A Critical Evaluation of the Outcome Research Dominating the Field of Executive Coaching

Objective: In their review, Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson (2001) identified that there was a need for the rigorous investigation into the type of outcomes to be expected from executive coaching and how the process in executive coaching relates to these outcomes. Almost ten years on, Grant et al. (2010) came to many of the same conclusions. This paper will evaluate the main issues with the theory and research in the field of executive coaching outcomes and why little change has been seen over the past decade.
Content: The underlying philosophy of the field will be addressed, followed by an examination of the development of theories of executive coaching effectiveness. Finally the methodology utilised in executive coaching effectiveness studies will be discussed.
Methods: A critical evaluation of the literature, utilising existing reviews such as Grant et al. (2010), Feldman and Lankau (2005) and Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson (2001).
Results: The key limitations that can be attributed to the majority of research in executive coaching effectiveness are: a lack of theory which follows a systematic development process (such as described by Van de Ven, 2000); rigorous methodology, particularly utilising longitudinal designs with a control group; exploration of antecedents, mediators and moderators of effectiveness; the use of standardized outcomes to increase comparability between studies; exploration of objective outcomes, particularly at the organisational level; and the use of larger samples to ensure adequate statistical power and to increase generalisability.
Conclusion: Both quantitative and qualitative approaches can add a great deal to the research into executive coaching effectiveness. However for coaching research to really become more established, researchers must ensure that their research will address the limitations highlighted.