The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta‐analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching
verifiedrich profile · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · 2015
Jones, Rebecca J.; Woods, Stephen A.; Guillaume, Yves R. F.
How this was studied
A meta-analytic synthesis — it pools many primary studies rather than running a single design, so there is no single-study diagram.
What this article reports
The findings we extracted from this work, normalized into Principia’s relationship form (X → Y). Each feeds the synthesized models below.
coaching → job satisfaction
Models this article informs
The meta-analytic priors this article contributes evidence to — its place in the broader synthesis.
In the authors’ words
The article’s own abstract.
This study presents a meta‐analysis synthesizing the existing research on the effectiveness of workplace coaching. We exclusively explore workplace coaching provided by internal or external coaches and therefore exclude cases of manager–subordinate and peer coaching. We propose a framework of potential outcomes from coaching in organizations, which we examine meta‐analytically ( k = 17). Our analyses indicated that coaching had positive effects on organizational outcomes overall (δ = 0.36), and on specific forms of outcome criteria (skill‐based δ = 0.28; affective δ = 0.51; individual‐level results δ = 1.24). We also examined moderation by a number of coaching practice factors (use of multisource feedback; type of coach; coaching format; longevity of coaching). Our analyses of practice moderators indicated a significant moderation of effect size for type of coach (with effects being stronger for internal coaches compared to external coaches) and use of multisource feedback (with the use of multisource feedback resulting in smaller positive effects). We found no moderation of effect size by coaching format (comparing face‐to‐face, with blended face‐to‐face and e‐coaching) or duration of coaching (number of sessions or longevity of intervention). The effect sizes give support to the potential utility of coaching in organizations. Implications for coaching research and practice are discussed. Practitioner points Our meta‐analysis supports the positive effects of workplace coaching as an approach to employee learning and development in organizations, with a variety of criteria. Our findings indicate that coaching was more effective when conducted by internal coaches and when multisource feedback was excluded. Workplace coaching was effective whether conducted face‐to‐face or using blended techniques (i.e., blending face‐to‐face with e‐coaching).
What the literature says about it
Attributed, open-access quotes from other works that cite this article, plus the citation-graph verdict tally. Corroborations and disputes, in one place — the honest-broker view.
supports “Irrespectively, research demonstrated that coaching is associated with a series of desired outcomes, such as increased work performance or well-being (Bozer & Jones, 2018; Grover & Furnham, 2016; Jones et al., 2016, 2018; Theeboom et al., 2014).”
supports “…to adopt and have high coaching efficacy is an important pursuit since coaching has been shown to have numerous benefits to individuals and organizations including increased self-awareness, improved relationships and higher performance (see for example Jones et al., 2016 and Theeboom et al., 2014).”
supports “Coaching serves as a method for facilitating employee learning, training, and development and often exhibits several performance-enhancing traits, whether explicitly or implicitly (Jones et al., 2016).”
supports “Multiple meta-analyses demonstrate that workplace coaching interventions lead to significant gains in performance, well-being, work attitudes, and goal-directed self-regulation (Jones et al., 2016; Theeboom et al., 2014).”
Ancillary research
Neighbouring works in the citation graph around this article.
- 10.1080/01973533.2024.2382718
- 10.1080/10447318.2024.2423125
- 10.1080/17521882.2024.2397380
- 10.3390/admsci15120461
Assembled from Principia’s registry — bibliographic record, extracted effect sizes, the models they inform, and open-access citing literature.