethrough supporting the development ofthe coaching relationship.

Type of interventionResearch suggests that coachingeffectiveness is not a function of specificcoaching techniques or interventions, but

more linked to factors common to allcoaching interventions, such as thequality of the coaching relationship,empathic understanding, and positiveexpectations (De Haan et al., 2011). Insupport of this, De Haan et al. (2013)found that the client–coach relationshipwas the key factor in how clients perceivethe outcome of coaching; it mediated theimpact of self-efficacy and the range ofcoaching techniques.

Why these active ingredients?Clearly there is a need for furtherresearch, given that the evidence is largelyfrom the perspective of the client andoften fails to hear from everybodyinvested in the coaching journey. After all,executive coaching is an organisationalintervention and should therefore have a measurable and positive effect beyondthe primary coaching client. But theevidence we have suggests that client andcoach demographics and self-efficacy areinfluential to a certain extent, but it is therelationship that develops between clientand coach that is critical and has thelargest impact on coaching outcome.

This is a conclusion supported by our own empirical research, what we

believe is the largestinternational coachingoutcome research todate (see De Haan &Page, 2013a; 2013b).Participating

client–coach pairs wereinitially selected through

our own networks of experienced andqualified executive coaches. Each coachcompleted an online ‘coach survey’ andthen invited their clients to complete anonline ‘client survey’. Clients then invitedtheir organisational sponsor to completethe equivalent ‘sponsor survey’, whereappropriate. A snowball samplingtechnique was used.

The study results strongly indicatedthat the coaching relationship – as rated

by both client and coach – correlates with client- and coach-rated outcome to a considerable degree (r ranged from .43 to .56 for coaches, and from .46 to .55 for clients). In contrast to some previousresearch (e.g. Scoular & Linley, 2006), we found little evidence for a differentialimpact of client personality, coachpersonality or client–coach personalitymatching. An important difference of ourresearch compared with some of the earlierliterature is that our significant results havebeen from predictor variables that wererated by both clients and coaches. Thismeans the results are less susceptible to thecommon-methods bias (Mead et al., 2007).We found a significant degree ofconsistency in the perceived effectivenessof coaching between client and coach.

So how can each of these ‘activeingredients’ be applied in real-life coachingconversations?

The strength of the coachingrelationship or working alliance betweenclient and coach is the most powerfulpredictor of coaching outcomes. Spendingtime building a strong relationship with aclient is critical for successful and effectivecoaching, and it is perceived this way byboth coach and client alike. Specifically,our research suggests that it is important to build a rapport that is task-focused, withclear and achievable goals, as this leads tosuccessful outcomes more so than justfocusing on developing a close relationshipor bond. On a practical level, this impliesthat it is important for coaches to work intandem with their clients in a manner thatis task- or goal-focused. This gives thecoaching conversation a clear directionthat is action-oriented, and facilitates thestrengthening of the relationship betweenboth parties.

Another important predictor ofeffective coaching is the degree to whichclients can motivate themselves, their self-efficacy, or if you like, ego strength or self-confidence. Considering this finding inconjunction with the first, it could besuggested that a well-functioning coaching

“it is the relationship thatdevelops between clientand coach that is critical”

Annual Meeting of the Society forIndustrial and OrganizationalPsychology, San Francisco.

Schwarzer, R., Mueller, J. & Greenglass,E. (1999). Assessed of perceived self-efficacy on the internet: Datacollection in cyberspace. Anxiety,Stress & Coping: An InternationalJournal, 12, 145–161.

Scoular, A. & Linley, P.A. (2006).Coaching, goal-setting and

personality type. What matters? TheCoaching Psychologist, 2, 9–11.

Shadish, W.R., Navarro, A.M., Matt, G.E.& Phillips, G. (2000). The effects ofpsychological therapies underclinically representative conditions: Ameta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,126, 512–529.

Sherman, S. & Freas, A. (2004). The WildWest of executive coaching. HarvardBusiness Review, 82(11), 82–90.

Smither, J.W., London, M., Flautt, R. etal. (2003). Can working with anexecutive coach improve multisourcefeedback ratings over time? A quasi-experimental field study. PersonnelPsychology, 56, 23–44.

Stewart, L.J., Palmer, S., Wilkin, H. &Kerrin, M. (2008). The influence ofcharacter: Does personality impactcoaching success? InternationalJournal of Evidence Based Coaching

and Mentoring, 6(1), 32–43.Stiles, W.B., Barkham, M., Mellor-Clark,

J. & Connell, J. (2008). Effectivenessof cognitive-behavioural, person-centred, and psychodynamictherapies in UK primary care routinepractice: Replication in a largersample. Psychological Medicine, 38,677–688.

Sue-Chan, C. & Latham, G.P. (2004). Therelative effectiveness of external,

relationship might also help toignite and maintain a client’s self-motivation over time. Successfullyachieving set goals could certainlyboost ego strength and supportmomentum in the long term. This,in turn, might have a direct bearingon personal and careerdevelopment.

