Executive Coaching Works, but the Organization's Role Is Unsettled
Executive coaching works, on average. What the research hasn't settled is what the organization that pays for it should contribute. That gap matters if you sponsor coaching, because the closest evidence suggests the organization shapes whether the gains hold, though nobody has fully tested the claim.
What the Evidence Says About Executive Coaching
Erik de Haan, a professor at VU University Amsterdam in the Netherlands who directs a coaching center at Hult International Business School, and Viktor Nilsson, a research data manager at the Norwegian School of Economics, pooled randomized controlled trials, where coached people are compared with a randomly assigned control group. In What Can We Know about the Effectiveness of Coaching? A Meta-Analysis Based Only on Randomized Controlled Trials, they found an overall effect of g = 0.59 across 39 samples and 2,528 participants.
What does 0.59 mean? An effect size is not a percentage. It compares how much a coached group improved with how much a comparison group improved, measured in standard deviations, the typical spread of scores among people. De Haan and Nilsson note that an effect of 0.5 is "large enough to be seen by the naked eye," like the height gap between 14-year-olds and 18-year-olds, and they call their result moderate.
The result has limits. When others observed the change, such as direct reports or peers, the effect was 0.29, against 0.62 when coachees rated themselves. After the authors adjusted for publication bias, the estimate fell to 0.32. For leaders, the effect of 0.54 lost statistical significance once they corrected for multiple comparisons, though that group was small, 7 samples and 343 participants. And a new study could find anything from slightly negative (-0.19) to strongly positive (1.38).
The Organization's Role Has Barely Been Tested
Andromachi Athanasopoulou of Queen Mary University of London, a reader in organisational behaviour, and Sue Dopson, Rhodes Trust Professor of Organisational Behaviour at Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford, wrote a 2015 book on executive coaching for Oxford University Press. Their review in A systematic review of executive coaching outcomes: Is it the journey or the destination that matters the most? covered 110 peer-reviewed studies published through 2016. Of those, 60 gave no consideration to the setting around the coaching. Just 3 looked at organizational-level outcomes, and only 4 studied all three parties, the organization, the executive, and the coach. Through 2016, none examined the contracting stage between the coach and the sponsoring organization, or what that stage did to results. The two studies that calculated return on investment reported 689% and 221%, and both rested largely on estimates.
Newer work has started to test the question. Joschka Rust, a research associate, and Carsten Schermuly, a professor of business psychology, both at SRH University of Applied Sciences Heidelberg in Germany, surveyed 119 coachees who had completed workplace coaching within the past 18 months. In Beyond the dyad: the role of organisational factors in workplace coaching outcomes, a culture for psychological empowerment was associated with greater perceived coaching success and fewer side effects. Organizational support and goal alignment showed no significant association with either outcome. The authors conclude that coaching is "a context-sensitive developmental intervention." It's a cross-sectional survey of workplace coaching in general, not executives alone, so it shows association and not cause.
Put the pieces together. Coaching works on average, the organization's contribution has rarely been tested, and the best recent test is mixed. Nothing here shows that coaching fails without a sponsor. The defensible claim is narrower. When the organization's responsibilities stay undefined, coaching carries a preventable risk.
What to Put in an Executive Coaching Contract
The evidence gives you questions, not a template. The answers below mix evidence with practical judgment, and I'll mark the difference.
Start with who the sponsor is. The International Coaching Federation (ICF) defines the sponsor as whoever pays for or arranges the coaching. Its ICF Code of Ethics, in effect since April 1, 2025, asks coaches to agree on roles, responsibilities, and confidentiality with clients and sponsors before coaching begins. That's a professional expectation, not evidence that a contracting method improves outcomes.
South African researchers Zelda Burger, an executive coach at Montage Leadership Development in Durban, and Salome Van Coller-Peter, an associate professor at Stellenbosch Business School, interviewed 12 participants from three corporate organizations. In A guiding framework for multi-stakeholder contracting in executive coaching, they favor contracting at the start, during, and at the close of an engagement, with "all stakeholders emphasising phase-specific accountabilities." It's exploratory, not a test of effectiveness.
Settle these questions in writing:
Start with purpose. Who in the organization owns it, and does the executive agree with it? Athanasopoulou and Dopson point to alignment on purpose, methods, measurement, and desired outcomes as part of the contract. In my judgment, a good goal names an observable behavior and a business consequence it could plausibly influence, and it needs the executive's acceptance. Revenue growth is too distant to serve as the only test.
Spell out what the organization will provide. Protected time, access to feedback, clear decision authority, and chances to practice are commitments someone can keep and review. Name a person who can act when barriers appear, and revisit the agreement if a restructuring changes the executive's authority. That's judgment, though it fits the empowering-culture finding above.
Agree on how you'll measure change, and from whom. De Haan and Nilsson found larger effects in self-reports than in ratings by others, so add ratings from direct reports and supervisors. Set a baseline and review points, and read business indicators with caution, because staffing, demand, and systems also change results. Weak results warrant asking whether the executive got the promised support.
Keep the private work private. Involve the organization in purpose, support, and measurement, but not in session content. The sponsor can ask whether agreed behaviors show up at work without reading the executive's private reflections. If one professional both coaches and advises on business choices, the ICF code asks that person to disclose when acting outside the coaching role.
Context changes the details. The research here comes from the Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom, Germany, and South Africa, and it's thin. Organizations that operate across borders should agree how feedback, sponsorship, and privacy expectations will work in each setting. A small business may combine manager and sponsor in one person, but the contract still needs a named one.
My view is that the organization belongs in the contract, with its duties written down. That's a judgment, and the research supports it only in part. That part is enough to ask one question before your next executive coaching engagement starts. What has the organization agreed to do, besides pay?
When the Gap Is Between the Ask and the Support
Growth, changing responsibilities, and performance pressure often expose gaps between what leaders are asked to deliver and how the organization supports them. Aspirations Consulting Group helps leaders connect people, strategy, and execution when those gaps call for a broader view.
Follow the Evidence Behind Leadership Decisions
ACG Strategic Insights™ brings practical perspective to more than 10 million executives and aspiring leaders worldwide every weekday. Request a complimentary subscription to bring these insights into your leadership practice.
Thanks for reading!
~ Jerry Justice
Living to Serve, Serving to Lead™
Comments