Unlocking Sustainable Performance Through Psychologically Informed Workplace Coaching

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
1 hour ago
13 min read

Listen to this article:

Abstract: This article synthesizes meta-analytic evidence on psychologically informed coaching approaches to identify mechanisms driving sustained workplace outcomes. Drawing on Wang et al.'s (2021) comprehensive meta-analysis of 20 studies (n = 957), we examine how cognitive behavioral coaching, solution-focused coaching, positive psychology coaching, and integrative approaches influence goal attainment, self-efficacy, performance, and psychological well-being. Findings demonstrate moderate to large positive effects across outcomes (g = 0.51), with goal attainment showing the strongest impact (g = 1.29) and self-efficacy showing substantial gains (g = 0.59). Integrative approaches combining multiple psychological frameworks generated larger effects (g = 0.71) than single-method interventions (g = 0.45). For practitioners, evidence supports designing coaching that blends cognitive coping strategies, strength-based techniques, and contextual sensitivity to address individual values, organizational dynamics, and systemic resources for sustainable development.

Workplace coaching has evolved from a niche executive development tool into a mainstream organizational intervention embraced across industries and organizational levels. Yet despite widespread adoption, fundamental questions persist about how coaching actually works—specifically, which psychological mechanisms and theoretical frameworks most reliably produce desired outcomes.

Recent meta-analyses have begun answering these questions. Jones et al.'s (2016) comprehensive meta-analysis of 17 studies demonstrated that workplace coaching generates moderate positive effects on skills (d = 0.40), performance (d = 0.12), well-being (d = 0.46), coping (d = 0.43), work attitudes (d = 0.54), and goal-directed self-regulation (d = 0.74). These findings confirm coaching's value, yet they aggregate across diverse coaching approaches without isolating which psychological frameworks prove most effective.

Wang et al. (2021) addressed this gap by conducting the first meta-analysis focused specifically on psychologically informed coaching approaches—those grounded in established frameworks from psychotherapy, positive psychology, and cognitive behavioral science. Their analysis of 20 studies (n = 957 participants) examined whether specific psychological frameworks generate differential outcomes and whether integrative approaches combining multiple frameworks outperform single-method interventions.

We define workplace coaching as a facilitative, goal-oriented process delivered by trained specialists who use behavioral techniques and psychological methods to help clients achieve mutually identified objectives related to professional performance, personal satisfaction, and organizational effectiveness (Kilburg, 1996). This definition emphasizes coaching's psychological foundation while distinguishing it from clinical therapy through its focus on enhancing effectiveness rather than treating dysfunction.

This article synthesizes evidence from these meta-analyses to provide practitioners with actionable guidance on selecting, implementing, and evaluating psychologically informed coaching interventions.

The Workplace Coaching Landscape

Defining Psychologically Informed Coaching in Practice

Psychologically informed coaching applies theoretical frameworks and empirically supported techniques from psychology to nonclinical workplace development. This approach differs from purely skills-based coaching by emphasizing underlying cognitive patterns, emotional processes, self-awareness, and intrinsic motivation as pathways to sustainable behavior change (Grant, 2001).

Grant's (2001) foundational doctoral research established coaching psychology as a distinct discipline, demonstrating that systematic application of psychological frameworks—particularly cognitive-behavioral and solution-focused approaches—enhanced metacognition (thinking about one's own thinking), mental health, and goal attainment. This work provided theoretical grounding for understanding coaching mechanisms beyond generic "helping conversations."

The dominant theoretical frameworks identified in Wang et al.'s (2021) meta-analysis include:

Cognitive Behavioral Coaching: Adapts cognitive behavioral therapy principles to help clients identify and modify unhelpful thinking patterns and self-limiting assumptions through cognitive restructuring, behavioral experiments, and problem-solving strategies within a goal-focused framework.
Solution-Focused Coaching: Emphasizes future-oriented, competence-based approaches that help clients construct solutions rather than analyze problems through scaling questions, exception-finding, and future visioning techniques.
Positive Psychology Coaching: Applies the science of well-being and strengths to help clients identify and leverage personal strengths, cultivate positive emotions, and pursue meaningful goals aligned with core values.
GROW Model: Provides a structured behavioral science-based process (Goal, Reality, Options, Way Forward) that guides systematic exploration and action planning.

