The Growing Demand for Executive Coaching — and the Need for Evidence
Executive coaching has grown from a niche intervention into a multi-billion-dollar industry. Organizations invest in coaching to accelerate leader development, support high-potential talent through transitions, and strengthen the leadership pipeline. Yet despite its popularity, many business leaders and HR executives still ask a reasonable question: Does executive coaching actually work?
The answer, according to a growing body of rigorous research, is yes — but with important caveats. Not all coaching is created equal. The difference between coaching that produces lasting behavioral change and coaching that amounts to expensive conversation lies in a handful of critical factors: the qualifications of the coach, the use of valid assessment data, the alignment between coaching goals and organizational priorities, and the structures that hold leaders accountable for growth.
Understanding what the research says — and what separates effective coaching from well-intentioned but ineffective approaches — is essential for any organization that wants to see a meaningful return on its coaching investment.
What the Research Says: Executive Coaching Effectiveness
Two landmark meta-analyses have significantly advanced the evidence base for executive coaching. Theeboom, Beersma, and van Vianen (2014) conducted a meta-analysis of 18 studies and found that coaching produced significant positive effects on performance and skills, well-being, coping, work attitudes, and goal-directed self-regulation. The effect sizes were meaningful, suggesting that coaching does more than make people feel good — it changes how they perform and how they approach their work.
Grant (2014) extended this evidence by examining coaching outcomes across organizational settings and found that coaching interventions are associated with improvements in goal attainment, resilience, and workplace well-being. Importantly, Grant's work highlighted that the most effective coaching engagements share common structural features: they are goal-focused, they incorporate feedback mechanisms, and they operate within a framework of accountability.
Other researchers have contributed supporting evidence. A widely cited study by the International Coaching Federation reported that organizations using coaching saw improvements in productivity, employee engagement, and retention. De Meuse, Dai, and Lee (2009) examined coaching ROI and found that organizations reported returns ranging from modest to substantial, depending on how well the coaching engagement was designed and executed. The consistent finding across studies is that the context and structure of coaching matter as much as — and sometimes more than — the coaching conversations themselves.
What does this mean for business leaders? It means that executive coaching is a legitimate, evidence-based development intervention, but only when it is implemented with rigor. Simply hiring a coach and hoping for the best is not a strategy. The organizations that see the greatest returns are those that treat coaching as a structured process, not a perk.
The Four Factors That Make Coaching Work
1. A Qualified Coach With Relevant Expertise
The coaching industry is largely unregulated, which means that virtually anyone can call themselves an executive coach. This creates a real risk for organizations. Research consistently shows that the coach's qualifications matter. Coaches with formal training in psychology, organizational behavior, or related disciplines are better equipped to recognize complex behavioral dynamics, navigate resistance, and apply evidence-based techniques for behavior change (Bono, Purvanova, Towler, and Peterson, 2009).
A qualified coach understands not just how to ask powerful questions, but also how to interpret assessment data, recognize when a development challenge has deeper psychological roots, and design interventions that are grounded in the science of learning and motivation. Organizations should look for coaches who hold advanced credentials, have relevant professional experience, and can articulate a clear, evidence-based coaching methodology.
2. Assessment-Driven Goals
One of the most common reasons coaching engagements fail to produce results is that they begin without a clear diagnosis. When coaching goals are vague — "become a better leader" or "improve communication" — it becomes nearly impossible to measure progress or hold anyone accountable. Effective coaching starts with valid, reliable assessment data that identifies specific behavioral patterns, personality tendencies, and skill gaps.
Research on goal-setting theory (Locke and Latham, 2002) has established that specific, challenging goals lead to higher performance than vague or easy goals. When assessment data is used to set coaching objectives, the goals become concrete, measurable, and personally relevant to the leader. This transforms coaching from an abstract exercise into a focused development process with clear benchmarks for success.
The types of assessments used matter as well. Multi-rater (360-degree) feedback provides insight into how a leader is perceived by supervisors, peers, and direct reports — data that is often invisible to the leader themselves. Behavioral and personality assessments add depth by revealing underlying tendencies that drive observable behavior. The combination of these data sources creates a rich, multi-dimensional picture that serves as the foundation for a meaningful development plan.
3. Organizational Support and Alignment
Coaching does not happen in a vacuum. A leader who is being coached exists within an organizational system — with a boss, a team, a culture, and a set of strategic priorities. Research shows that coaching is significantly more effective when it is supported by the organization and aligned with business objectives (Bozer and Sarros, 2012).
This means that the leader's manager should be aware of the coaching engagement, ideally participating in goal-setting conversations. The organization's talent management strategy should inform what competencies are being developed. And the culture should signal that development is valued, not stigmatized. When coaching is perceived as a punishment or a remedial intervention, leaders are less likely to engage authentically. When it is positioned as an investment in high-potential talent, engagement and outcomes improve dramatically.
4. Accountability Structures
The final critical factor is accountability. Without it, even the most insightful coaching conversations fade into good intentions that never translate into changed behavior. Effective coaching engagements build in regular check-ins, progress reviews against specific goals, and mechanisms for re-assessment over time.
Accountability can take several forms: periodic re-administration of 360-degree feedback to track perceptual shifts, structured conversations between the leader and their manager about observed behavioral changes, and milestone reviews within the coaching engagement itself. The key principle is that what gets measured gets managed. When leaders know that their progress will be tracked and reviewed, they are more likely to follow through on their development commitments.
