Is coaching more effective than other forms of training and development?

Mark Evenden I have often had discussions with other training and development professionals about the different approaches and interventions to developing leadership and management competence. When discussing the various development options, questions often arise over the relative effectiveness of coaching over other more ‘conventional’ workshop style approaches. Several colleagues have 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 that might produce different outcomes? My personal experience has been gained from being coached and attending leadership development courses, as well as having coached many leaders and delivered numerous development programmes. From my experience 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 workshop style leadership development programmes are run in groups. The agenda and objectives for a group leadership development intervention will have been developed to best meet the needs of the whole group and may or may not relate directly to an individual on the programme. This is in stark contrast to the objectives for coaching which are set by the coachee and can be flexible and evolve as the coachee progresses. The coaching 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. This can mean that the ‘call to action’ is also stronger and more specific for a coachee than for a participant on a leadership programme. The ability for an individual leaders 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 is often 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. However, I am certainly not suggesting that conventional group workshop 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. Clearly each approach to development has its own merits and if I reflect on the most successful leadership development programmes that I have been involved in they have been a blend of coaching, conventional ‘training’ as well as other approaches. In this way the participants 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.