State of Evidence and Practice

The evidence base for workplace coaching has matured substantially over the past two decades. Theeboom et al.'s (2014) meta-analysis of 18 studies demonstrated coaching's effectiveness across multiple outcome categories, with particularly strong effects on performance and skills (d = 0.60), well-being (d = 0.46), coping (d = 0.43), work attitudes (d = 0.54), and goal-directed self-regulation (d = 0.74).

Jones et al. (2016) extended this work by examining moderators of coaching effectiveness, finding that coaching delivered by external coaches generated larger performance effects than internal coaches, while individual coaching outperformed group coaching for performance outcomes. Importantly, their analysis revealed that coaching duration, session frequency, and outcome measurement timing significantly influenced observed effects—methodological considerations that inform both research design and practice recommendations.

Organizational and Individual Consequences of Psychologically Informed Coaching

Organizational Performance Impacts

Wang et al.'s (2021) meta-analysis demonstrates that psychologically grounded coaching produces measurable organizational value through multiple pathways. Coaching generated meaningful improvements in objective work performance rated by supervisors or through 360-degree assessments (g = 0.24, p = 0.05)—representing approximately a 9.5% performance increase relative to control conditions.

This effect proved more reliable than self-reported performance improvements (g = 0.30, not statistically significant), suggesting coaching helps close the gap between self-perception and external assessment. The pattern aligns with Jones et al.'s (2016) finding that coaching generates modest but consistent performance improvements (d = 0.12 overall), with larger effects emerging when performance is measured objectively rather than through self-report.

Goal attainment represents coaching's strongest documented impact. Wang et al. (2021) found an impressive effect size of g = 1.29—indicating coached participants achieved their self-selected goals at levels 1.29 standard deviations higher than comparison groups. This translates to movement from approximately the 50th to the 90th percentile in goal achievement. Similarly, Jones et al. (2016) identified goal-directed self-regulation as coaching's most powerful outcome domain (d = 0.74), encompassing goal commitment, goal self-efficacy, and systematic goal pursuit.

These findings suggest coaching excels at enhancing individuals' capacity to set, pursue, and achieve meaningful objectives—a meta-competency valuable across diverse work contexts. Organizations implementing coaching programs can therefore expect substantial gains when coaching focuses explicitly on goal-setting and self-regulatory processes.

Affective outcomes including organizational commitment and job satisfaction showed positive but more modest effects in Wang et al.'s (2021) analysis (g = 0.44, p = 0.10). While not achieving statistical significance, the direction and magnitude suggest coaching likely influences employees' emotional connection to their work. Jones et al. (2016) found stronger evidence for work attitudes (d = 0.54), including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and career attitudes, indicating coaching generates meaningful shifts in how employees experience and evaluate their work.

Individual Well-being and Developmental Impacts

Beyond performance metrics, psychologically informed coaching significantly enhances psychological well-being. Wang et al. (2021) found moderate effects on well-being (g = 0.28, p = 0.02), encompassing improvements in mental health symptoms, stress management, resilience, and overall quality of working life. Theeboom et al. (2014) reported similar well-being effects (d = 0.46), while Jones et al. (2016) found coaching enhanced both well-being (d = 0.46) and coping effectiveness (d = 0.43).

These converging findings suggest coaching provides genuine psychological benefits beyond task performance. By enhancing self-efficacy and self-regulation, coaching strengthens individuals' sense of agency—a core protective factor against stress and burnout.

Cognitive and metacognitive development represents another critical benefit. Wang et al. (2021) found coaching significantly improved general self-efficacy and related cognitive outcomes (g = 0.59, p < 0.01), including self-awareness, self-regulation, and metacognitive skills—the ability to monitor one's own thinking, learning, and behavioral patterns (Kraiger et al., 1993).

Grant's (2001) foundational research identified metacognition as a central mechanism through which coaching generates sustainable change. By developing clients' capacity to reflect on their own cognitive processes, identify patterns, and consciously adjust their approach, coaching builds "learning to learn" capabilities that extend beyond specific coached objectives. These metacognitive skills prove particularly valuable in dynamic workplace environments requiring continuous adaptation.

Evidence-Based Organizational Responses

Framework Equivalence and Selection Considerations

Wang et al.'s (2021) evidence reveals a striking finding: established psychological frameworks—cognitive behavioral coaching, solution-focused coaching, positive psychology coaching, and GROW—produced statistically equivalent outcomes overall (F(3, 6.27) = 0.78, p = 0.54), with effect sizes ranging from g = 0.39 for cognitive behavioral coaching to g = 0.57 for positive psychology coaching.