The role of personality structureon coaching effectiveness is muchsmaller than anticipated andsuggested by previous research.Moreover, matching on the basis ofpersonality preferences appears toproduce no clear improvement inthe effectiveness of coaching. Wesuggest it might be more importantto focus on coach selection in terms of qualifications, accreditation andsupervision records rather than onclient–coach matching.

Our final point takes us back to theimportance of the coaching relationship. Wefound that effective coaching relationshipsdo produce real and observable impacts inthe eyes of all parties invested in thecoaching journey. There is real consistencybetween coaching outcomes as reported byclient, coach and sponsor, suggesting thatthey see similar benefits from the process.This finding emphasises the value ofexecutive coaching as a highly effectivedevelopment intervention.

What does effective coachinglook like in practice?To conclude, we would like to present acase study that brings some of the ‘activeingredients’ of effective coaching to life.As part of our research we offeredparticipating coaches a confidential and anonymous insight into their owneffectiveness as a coach. In one of thoseconversations, we talked to a coach whohad slightly below-average effectivenessscores, but his relationships scores weremuch lower, nearly 50 per cent below the average, particularly for the bonddimension of the measure. This patternwas applicable across all clients. On

further questioning, it emerged that thiswas a coach who does mainly remedialwork. In other words, he works withsenior managers who are being given afinal chance to keep their jobs by takingsessions with him and demonstrating thatthey can improve as a result.

The way of working and the tone inwhich this coach gave direct feedback tohis clients about their performancesounded tough and frightful. It appearedalmost astounding that this coach’seffectiveness scores were neverthelesshovering around the average. That couldprobably be best explained by the fact thatmany of his clients did indeed manage tokeeps their jobs by working productivelywith this coach.

The remainder of the conversation wasdevoted to whether it is possible to coachclients who are backed up against the wallin such a way, while maintaining, or evenstrengthening the relationship. In otherwords, would it be possible for the coachto give the same feedback in such a waythat it actually strengthens therelationship? The coach could do this, forexample, by showing warmth or empathyat the same time. Or by assuring the clientfirmly that, as a coach, he is truly on theclient’s side and is only trying to help himor her learn and grow, even under difficultcircumstances.

This is precisely what this study and

others alike has shown. The best predictor of theeffectiveness of the coachingrelationship, including in anobjective sense, is the client’sassessment of its strength.Moreover, the coach’s ownassessment of the strength ofthe relationship is also a goodpredictor of the coachingoutcome. In a nutshell, we can summarise the threeingredients of the ‘workingalliance’ measurement asfollows:

It pays off in coaching to makethe relationship as strong as we can,

by reaching agreement on the way in whichwe work and the objectives we are seekingto achieve; and making the chemistry, the‘click’ or bond between coach and client, asstrong as possible.

In conclusion, we hope that this articlehas offered some insight into the currentstatus of the coaching profession, andexecutive coaching in particular. Our aimwas to summarise the latest on coachingoutcomes research, including our ownrecent research, which is moving towardsa more conclusive evidence base on theeffectiveness of coaching. In so doing, we have found evidence for the centralimportance of the quality of the workingrelationship as seen from both the client’sand the coach’s perspective and for theimportance of general self-efficacy of theclient who comes to the coachingrelationship. We have also suggested thatpersonality factors and personalitymatching are likely to play a lesser role as a predictor of success in executivecoaching. These are important findingsthat, we hope, will guide the developmentof the profession and the choices that aremade in the recruitment, development,deployment and matching of executivecoaches, and the coaching field as awhole.


coaching

Erik de Haanis Director, Ashridge Centrefor Coaching, AshridgeBusiness School,[email protected]

Nadine Pageis Research Fellow atAshridge Business School,[email protected]

peer and self-coaches. AppliedPsychology, 53, 260–278.

Thach, E.C. (2002). The impact ofexecutive coaching and 360°feedback on leadershipeffectiveness. Leadership &Organization Development Journal,23, 205–214.

Theeboom, T., Beersma, B. & vanVianen, A.E. (2014). Does coachingwork? A meta-analysis on the

effects of coaching on individuallevel outcomes in an organizationalcontext. Journal of PositivePsychology, 9(1), 1–18.

Wampold, B.E. (2001). The greatpsychotherapy debate: Models,methods and findings. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.


Study with a leading training school and advance your careerRegent’s School of Psychotherapy & Psychology will develop your professional skills, helping you to think independently, build theoretical knowledge, and ethically provide psychotherapy and counselling in a variety of settings.

› Certi�cate in Counselling & Psychotherapy› MA Psychotherapy & Counselling› MSc Psychology*

› Advanced Diploma Existential Psychotherapy› Advanced Diploma Integrative Psychotherapy› MPhil/PhD› DPsych in Counselling Psychology**

› Certi�cate in Clinical Supervision

Contact us to arrange a personal consultation

T 020 7487 7505 E [email protected] W regents.ac.uk/rspp

RSPP is an organisational and accrediting member of the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) and our programmes lead to professional membership of the UKCP. They also contribute towards individual accreditation with the British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy (BACP) and are designed to meet the requirements of the British Psychological Society (BPS) and Health & Care Professions Council (HCPC).

*This programme is BPS accredited, and the award is currently subject to validation**This programme is BPS accredited. The award is currently validated by The Open University, and name is subject to approval.