You’ve just delivered a comprehensive manager-as-coach training program. Feedback shows a satisfaction rating 4.2 out of 5 with 85% of managers completing the program. The program covered the GROW model and discussed listening and questioning as important skills. Your managers now know what coaching is, and what it isn’t.
Six months later, you decide to run some in-depth focus sessions with your sales teams. “Has your manager’s approach changed since the training?” Most shrug. A few mention that their manager asks more questions in their scheduled catchups. But when you dig deeper, nothing fundamental has shifted. Business planning still happens the same way. Difficult conversations about performance still default to directive mode. Periodic reviews look just like last year’s.
What went wrong? According to your metrics, nothing. According to reality, you invested significant resources into a program that changed little.
The uncomfortable truth is that a lot of what we believe about coaching is based on popular frameworks that sound sensible but don’t hold up under scrutiny. We’ve inherited models from other settings, applied them without question, and wondered why results are disappointing.
Coaching works – when it’s done properly. But “properly” looks different from what many programs teach.
Five Evidence-Based Realities About Coaching
After reviewing the research from organisational psychology, leadership development, and performance science, five patterns emerge. These aren’t contrarian opinions – they’re findings from peer-reviewed research just don’t back up common practice.
1. We’re Measuring the Wrong Thing
Every major organisation runs some version of a manager-as-coach program. But most programs fail because we’ve misunderstood what we’re trying to achieve. Line managers can’t function as formal coaches to their direct reports as a dedicated coach could- the roles conflict. The programs that do work focus on developing a coaching style of leadership rather than turning managers into coaches. The problem isn’t the concept. It’s that we measure completion and model recall instead of leadership behaviour change. Read more…
2. Poor Coaching is Worse Than No Coaching
Most organisations assume mediocre coaching is better than none. The evidence says otherwise. Research suggests that a lot of coaching delivered by line managers isn’t high-value. Poor coaching doesn’t just fail to help. It erodes trust, wastes cognitive resources, and creates confusion about standards.
3. Not All Goals are SMART
SMART goals dominate performance management. They work well for execution. But research shows they can be actively harmful when someone is learning a new skill. Narrow goals can reduce awareness of important context and other critical factors. When developing capability, learning goals outperform performance goals. Most Manager-as-Coach programs don’t make this distinction.
4. Motivation Matters
Commercial targets are straightforward: revenue, market share, adoption rates. Hit the numbers. But Self-Determination Theory shows that achieving extrinsic goals (wealth, status, external markers) provides minimal benefit to wellbeing or sustained motivation. Achieving intrinsic goals (personal growth, contribution, mastery) consistently enhances both. The coach’s job is helping people connect commercial targets to intrinsic motivations.
5. Coaching Is More Than a Relationship
The coaching industry emphasises relationship quality above all else. Build rapport. Create trust. Establish a strong working alliance. But research comparing goal-focused coaching with person-centred coaching found that goal focus significantly predicted whether people achieved their goals – while relationship focus did not, once goal focus was accounted for. Rapport is necessary. But it’s the cost of entry, not the main game.
Doing Better
The gap between popular coaching advice and evidence-based practice creates predictable problems: programs that feel good but change little, investments that don’t deliver returns, managers who complete training but don’t shift their approach.
The research exists and the evidence is clear. As L&D professionals, it’s our job to know and use the evidence available to us. The question is whether we are willing to do the hard work this requires.