This "outcome equivalence" parallels longstanding findings in psychotherapy research, where diverse therapeutic approaches generate similar outcomes (Ahn & Wampold, 2001). The phenomenon suggests common factors—working alliance quality, client motivation, goal clarity, and systematic reflection—matter more than specific theoretical orientations.

For coaching procurement and implementation, this finding implies organizations should prioritize:

Coach competence and relational skills over adherence to particular theoretical schools
Clear goal-setting processes establishing specific, measurable, valued objectives
Strong contracting that builds trust and aligns expectations among coach, coachee, and organizational sponsor
Systematic outcome evaluation using validated instruments across multiple domains

Jones et al. (2016) identified several practical moderators of coaching effectiveness beyond theoretical framework. External coaches generated larger effects than internal coaches for some outcomes, though this varied by outcome domain. Individual coaching outperformed group coaching for performance and skills development. Importantly, coaching delivered over longer durations with more sessions tended to produce larger effects, though the relationship was complex and nonlinear.

Integrative Coaching: Combining Frameworks for Comprehensive Impact

The most striking finding from Wang et al.'s (2021) analysis concerns integrative approaches that deliberately combine multiple psychological frameworks. While not achieving statistical significance over single-method coaching (F(1, 6.15) = 1.41, p = 0.28), integrative coaching generated meaningfully larger effect sizes (g = 0.71 vs. g = 0.45)—representing approximately a 58% increase in impact.

Six studies employed integrative approaches, most commonly combining cognitive behavioral coaching with solution-focused coaching, sometimes adding positive psychology or GROW elements. The integrative approach proved particularly effective for psychological well-being outcomes, with five of six studies measuring well-being employing integrative frameworks.

Effective integrative implementation approaches include:

Comprehensive initial assessment across cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and contextual dimensions
Flexible framework selection matched to specific coaching moments and client needs
Explicit integration logic articulated to clients explaining how different approaches complement each other
Phased approaches that sequence frameworks systematically (e.g., beginning with future-focused goal clarification before addressing cognitive patterns)
Context sensitivity incorporating organizational dynamics and systemic resources

Evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials

Grant and colleagues conducted multiple rigorous randomized controlled trials demonstrating psychologically informed coaching's effectiveness across diverse populations and contexts.

Executive Coaching for Goal Attainment and Resilience

Grant et al. (2009) randomly assigned 41 Australian executives to either a coaching intervention (10 sessions over 20 weeks) or waitlist control. The coaching integrated cognitive behavioral, solution-focused, and GROW frameworks, tailoring the approach to individual executive needs and organizational contexts.

Results demonstrated exceptional goal attainment (g = 1.61), along with significant improvements in resilience (g = 0.90), mental health (g = 0.41), and workplace well-being (g = 0.47). Notably, control group participants showed no significant improvements on any measure during the waiting period, then experienced similar gains once they received coaching—a pattern strengthening causal inference.

The study illustrates integrative coaching's capacity to simultaneously address performance objectives (goal achievement) and psychological resources (resilience, well-being). This dual benefit proves particularly valuable for executives navigating high-pressure, complex organizational environments where both task effectiveness and stress management matter.

Developmental Coaching for Teachers

Grant et al. (2010) extended this research to high school teachers, randomly assigning 44 educators to either coaching (10 sessions over 20 weeks) or waitlist control. The coaching again employed an integrative approach combining cognitive behavioral, solution-focused, and GROW frameworks.

Results showed even stronger goal attainment effects (g = 2.06) than the executive study, along with moderate-to-large improvements in resilience (g = 0.46), mental health (g = 0.40), and workplace well-being (g = 0.49). The larger goal attainment effect may reflect teachers' intrinsic motivation and the coaching's focus on pedagogical and professional development goals highly salient to participants.

This study demonstrates psychologically informed coaching's transportability beyond traditional executive contexts. Teachers face distinct pressures including classroom management challenges, student needs diversity, administrative demands, and limited autonomy. Coaching that builds cognitive coping strategies, identifies existing strengths, and enhances goal-pursuit capacity appears valuable across these varied professional contexts.

