The document discusses whether coaching is effective and how its effectiveness can be evaluated. It notes that while coaching is a large industry, the research on its effectiveness has limitations. Specifically, much of the research only looks at client satisfaction rather than objective outcomes, and there is a lack of long-term or comparative studies. The document argues that systematic reflection, such as providing feedback and examples for learners to analyze, can help improve performance by promoting deeper cognitive processing. One study found that participants who received feedback plus an opportunity for reflection showed greater improvement between two tasks than those in other conditions. Overall, the document advocates for more rigorous research on coaching that incorporates systematic reflection techniques.

1. Does coaching work
(and why you should care)
Frederik Anseel (Ghent University)
Contact: frederik.anseel@ugent.be
Downloads (web): fanseel.be
Twitter: @fanseel

3. Does
coaching
work?

4. Does
coaching
work?
Of
course,
why
otherwise
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Are
coaches
paid
to
do
it?
Do
businesses
buy
it?
Do
individual
clients
pay
for
it?
Do
individual
clients
come
back
for
more?
Do
they
have
coaching
qualifica<ons?
Are
there
conferences
on
coaching?
Are
lots
of
books
published
about
coaching?
Are
so
many
employed
to
do
it?
Does
it
keep
growing?
Are
there
so
many
coaching
businesses?
It’s
helping
other
people,
what
can
possibly
go
wrong?
Well,
that’s
se9led
then…

6. The
coaching
field
is
filled
with
contradic>ons.
Coaches
themselves
disagree
over
why
they’re
hired,
what
they
do,
and
how
to
measure
succes…
In
this
market,
as
in
so
many
others
today,
the
old
saw
s>ll
applies:
Buyer
beware!
(Harvard
Business
Review,
Coutu
&
Kauffman,
2009)

7. Problemen
Wat
is
‘coaching’?
– Evenveel
defini<es
als
coaches
Regula>e?
– Meerdere
federa<es
-­‐
cer<ficering
– Who
cares?
“Clients
and
endorsements
are
the
currency
of
coaching
business”
Wie
coacht?
Wat
gebeurt
er
in
coaching?
– Werkingsmechanisme?
– Doelstellingen
en
match
tussen
doelstelling,
methode
en
context?

8. Why
should
you
care?

9. Why
you
should
care
Indien
u
een
kwakzalver
bent
–
–
–
–
–
Dan
weet
u
het
wellicht
niet
(maar
iedereen
praat
achter
uw
rug).
Vroeg
of
laat
valt
u
door
de
mand.
Kan
u
veel
meer
verdienen
met
methodes
die
ook
echt
werken
Kan
u
ook
schade
aanrichten
HoeL
u
niet
langer
met
collega’s
te
discussiëren
over
uw
methode
Indien
u
een
effec>eve
coach
bent
–
–
–
–
–
Kan
u
eindelijk
begrijpen
waarom
u
zo
effec<ef
bent,
ondanks
uzelf
Kan
u
uw
effec<viteit
verhogen
HoeL
u
zich
niet
langer
te
ergeren
over
de
toestand
van
uw
vakgebied
Kan
u
zich
duidelijk
onderscheiden
van
de
kwakzalvers
HoeL
u
niet
langer
met
collega’s
te
discussiëren
over
uw
methode

10. Wat
zegt
de
wetenschap?
(Noot:
ik
ben
een
believer)

13. Hoe coaching evalueren?
Coaching
Meting
achteraf
Satisfaction
Self-report
progress
Objective
outcomes
Supervisor or
other ratings

14. 80% of studies that evaluated the
accuracy of self-assessments of
knowledge, skills or abilities concluded
that learners’ self-assessments were
remarkably inaccurate
(Sitzmann et al., 2010)

15. Hoe coaching evalueren?
Pre - test / post – test
Meting
Vooraf
Coaching
Meting
achteraf
Pre – test / post – test met controlegroep
Meting
Vooraf
Rando
m
Coaching
Meting
Vooraf
Coaching
Meting
achteraf
Meting
achteraf

