Workplace coaching meta-analysis: positive effects overall; the largest effects rest on very few studies
A meta-analysis of 17 workplace coaching studies (2,267 people) finds a positive overall effect (δ = 0.36), larger without multisource feedback and with internal coaches, but the biggest effects come from subgroups of only three studies.
Finding
What the study measuredAcross 17 studies (n = 2,267), coaching had a positive overall effect (δ = 0.36; sample-weighted d = 0.33, 90% CI 0.16 to 0.50). Effects were δ = 0.51 for affective outcomes, δ = 0.28 for skill-based outcomes and δ = 1.24 for individual-level results, the last from three studies (n = 116). Coaching without multisource feedback had larger effects (δ = 0.88, k = 9) than coaching with it (δ = 0.21, k = 7). Internal coaches had larger effects (δ = 1.40, k = 3, n = 182) than external coaches (δ = 0.20, k = 13). Face-to-face and blended coaching did not differ (δ = 0.29 vs 0.28), nor did between- and within-subjects designs, and neither the number of sessions nor programme length moderated the effect.
Authors' interpretation
What the authors concludeThe authors conclude that coaching is effective in organizations, that its effects compare well with training and are larger than those of multisource feedback, and that the large effect on individual-level results suggests coaching transfers learning into performance. They suggest feedback may distract coachees, and that short-term coaching appears beneficial, while calling for replication as more studies appear.
| Question type | effect |
|---|---|
| Population and setting | Employed adults in organizations, mostly senior managers (k = 5, n = 1,527) and managers (k = 5, n = 326); studies from the US, UK, Australia, Norway, Egypt, Israel and Denmark, 1997 to 2012; Service, manufacturing, construction and public-sector organizations |
| Intervention | One-to-one workplace coaching by internal or external coaches (not line managers or peers); mean 5.56 sessions over a mean 18.8 weeks |
| Comparison | Uncoached comparison groups measured before and after (14 studies) or the same people before and after coaching (3 studies) |
| Follow-up | Varies by study; not pooled |
| Outcomes | Skill-based outcomes; Affective outcomes; Individual-level results |
| Measures | Self-report questionnaires (affective outcomes); Skill and behaviour ratings, including multisource feedback; Individual-level results, including objective performance data (not corrected for unreliability) |
| Effect size and uncertainty | Overall corrected δ = 0.36 (sample-weighted d = 0.33, 90% CI 0.16 to 0.50; 80% credibility interval −0.16 to 0.97). Affective δ = 0.51 (d 90% CI 0.17 to 0.78), skill-based δ = 0.28 (0.07 to 0.44), individual-level results δ = 1.24 (0.88 to 1.47, from k = 3, n = 116). |
| Limitations | Small number of studies; incomplete reporting forced some variables to be coded as unspecified and missing reliabilities to be estimated; too few studies for some moderator groups; several of the largest effects rest on three studies each; the manuscript does not report a publication-bias analysis. |
| Funding and conflicts | No funding or conflict-of-interest statement found in the accepted manuscript. |
| Replication | Not applicable (synthesis of prior studies). |
| Source reuse terms | Publisher copyright (Wiley); accepted manuscript self-archived for non-commercial use under Wiley terms. |
Figures reported, with their location in the source
- k = 17, n = 2,267: Studies and individuals included (Accepted manuscript p. 20 (Data set))
- 14 between-subjects, 3 within-subjects: Designs of included studies (Accepted manuscript p. 21; Table 3)
- δ = 0.36; d = 0.33 (90% CI 0.16–0.50); 80% CV −0.16 to 0.97: Overall effect (Table 3 (manuscript p. 56); p. 25)
- δ = 0.51 / 0.28 / 1.24: Affective / skill-based / individual-level results (k = 10 / 10 / 3) (Table 3; p. 25)
- δ = 0.88 (k = 9) vs 0.21 (k = 7): Without vs with multisource feedback (Table 3; p. 26)
- δ = 1.40 (k = 3, n = 182) vs 0.20 (k = 13): Internal vs external coach (Table 3; pp. 26–27)
- δ = 0.29 vs 0.28: Face-to-face vs blended (Table 3; p. 26)
- all ns: Sessions and programme length (linear and curvilinear) (p. 27)
Read the source
Jones, R. J., Woods, S. A., & Guillaume, Y. R. F. (2016). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 249–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12119
Verification record
- Status
- human-verified
- Access level
- full-text
- Date accessed
- 2026-10-24
- Tool-checked
- 2026-10-25
- Automated retraction check
- 2026-10-24: Crossref record has no update, correction or retraction notices (Crossref carries Retraction Watch data). Owner to confirm.
- Human-verified
- 2026-10-25
- Retraction status
- none-found (checked 2026-10-25); Owner check: "Retraction check: r-0002, none-found"
- Last reviewed
- 2026-10-25
How to cite this entry
consultants.coach. (2026). Workplace coaching meta-analysis: positive effects overall; the largest effects rest on very few studies (Entry r-0002, version 2026-10-25 00:00:00 -0400 EDT). https://consultants.coach/research/r-0002/
Original source: Jones, R. J., Woods, S. A., & Guillaume, Y. R. F. (2016). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 249–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12119
Change log
- : Rebuilt from the full text (accepted manuscript supplied by the editor); grade assigned.
- : First published after human verification.
Related entries
Randomized trials of coaching show a moderate average effect, with signs of publication bias
A meta-analysis of 37 randomized controlled trials (39 samples, n = 2,528) finds coaching improves leadership and personal outcomes, with a best estimate of g = .59, and reports significant publication bias.
Recent workplace coaching studies: moderate effect, but no study measured business results
A meta-analysis of 11 workplace coaching studies published after 2014 finds g = 0.44 overall, larger for skills than for attitudes, and notes that no included study measured results-level outcomes.
Psychologically informed coaching: strongest effects on goal attainment and self-efficacy
A meta-analysis of 20 studies (957 participants) of psychologically informed workplace coaching finds g = 0.51 overall, largest for goal attainment (g = 1.29), with no significant difference between coaching approaches.
Our commentary
consultants.coach editorial viewThe overall effect is solid but modest, and the wide credibility interval means results varied a lot between studies. Three of the headline numbers rest on just three studies each: the effect on individual-level results, the internal-coach advantage and the within-subjects result. Treat them as leads, not as findings to quote to a sponsor. The multisource-feedback result is more robust (seven and nine studies), but it shows an association within this set of studies, not that feedback harms coaching. For practitioners reporting impact, the safest claim from this source is the overall δ of about 0.36.