Coaching is an expensive personnel development format that is expected to help the client in his/her development. Moreover, it can be a highly lucrative profession, as the demand for coaching has increased over the past two decades (International Coaching Federation (ICF)
2016; Juchniewicz
2017) and fee rates are high, up to 1000 Euros per hour (Passmore et al.
2017). Yet, coaching is an unregulated profession with a wide diversity of individuals drawn to the sector (Lenoble
2013; Meindl
2016; Stephan and Gross
2013). As the profession of “coaching” is unregulated and lacks a clear definition, barriers to entry are low: Anyone can call themselves a coach and use the term ‘coaching’ to describe what their practice, however their practise may be closer to training or mentoring than to coaching (Meindl
2016). This unregulated coaching market has led to the challenge of
intangibility, inseparability, and heterogeneity: Coaching is difficult to grasp as a service, difficult to separate from other services, and differs reflecting the coach’s individual background (Greif
2017,
2018).
Two criteria that personnel managers rely on with regard to coaching quality are coach training (how intensive was the coach training) and coaching experience (how many years has the coach worked as a coach or how many hours of coach practise have they collected) (ICF
2016). When it comes to experience, it might seem intuitively to credit quality to an experienced coach and his/her work. However, taking a closer look at related domains, such as psychotherapy, experience is not directly correlated with improving effectiveness and can even be less beneficial for client outcomes (Goldberg et al.
2016). The question however has not been investigated within coaching research. This article investigates whether coach training or coaching experience is more reliable when it comes to coaching quality and how this is monitored. This research further contributes to assessing coaching quality for both practice and research.
1.1 Coaching quality
Coaching quality is of importance for the clients, who rely on good coaching quality and a trustworthy coach (Alvey and Barclay
2007). Quality in terms of a service can be defined as ‘the extent to which the service delivered meets the customer’s expectations’ (Ghobadian et al.
1994, p. 49). Previous research on services has used exact measures to measure service quality (see research with the SERVQUAL measure developed by Parasuraman et al.
1988). Although coaching is a service and should therefore have quality measures (Nerdinger
2018), coaching quality is difficult to measure, as coaching involves complex interactions with many individual aspects (Greif
2018; Looss
2014). ‘Coaches themselves disagree over why they’re hired, what they do, and how to measure success’ (Coutu and Kauffman
2009, p. 26).
The quality of human resource development formats such as training are often assessed with outcome measures that involve satisfaction and well-being as well as improving the behavior or performance (Felstead et al.
2010; Passmore and Velez
2013). Similar to training, such coaching outcome measures include career or life satisfaction (Bozer and Sarros
2012; Leonard-Cross
2010; Richardson
2010), well-being (Grant et al.
2009,
2010; O’Connor and Cavanagh
2013), and situation improvements, such as goal attainment (Grant
2014; Grant et al.
2010; Ianiro et al.
2013; O’Connor and Cavanagh
2013), self-awareness (Bozer and Sarros
2012; Grant
2014; Leonard-Cross
2010), and job performance (Bowles et al.
2007; Bozer and Sarros
2012; Bright and Crockett
2012). However, these “diversified outcomes addressed in coaching make coaching objectives inherently incomparable as an outcome measure” (Grover and Furnham
2016, p. 5). One of these outcome measures stands out, as it is highly correlated with perceived quality: Satisfaction has been found to be a more affective measure for product quality (Bitner and Hubbert
1994; Churchill and Surprenant
1982; Ghobadian et al.
1994; Olsen
2002). Thus, one way to assess coaching quality may be by measuring coaching satisfaction.
1.2 Coaching quality control
When it comes to coaching quality, it is important to measure and therefore control for good coaching quality. Quality control is the process of assessing the intended standard of the service (Cambridge University Press
2020).
To summarize, coaching quality can be ensured via self-reflection, supervision, and evaluation. Yet, it is unclear whether such quality control processes are more commonly used by more highly trained or more experienced coaches.
1.3 The present research on coaching quality: coach training versus coaching experience
By being aware of quality measures and especially on how to control for them, a higher coaching quality can be reached (Greif
2018). One way of learning to ensure quality is through an
in-depth education (Thorndike
1912)—in other words, an in-depth
coach training. Coach training can help to promote self-reflection as a means of personal development (Möller and Drexler
2011; Stiftung Warentest
2013). Moreover, this increase in
self-reflection is an expected outcome of the coach training process. It can be further enhanced through supervision or exercises with feedback and evaluation (Rauen
2017), which may serve as a mechanism for the adjustment and development of a new self-identity (Moore and Koning
2015). Thus, a coach training programme should include opportunities to develop self-awareness, receive feedback, and engage in supervision (Klenner and Bischofberger
2014). In coach training, the participants should also spend time in tutor observed practice, on which such feedback and reflective practice is based (e.g., Braumandl and Dirscherl
1 2005). Thus, a coach training programme may help coaches to learn not only certain coaching skills and diverse approaches but also self-reflection competencies (Mennicken
2011; Preston and Hammond
2003; Lippmann
2016; Rauen
2017; Moore and Koning
2015). These competencies might, in turn, have a mediating role in making sense of one’s identity, since they offer a balance between acting and thinking. Elements of the coach training that permit individuals to relate to themselves directly or indirectly relating to others might also contribute to this process of identity work (Moore and Koning
2015). In addition, people with coach training feel more self-regulated than people with no coach training (Schiemann et al.
2018).
Besides coach training, coaching experience, being the number of years a person has worked as a coach, or coaching hours, is often used for assessing coaching quality (ICF
2016). Some have argued (McCleary
2006) that experience is more important to coaching quality than coach training. However, experience alone cannot help with one’s blind spots and individual bias filtered of one’s own experience leads to distortions (Frey
1986,
2006); in other words, the coach may adopt specific rationales to explain their behavior due to social, economic, organizational, or political influences (Louis and Fatien Diochon
2018). External feedback, used in coach training, allows for such blind spots to be exposed and explored (Frey
1986; Luft and Ingham
1955).
Consequently, we propose that coach training plays a central role in coaching quality. In other words, an evidence-based coach training, with observed practice, supervision and self-reflection is needed to enhance quality and supports the development of a professional identity (Cavanagh
2013; Grant and Cavanagh
2004; Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson
2001; Moore and Koning
2015). More concisely, we had the following two hypotheses:
To test our assumption, we conducted two studies, asking 2267 coaches (Study 1; self-assessment) and 754 personnel managers engaged in coach commissioning (Study 2; other-assessment) about the coaches’ coach training, coaching experience, coaching quality, and quality control. The two studies were conducted to provide alternative perspectives with data from both the customer and the service-provider. These two studies were conducted separately: Coaches reported on quality control measures regarding self-reflection, supervision, and own evaluation techniques. Personnel managers (commissioners of coaching) gave insight into how coaches are selected, evaluated, and recommended.