16. Evidence?
• Quite
a
lot
of
coaching
research
has
been
done
– “How
sa<sfied
are
you?”
• Rela>vely
li9le
of
it
is
good-­‐quality
research
– Objec<ve
outcomes,
control
group,
performance
or
development
• No
long-­‐term
effects
research
• No
compara>ve
research
with
other
interven<ons
• Researchers
lament
the
state
of
the
field

21. Why
I
believe
coaching
works

23. Importance
of
reflec>on
• Kolb,
Dewey:
“Without
reflec>on,
experience
may
be
of
li9le
use”
• “For
most
individuals
reflec<on
is
probably
the
least
favorite
ac>vity”
TUM
-­‐
01.10.2013

24. Theore>cal
basis
of
reflec>on
• Dual
process-­‐models
in
cogni<ve
en
social
psychology
• Two
modes
of
cogni<ve
processing
Strategy 1
Automatic
Implicit
Rapid
Undemanding of
cognitive capacity
Strategy 2
Controlled
Explicit
Slow
Demanding of
cognitive capacity
• Strategy
2:
stronger
and
longer-­‐las<ng
learning
effects
TUM
-­‐
01.10.2013

26. Systema>c
Reflec>on
Interven>ons
• How
to
elicit
strategy
2
?
• Self-­‐explana*on:
"how
did
you
contribute
to
the
performance
observed
in
the
experience",
"why
did
you
do
A
or
decide
B?“
• Data
verifica*on:
"consider
a
different
approach
that
could
have
been
taken"
and
"what
might
have
happened
if
that
approach
was
chosen“
• Feedback:
"what
worked,
what
did
not
work",
"what
has
been
learned
from
the
experience",
and
"how
will
you
behave
in
the
future?”
•
Ellis,
S.,
Carebe,
B.,
Anseel,
F.,
&
Lievens,
F
(in
press).
Systema<c
Reflec<on:
Implica<ons
for
Learning
from
Failures
and
Successes.
Current
Direc*ons
in
Psychological
Science

27. After Event Reviews
“Learning procedure that gives learners an opportunity to
systematically analyze their behavior and to be able to
evaluate the contribution of its components to
performance outcomes”
(Ellis & Davidi, 2005: 857)

28. Study
procedure
• Experiment
– Feedback:
quan<ta<ve
and
qualita<ve
feedback
for
each
competency
– Reflec<on:
behavioral
example
of
a
correct
and
an
incorrect
response
for
each
competency
required
No feedback + No reflection
Feedback + reflection
In-basket
Task 1
Feedback + reflection
In-basket
Task 2
No feedback + reflection
Performance 1
Performance 2
28

29. 29

30. 30

31. 31

32. 32

33. 33

34. 34

35. 35

36. Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
16
Task 1
Task 2
15
14
13
Mean Task Performance
12
11
No Feedback / No Reflection
Feedback / Reflection
Feedback / No Reflection
No Feedback / Reflection
Anseel, F., Lievens, F., & Schollaert, E. (2009). Reflection as a strategy to enhance task performance after feedback.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 23-35.

37. Vertical bars denote .95 confidence intervals
16
Task 1
Task 2
15
14
Mean Task Performance
13
12
No feedback/ No reflection
Feedback/ Reflection
Feedback/ No reflection
No feedback/ Reflection
Anseel, F., Lievens, F., & Schollaert, E. (2009). Reflection as a strategy to enhance task performance after feedback.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 23-35.

38. So,
what
have
we
learned
here?

39. Limited
evidence
for
effec>veness
coaching
– If
you
are
a
believer,
you
should
care!
Focus
needed
in
coaching
interven>ons
1. Data verification!
2. Self-explanation!
3. Feedback and selfawareness!
4. Goal-setting!

40. Thanks!
Contact:
Frederik.anseel@ugent.be
Fanseel.be
@fanseel