Evidence Based Coaching

Posted on December 10, 2021 by Keith White, One of Thousands of Business Coaches on Noomii.

Evidence Based Coaching Practices
Coaches come from a variety of backgrounds; some from the business world, some from counseling, while others come from academia. Each background provides a unique perspective. A coach with a business background brings a practical, pragmatic approach; a coach with a therapeutic background focuses on developing people, where an academic considers why something works.
The world of coaching operates under the radar. In this environment, a coach with no training or credential can hang up their shingle and start a practice. Two popular press articles, one in Harvard Business Review the other in Fast Company, refer to coaching as the “wild west” because of its self-regulated, unmonitored environment. Stober and Grant’s work, “Evidence based Coaching: A Handbook” proposes the move from fad to profession requires more than a code of ethics and best practices. Coaches need a foundation based on evidence not innuendo, and hard-facts not presumptions. An essential part of this foundation involves the use of assessment tools based on firm evidence.
The Assessment Tool
The use of the ‘assessment survey’ is common-place for coaches. A Google search of coaching and assessment tools on May 29, 2014 produced 1.4 million hits. It appears virtually every coaching website offers an assessment tool and the tools are often used to market the coaching practice. Some assessment tools are developed by experienced life coaches; some are purely marketing tools, while others are developed using rigorous academic standards; thus, they are based on sound evidence.
As professionals, coaches must consider which assessment tool is appropriate for their situation. If a coach uses the assessment to get the ball rolling, that is, to start a coaching conversation, the validity of the tool may not be a concern. On the other hand, if the purpose of the tool is to measure of success the client the coach must use due diligence. The evidence-based tool is harder to find but it is well worth the effort. This extra effort pays off. This gives the coach more bang for their buck. One such tool is the Perceived Quality of the Employee Coaching Relationship (PQECR). Gregory and Levy’s article, “Employee coaching relationships: enhancing construct clarity and measurement” describes the PQECR’s development, it’s purpose and leads to considerable insight ⁴.
What the tool teaches about the Coaching Conversation
According to the authors of the PQECR, the tool was developed to measure the coaching leader-subordinate dyad. This is defined as “a working partnership between an employee and his/her direct supervisor that is focused on addressing the performance and development of that employee” ⁵. This tool is not designed to measure the coaching relationship for executive, peer, or life coaches; it is designed to measure the managerial coach-subordinate relationship. The PQECR measures the employee relationship utilizing four constructs: genuineness of the relationship, effective communication, comfort with the relationship, and facilitating development. One construct, the distinctiveness of the relationship, was also considered in the development of the tool, but subsequently eliminated by the developer.
The appropriate use of the tool
It is not enough to know what the tool proposes to measure. Due diligence requires the coach to assure the tool is reliable. Does the tool consistently measure what it is supposed to measure? The most widely used measure of the reliability of a tool is Cronbach’s alpha. The purpose of this discussion is not to train coaches to be statisticians; thus, it is enough to say an alpha between .70 and .95 is a reliable measure ⁶. The developers tested the PQECR for reliability and found a coefficient alpha of .95 ⁷. The PQECR was utilized in White’s ⁸ quantitative research along with Mowdays’et al. Shortened Organizational Commitment instrument. Affective organizational commitment is the emotional bond in a relationship ⁹. White’s research focused on one organization that employs millennial, entry-level workers. A review of the literature led to the hypothesis “There is a correlation between leader-follower relationship and affective organizational commitment at (the organization)” ¹⁰. The most interesting finding in this research was unexpected. No significant relationship was found between affective commitment and the leader-follower relationship. How could this be? Did the researcher misunderstand the literature, or did the assessment tools not measure what they were supposed to measure?
A further look at the findings answer this question. In White’s research effective communication, as one construct, was found to have no significant relationship to affective commitment. Insight came when the researcher examined the three items that make up effective communication. The items listening, and talking were found to have a significant, statistical relationship with affective commitment, but the third item communication did not. How can this be? The supervisors are good listeners, the employees feel they can talk to their supervisors, but there is a lack of communication. This led White to suggest:
The coaching paradigm offers a divergent view of leadership than the traditional command and control hierarchy… The employees (at the organization) perceive they can talk to their leaders and that they are heard but there is still miscommunication. This suggests that the employees do not perceive this discussion leads to action. This is due, in part, to the slow and deliberate nature of the hierarchy; the hierarchy resists change. (The Organizational) leaders need to empower their employees with the physical and emotional resources they require to do their job. The leaders need to find a way to diminish the perception that a nameless, blameless hierarchy, with deaf ears, runs the show. ¹¹ (pp.12, 24)
Effective communication is a core competency for the coach. This research suggests there is another aspect in the communication process. Communication is more than talking and listening; communication is meaningful when it leads to action. In the research, the participants wanted it all; they wanted an emotional bond with their supervisor and they wanted their supervisor to exhibit organizational competence.
The construct, distinctiveness of the relationship, is not a reliable measure because of the nature of the leader-subordinate relationship. The managerial coach is after all the boss. The managerial leader of an organization has a dual focus. The managerial coach must balance the needs of the organization with the needs of the subordinate. The coaching-leader may have the best interest of the subordinate in mind, but the subordinate perceives the manager has a conflict of interest. The traditional standard coach-coachee relationship does have this potential conflict; thus, the distinctiveness of the relationship is more appropriate for the traditional coach-coachee relationship.
Final Thoughts
Coaches must recognize the coaching conversation is powerful, but the coaching conversation is transformational when the conversation leads to action. A coaching conversation that leads to inaction, or more conversation, is not effective. Coaching leads to action and coaching leads to the development of the client’s agenda. Effective coaching, action, and effective conversation lead are crucial to the effective coaching experience.
 
References
1. Stafford Sherman and Alyssa Freas, “The Wild West of Executive Coaching,” Harvard Business Review, Nov (2004): accessed www.hrb.org/2004/11/the-wild-west-of-coaching/ar/1.
2. Drake Baer, “A look inside the wild west of life coaching,” Fast Company (2013, December), accessed www.fastcompany.com/3023504/leadership-now/an-inside-look-into-the-wild-west-of-life-coaching 2013
3. Diane Stober and Anthony M. Grant eds. (2006). Evidence based coaching. Hoboken, J: John Wiley & Sons.
4. Jane Brodie-Gregory, & Paul E. Levy, “Employee coaching relationships: enhancing clarity and measurement,” Coaching: An International Journal of Theory: Research and Practice, 3(2010): 109-213.
5. Ibid. 111
6. Ibid 109-213
7. Ibid: 109-213
8. White, R. (2014). An Organizational Study. Unpublished paper, Regent University,
Virginia Beach, VA.

9. R. Mowday, R. Steers, and L. Porter, “The measurement of organizational
Commitment,” Journal of Vocational Behavior 14 (1979): 224-247.
10. White, R. (2014). An Organizational Study. Unpublished paper, Regent University,

Virginia Beach, VA. 12

11. Ibid. 12, 24