• Home |
• About Us |
• Our Clients |
• Our Team |
• Contact Us |
• Testimonials

Why is coaching often more effective than other forms of training and development?

It is often suggested that using coaching to improve leadership capability and performance is more effective than spending the equivalent time on a conventional leadership or management development programme. While this is a somewhat subjective statement and quite difficult to measure objectively, there is a fair body of evidence that supports this view.

But what are the key differences between these two approaches to development which might produce a different outcome?

Firstly, coaching is a 1 to 1 process where the focus is completely on the individual, whereas conventional leadership development programmes are invariably run in groups. The agenda and objectives for a group leadership development programme will apply to the whole and may or may not relate directly to an individual manager's specific needs. In contrast, the objectives for a coaching session are largely set by the coachee and can be flexible and evolve as the coachee progresses. Again, while not impossible, this is much more difficult to do with a group of learners.

When coaching, the process deals with the reality of a coachee's situation rather than the generalities, theories, models or techniques that form the basis of many leadership programmes and courses. The call to action can also be stronger and more specific for a coachee than for a participant on a leadership programme where the action plans are often more general.

The follow through with actions agreed at a coaching session and the follow up where the coachee knows that they will be asked by the coach what progress they have made on their action plan is a stronger motivator to action than the follow up generally provided by a course.

The ability for the individual to talk and act honestly, naturally and spontaneously is generally easier in a 1 to 1 coaching session. Any displays of frustration, anger or emotion can sometimes be regarded as disruptive on a leadership or management training course and therefore not encouraged.

Finally, the timing of coaching sessions can be based around the individual’s needs and the speed at which they develop, rather than at specific time intervals which are fixed on a programme.

There are of course advantages of conventional leadership or management development programmes over coaching. For example, a group programme provides opportunities and stimulus for knowledge sharing, networking and team development, as well as delivering development in a consistent way.

In summary, therefore, the most effective leadership development programmes are those based on a blend of coaching, conventional ‘training’ and other approaches. In this way managers can gain the benefits of focusing on their specific learning needs from coaching as well as consistency, networking and sharing learning from a group programme.