The Grand Challenge for Research on the Future of Coaching

Abstract

The popularity of coaching as a development activity in organizations has outpaced the research. To inspire research and strengthen our intellectual foundation, the Thought Leadership Institute of the International Coaching Federation invited 35 of the most recognized coaching scholars and 12 coaching leaders to three two-hour discussions. Each session began with three presenters briefly sharing observations about what we know and need to find out. The three sessions focused on: (1) the desired outcomes of coaching; (2) the process and mechanism of coaching; and (3) coaching for people from distinctive cultures, genders, and context. A fourth theme emerged as the major gap in the research about the competencies of effective coaches. This paper summarizes the discussions. Twenty-two specific research needs for the coming years are identified and presented, clustered within the four themes. This should provide guidance for graduate students, faculty and consultants considering research on coaching.

Neutral In‐Tensions: Navigating Neutrality in Coaching

“…The eclectic and varied nature of coaching, as well as its general under‐theorization (Bachkirova and Borrington, 2019; Boyatzis et al, 2022), suggest that a priori concepts around coaching, such as neutrality, may imperfectly capture what coaches actually do in their everyday work. By discussing coaching in terms of practices, we refer to everyday habits, routines, and actions (Jarzabkowski and Whittington, 2008) through which coaching is done.…”

“…For instance, several models are reported opinion‐based marketing devices developed by practitioners to promote their own approaches with poor empirical evidence or conceptual justifications (Bachkirova and Borrington, 2019; Jackson, 2004). The lack of theoretical elaboration in coaching has led educators and researchers (Bachkirova et al, 2017; Boyatzis et al, 2022) to advocate strengthening coaching's intellectual foundations, encouraging ‘honest and courageous critique’ for the ‘field and the practice of coaching [to] truly develop and overcome the distractions or seduction of fads and current political or value‐based dictates’ (Boyatzis et al, 2022). Authors worry that otherwise, coaches may apply tools atheoretically and engage in ‘cherry picking as coaching tools and techniques proliferate’ (Hurlow, 2022, p. 121).…”

“…Despite an emergent literature around its organizational and managerial processes and implications (e.g., Graßmann et al, 2020; Louis and Fatien Diochon, 2018; Shoukry and Cox, 2018), coaching has been portrayed as a practice running ahead of its supporting theories (Boyatzis et al, 2022; Cox et al, 2014), ‘an industry without a discipline’ (Bachkirova and Borrington, 2019, p. 337). This theoretical paucity leaves practitioners with an assortment of eclectic concepts and tools, with the risk of inconsistencies, incoherence, or even harm when putting their ideas into practice within complex organizational contexts (Bachkirova and Borrington, 2020; Cox et al, 2014).…”

“…Yet this very exteriority may support coaches' instrumentalization for managerial ends (Schulz, 2018), serving political causes of which they are unaware from the outset (Shoukry, 2017). Moreover, to the extent that neutrality rests on what Bachkirova (2017) describes as the ‘modernist’ aspect of coaching philosophy, it may clash with contemporary challenges to organizations to take on more activist and socially embedded responsibilities (Boyatzis et al, 2022; Western, 2012).…”

Warum beteiligen sich Coaches an Coaching-Forschung – und warum eigentlich nicht?

“…Wie im dritten Punkt angeführt, überwiegen in der Coaching-Forschung retrospektive, querschnittliche Studien. Längsschnittstudien, d. h. Prä-Post-Studien oder Studien, die die Wirksamkeit von Coaching zu mehreren Zeitpunkten messen, sind seltener, werden aber dringend benötigt, um kausale Schlüsse zwischen verschiedenen Variablen zu ziehen (Boyatzis et al 2022;Bozer und Jones 2018;Burt und Talati 2017). Der im vierten Punkt angesprochene Mangel an Kontrollgruppendesigns (experimentell oder quasi-experimentell) schmälert die interne Validität der durchgeführten Studien (Burt und Talati 2017;Jones et al 2016;Kotte 2021).…”