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

by Mark Evenden @ Developing People Ltd

When discussing the different approaches to leadership development, questions arise over the effectiveness of coaching vs conventional leadership development programmes. It is frequently been suggested to me 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 I recognise that 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?

I have been coached and attended leadership development courses, as well as having coached leaders and delivered development programmes, and I think that there are a number of key differences.

Firstly coaching is a 1 to 1 process that is focussed is completely on the individual and their needs, 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 a leadership programme. Occasionally the barriers to unlocking someone’s potential need to remain confidential or they may lie outside the working environment which makes them almost impossible to resolve in a group situation.

The reality of a call to action can also be stronger and more specific for a coachee than for a participant on a leadership programme where the action can be seen as 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 can also be a stronger motivator to action than the follow up generally provided on a conventional 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, with sessions planned more closely together, or further part as appropriate. With a conventional programme, you have to deal with the needs of the majority and inevitably the specific time intervals between workshops will suit some and not others.

However, I am not suggesting that conventional leadership or management development programmes don’t have advantages over coaching, because they do. For example, a group programme provides opportunities and stimulus for knowledge sharing, networking and team development, as well as a mechanism for delivering development in a consistent way, and these points are very important and should not be overlooked.

Clearly each approach to development has its own merits and if I reflect on the most successful leadership development programmes that have been involved in they have been a blend of coaching, conventional ‘training’ and other approaches. In this way managers gain the benefits from coaching as it provides a focus for their specific learning needs as well as the benefits of consistency, networking and sharing learning from a group development programme.