Debunking Common Coaching Myths
Myth: Coaching Is Just for "Problem" Leaders
One of the most persistent misconceptions about executive coaching is that it is a remedial intervention — something reserved for leaders who are struggling or at risk of derailment. While coaching can certainly help leaders address performance issues, the research shows that coaching is most effective when it is used proactively with high-performing and high-potential leaders (Nieminen, Smerek, Kotrba, and Denison, 2013). The leaders who benefit most are often those who are already effective but want to reach the next level — navigating a complex transition, expanding their influence, or building capabilities for a broader role.
Myth: A Good Coach Doesn't Need Assessments
Some coaching practitioners argue that skilled coaching is primarily about the relationship and the quality of the conversation, making formal assessments unnecessary. While the coaching relationship is indeed important — research confirms that a strong working alliance between coach and client predicts better outcomes (de Haan, Duckworth, Birch, and Jones, 2013) — relying solely on conversation without data introduces significant blind spots. Leaders are notoriously inaccurate at self-assessment (Dunning, Heath, and Suls, 2004). Without objective data, coaching goals may reflect what the leader thinks they need to work on rather than what they actually need to work on. Assessment data provides an objective anchor that prevents coaching from drifting into comfortable but unproductive territory.
Myth: Coaching Results Can't Be Measured
Another common myth is that coaching outcomes are inherently subjective and unmeasurable. This is simply not true. When coaching is designed around specific, assessment-derived goals, progress can be measured through re-assessment, behavioral observation, and performance metrics. Organizations can track changes in 360-degree feedback scores, engagement survey results for the leader's team, and achievement of specific business objectives tied to the coaching plan. The inability to measure coaching results is almost always a design problem, not an inherent limitation of coaching itself.
Myth: More Coaching Sessions Always Means Better Results
There is a common assumption that the more coaching sessions a leader receives, the better the outcomes. Research does not support a simple linear relationship between coaching duration and effectiveness. What matters more is the quality and structure of the engagement — whether sessions are focused, whether the leader is doing meaningful work between sessions, and whether there are clear milestones. A well-designed six-month coaching engagement with strong accountability structures will almost always outperform an open-ended, unfocused engagement that stretches over years.
TeamLMI's Assessment-Driven Coaching Model
TeamLMI's approach to executive coaching is built on the principles that research consistently identifies as critical to coaching effectiveness. Every coaching engagement begins with a comprehensive assessment phase that draws on multiple validated instruments to build a complete picture of the leader's strengths, development areas, and behavioral tendencies.
The AL360 multi-rater feedback assessment gathers perceptions from supervisors, peers, direct reports, and other stakeholders across six research-based leadership domains. This provides the leader with a clear, data-driven view of how their behavior is experienced by others — often revealing blind spots that would never surface in a typical coaching conversation. The AL360 framework ensures that coaching goals are grounded in the competencies that matter most for leadership effectiveness.
The DISC behavioral assessment identifies the leader's natural behavioral style — their tendencies around dominance, influence, steadiness, and conscientiousness. This helps both the coach and the leader understand how they naturally communicate, make decisions, and respond to conflict and change. DISC data is particularly valuable for helping leaders adapt their style to different situations and stakeholders, a capability that research links to leadership versatility and effectiveness.
The ELLSI personality assessment provides a deeper layer of insight into the leader's underlying personality traits. While behavioral assessments capture what a leader tends to do, personality assessments illuminate why they tend to do it. Understanding these deeper drivers helps the coach and the leader work on the root causes of behavior, not just the surface-level symptoms. This depth of insight is what allows coaching to produce lasting change rather than temporary adjustments.
Together, these three assessment tools create a triangulated view that is far more reliable and actionable than any single data source. From this foundation, TeamLMI coaches work with leaders to develop personalized development plans with specific, measurable goals. Progress is tracked through regular check-ins and, where appropriate, through re-assessment to measure behavioral change over time.
Critically, TeamLMI's coaching model also addresses the organizational context. Coaching engagements are designed in partnership with the leader's organization to ensure alignment between individual development goals and broader business objectives. This alignment — between the leader's growth, the team's needs, and the organization's strategic direction — is what transforms coaching from a personal development exercise into a business-relevant intervention with measurable impact.
For organizations building a broader talent strategy, executive coaching integrates naturally with leadership development programs, creating a comprehensive approach to building leadership capacity at every level.
Making the Investment Count
Executive coaching works — but only when it is designed and executed with the same rigor that organizations apply to any other strategic investment. The research is clear: the key ingredients are a qualified coach, valid assessment data, alignment with organizational goals, and accountability structures that ensure follow-through. When these elements are in place, coaching produces measurable improvements in leadership effectiveness, team performance, and business outcomes.
Organizations that approach coaching as a structured, evidence-based process — rather than an informal mentoring arrangement or an executive perk — are the ones that see the greatest return on their investment. The question is not whether coaching works. The question is whether your organization has the right coaching model in place to make it work.
Ready to invest in executive coaching that delivers measurable results? TeamLMI's assessment-driven coaching model is designed to produce real behavioral change, not just good conversations. Learn more about executive coaching or contact TeamLMI to discuss how coaching can support your leadership development strategy.