Strength-Based Leadership Development

MacKie (2014) investigated whether strength-based executive coaching enhances leadership effectiveness measured through 360-degree assessment. The randomized controlled trial assigned 73 senior managers to either strength-based coaching (8 sessions over 6 months) or control condition, measuring leadership competencies at baseline, post-intervention, and 3-month follow-up.

Coached participants showed significant improvements in transformational leadership behaviors (g = 0.53) sustained at 3-month follow-up, while control participants showed no change. The strength-based approach emphasized identifying and leveraging existing leadership capabilities rather than remediating weaknesses—a positively-oriented framework aligned with positive psychology principles.

MacKie (2015) conducted a follow-up analysis examining whether individual difference variables moderated coaching outcomes. Results revealed that coachee readiness—encompassing motivation, openness to feedback, and willingness to experiment—significantly predicted coaching benefits. Participants high in core self-evaluations (self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control, emotional stability) also benefited more from coaching.

These findings suggest organizations should invest in pre-coaching readiness building, helping potential coachees understand coaching's nature, clarify their development objectives, and cultivate openness to the process. Readiness assessment might also inform coach matching and intervention customization.

Outcome Measurement and Evaluation

The meta-analytic evidence highlights the importance of comprehensive outcome assessment spanning multiple domains. Kraiger et al.'s (1993) framework distinguishes three learning outcome categories particularly relevant to coaching evaluation:

Cognitive outcomes: Knowledge acquisition, metacognition, self-awareness, mental models
Skill-based outcomes: Behavioral competencies, procedural knowledge, automaticity
Affective outcomes: Attitudes, motivation, self-efficacy, goal commitment

Wang et al. (2021) organized coaching outcomes into four categories: behavioral (goal attainment, performance), cognitive (self-efficacy, metacognition), affective (job satisfaction, organizational commitment), and psychological well-being (mental health, resilience, stress). Coaching generated positive effects across all categories, though magnitudes varied.

This outcome diversity suggests organizations should evaluate coaching through multiple indicators rather than relying on single metrics. Appropriate outcome measurement might include:

Goal Attainment Scaling: Individualized measurement of progress toward self-selected goals
360-degree leadership assessment: Multi-source feedback on behavioral competencies
Self-efficacy scales: Validated measures of general or domain-specific self-efficacy
Well-being instruments: Standardized scales assessing psychological well-being, stress, or resilience
Performance metrics: Objective organizational data aligned with coaching objectives

Jones et al. (2016) found that outcome measurement timing influenced observed effects, with some outcomes emerging immediately post-coaching while others developed over time. This finding suggests organizations should incorporate follow-up assessment (e.g., 3-6 months post-coaching) to capture sustained impacts.

Building Long-Term Coaching Capability and Organizational Learning

Distributed Coaching Capabilities

While the meta-analytic evidence focuses on formal coaching delivered by trained specialists, organizations increasingly develop distributed coaching capabilities through manager-as-coach programs and peer coaching networks. Jones et al. (2016) found that external coaches generated larger effects than internal coaches for some outcomes, though differences varied by domain.

This pattern suggests external coaching may prove most valuable for senior leaders, complex development challenges, or situations requiring confidentiality and independence. However, distributed internal capabilities can extend coaching benefits more broadly while building organizational coaching literacy and developmental culture.

Sustainable coaching cultures might integrate:

Manager coaching skills training: Equipping leaders with fundamental coaching competencies including powerful questioning, active listening, and goal-focused conversations
Structured peer coaching networks: Reciprocal coaching partnerships with clear frameworks and boundaries
Coaching champions: Leaders who model coaching behaviors and advocate for coaching approaches
Communities of practice: Forums where coaches share experiences, discuss challenges, and continue learning

This distributed model doesn't replace external coaching for senior leaders or complex challenges, but extends coaching benefits while building organizational capacity.

Evidence-Based Practice and Systematic Evaluation

The meta-analytic evidence demonstrates that psychologically informed coaching works, but organizational implementation requires ongoing evaluation and refinement. Evidence-based practice principles suggest organizations should:

Select coaches with solid psychological foundations: Prioritize training, credentials, or experience demonstrating competence in evidence-based psychological frameworks
Implement systematic outcome evaluation: Use validated instruments assessing relevant outcome domains rather than relying solely on participant satisfaction
Aggregate outcome data: Compile evaluation data across coaching engagements to identify patterns, benchmark effectiveness, and inform continuous improvement
Tailor interventions based on evidence: Adapt coaching approaches, duration, and intensity based on what works for specific populations and objectives within the organization
Maintain ethical standards: Ensure appropriate boundaries between coaching and therapy, obtain informed consent, protect confidentiality, and match coaches to clients appropriately

Theeboom et al. (2014) noted significant heterogeneity in coaching research methodology, outcome measurement, and quality. Organizations advancing internal evidence-based practice can contribute to the broader field by documenting their approaches, measuring outcomes systematically, and sharing learnings through case studies or research partnerships.

