Research Demonstrates Effectiveness of Strengths-Based Coaching
A research paper in the June 2014 issue of Consulting Psychology Journal adds yet another increment of validity to the effectiveness of coaching, specifically to strengths-based coaching.
The study assessed the leadership efficacy of two groups of leaders, one after six 90-minute coaching sessions, the other after waiting the same period of time. While the group on the waiting list improved in anticipation of their coaching sessions, the group that was coached improved a significantly greater amount.
This type of study is called a “between-subjects” design because it measures the effect of a treatment between individuals rather than repeating treatments and measures within individuals.
The study is reasonably robust because of the following factors:
– Utilization of a standardized coaching protocol,
– The outcome measure was a leadership multi-rater 360-type instrument (the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, MLQ), thus removing possible bias from the participant, and
– All participants were working in the same geography (Australia) of a multi-national non-profit organization and were at a senior managers or leader level.
The MLQ assessment measures elements of transformational, transactional, laissez-faire leadership and outcomes. It comes from many years of research validating each set of scales. The intent was to include as many facets of leadership as possible. Transformational leadership is that aspect of leadership attuned to building trust, inspiring, innovating, and developing others. All scales of transformational leadership showed an increase after coaching, as did all measures of outcome, which included effectiveness (leading a group that is effective), satisfaction (working with others in a satisfactory way), and extra effort (heightening others’ desire to succeed).
The study confirms that leaders can be coached to enhance their transformational leadership skills—to become more inspirational, more innovative, and to enhance development of their people. Because of this, organizations should feel confident that their coaching programs are paying off and providing a good return on investment. Further, it confirms the validity of structured and systematic coaching which is important so that organizations can be reassured that their particular coach training has a chance of becoming highly effective.
The major weakness to the study was that individuals were not randomly placed into the groups. However, the data gathered before the start of the study showed a very close similarity in the individuals across the two groups.
Every time another study such as this one is completed we have just one more bit of evidence to show our clients how useful coaching may be for them.
Joel DiGirolamo (USA)
Joel DiGirolamo is the vice president of research and data science for ICF. He has more than 30 years of staff and management experience in Fortune 500 companies and is the author of two books, Leading Team Alpha and Yoga in No Time at All. Joel holds a master's degree in industrial and organizational psychology from Kansas State University, an MBA from Xavier University, and a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from Purdue University. He is a member of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), the Society of Consulting Psychology (SCP), the American Psychological Association (APA), and the Society for Human Resource Management.
The views and opinions expressed in guest posts featured on this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of the International Coach Federation (ICF). The publication of a guest post on the ICF Blog does not equate to an ICF endorsement or guarantee of the products or services provided by the author.
Additionally, for the purpose of full disclosure and as a disclaimer of liability, this content was possibly generated using the assistance of an AI program. Its contents, either in whole or in part, have been reviewed and revised by a human. Nevertheless, the reader/user is responsible for verifying the information presented and should not rely upon this article or post as providing any specific professional advice or counsel. Its contents are provided “as is,” and ICF makes no representations or warranties as to its accuracy or completeness and to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law specifically disclaims any and all liability for any damages or injuries resulting from use of or reliance thereupon.
Thanks for sharing these results, Joel! It’s always nice to have scientifically valid evidence to back up anecdotes and personal experience. Do you have the numbers for the increases in the study? Or anything that suggests the scale of the success?
Meredith, I’m glad you find this study interesting. You ask a good question.
In statistics for the behavioral sciences one of the measures we use is called effect size. These effect size calculations are normalized, that is they are a ratio of the data and therefore don’t contain units and can be directly compared to similar types of data across studies.
In order to assess what you are asking, that is, is this data showing a great deal of change or a small change, effect sizes are generally reported as small, medium, or large.
In this study most of the changes were measured as large, so the coaching had a significant effect on the measures used.
Joel,
I will need to read your article. However, I’m wondering if it was the Gallup strengths based coaching that was used. I’m interested because we are using Gallup strengths-based leadership training and selective coaching for our client, and I’m seeking a means to evaluate the impact of this investment, as well as means to ensure efficacy. Any information or insights you or others want to share would be much appreciated.
Best,
Bill Van Lente, MBA, PsyD
Senior Organizational Development Manager
UC Davis Health System