Conclusion

Psychologically informed workplace coaching generates consistent, meaningful improvements across multiple outcome domains. Meta-analytic evidence demonstrates coaching's effectiveness for enhancing goal attainment (g = 1.29), self-efficacy (g = 0.59), objective performance (g = 0.24), and psychological well-being (g = 0.28). These effects prove robust across diverse organizational contexts, populations, and measurement approaches.

Several actionable insights emerge for practitioners:

First, framework selection matters less than framework expertise and integration. While cognitive behavioral, solution-focused, positive psychology, and GROW approaches each offer valuable perspectives, no single framework proves demonstrably superior (Wang et al., 2021). Organizations should prioritize coach competence, relational skills, and ability to flexibly integrate approaches rather than seeking adherence to particular schools. Integrative coaching thoughtfully combining multiple frameworks appears most promising, generating effect sizes approximately 58% larger than single-method approaches.

Second, coaching drives sustainable change through cognitive and metacognitive development. The strongest effects emerge in self-efficacy, self-awareness, goal-attainment capacity, and self-regulation—psychological resources enabling ongoing adaptation beyond specific coached behaviors (Grant, 2001; Wang et al., 2021). Organizations should assess coaching through growth in learning agility and self-directedness, not merely performance metrics.

Third, comprehensive outcome evaluation strengthens both practice and organizational learning. Coaching generates effects across behavioral, cognitive, affective, and well-being domains that emerge at different timescales (Jones et al., 2016; Kraiger et al., 1993). Evidence-based practice requires validated instruments assessing multiple outcome types, preferably including both self-report and objective indicators, measured both immediately post-coaching and at follow-up.

Fourth, coaching represents one component of comprehensive talent development systems. While generating meaningful standalone outcomes, coaching works best when embedded within broader developmental architectures including manager-as-coach capability, peer learning networks, and performance support systems.

For practitioners, the evidence provides reassurance that psychologically informed coaching genuinely works, producing effects comparable to or exceeding established learning interventions. The most effective coaches will combine deep grounding in psychological science, flexible integration of multiple frameworks, exceptional relational capabilities, and commitment to systematic outcome evaluation.

Organizations investing in coaching can do so with confidence, provided they approach coaching strategically through well-qualified coach selection (Jones et al., 2016), clear goals and evaluation (Wang et al., 2021), sufficient intensity and duration (Jones et al., 2016), and embedding within comprehensive talent systems. When implemented thoughtfully, psychologically informed coaching delivers meaningful value for individual development, team effectiveness, and organizational performance.

References

Ahn, H. N., & Wampold, B. E. (2001). Where oh where are the specific ingredients? A meta-analysis of component studies in counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(3), 251–257.
Grant, A. M. (2001). Towards a psychology of coaching: The impact of coaching on metacognition, mental health and goal attainment [Doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney].
Grant, A. M., Curtayne, L., & Burton, G. (2009). Executive coaching enhances goal attainment, resilience and workplace well-being: A randomised controlled study. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(5), 396–407.
Grant, A. M., Green, L. S., & Rynsaardt, J. (2010). Developmental coaching for high school teachers: Executive coaching goes to school. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(3), 151–168.
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.
Kilburg, R. R. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding and definition of executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(2), 134–144.
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311–328.
MacKie, D. (2014). The effectiveness of strength-based executive coaching in enhancing full range leadership development: A controlled study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 66(2), 118–137.
MacKie, D. (2015). The effects of coachee readiness and core self-evaluations on leadership coaching outcomes: A controlled trial. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 8(2), 120–136.
Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & van Vianen, A. E. M. (2014). Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context. Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1–18.
Wang, Q., Lai, Y., Xu, X., & McDowall, A. (2021). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta-analysis of contemporary psychologically informed coaching approaches. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 14(1), 77–102.

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Unlocking Sustainable Performance Through Psychologically Informed Workplace Coaching. Human Capital Leadership Review, 28(2). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.28.2.1