This article critically reviews two recent, large-scale, randomized controlled trials in executive coaching, in order to drive further exploration into the topic of the coaching relationship as a predictor of coaching outcome. One of the trials was designed at senior levels in an industrial setting and the other was an experiment with coaching in a business-school context. Each trial demonstrated considerable and significant coaching effectiveness with the coaching relationship ('working alliance') as an important ingredient of effectiveness. The more recent randomized-controlled-trial sample, which was longitudinal, seems to show that we may have to radically change our

Previous studies examining coaching outcomes generally rely on cross-sectional data which limits our understanding of the enduring and long-term effects of coaching. To address this issue, this study, based on longitudinal data, explores several popular variables associated with coaching outcomes. The study is underpinned by Lambert's [(1992). Lambert, M. J. (1992). Psychotherapy outcome research: Implications for integrative and eclectic therapists. In J. C. Norcross, & M. R. Goldfried (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy integration (pp. 94-129). Basic Books] four-factor model of common factors and recognises them as variables which are customary to all coaching approaches contributing to coaching outcomes. The study considers stress, wellbeing, resilience, goal attainment and coaching effectiveness as coaching outcomes. Working alliance mediates the impact of self-efficacy, outcome expectations; and perceived social support which are regarded as the predictors of the coaching outcomes. The results indicate that social support predicts working alliance, and working alliance in turn predicts wellbeing and coaching effectiveness over time. The findings suggest that it is vital for coaches to monitor changes in the coachees' social networks and their working alliance since these have a significant bearing on the effectiveness of the sessions and the coachees' wellbeing.

No abstract

The history of artificial intelligence (AI) is filled with hype and inflated expectations. Notwithstanding, AI is finding its way into numerous aspects of humanity including the fast-growing helping profession of coaching. Coaching has been shown to be efficacious in a variety of human development facets. The application of AI in a narrow, specific area of coaching has also been shown to work. What remains uncertain, is how the two compare. In this paper we compare two equivalent longitudinal randomised control trial studies that measured the increase in clients’ goal attainment as a result of having received coaching over a 10-month period. The first study involved human coaches and the replication study used an AI chatbot coach. In both studies, human coaches and the AI coach were significantly more effective in helping clients reach their goals compared to the two control groups. Surprisingly however, the AI coach was as effective as human coaches at the end of the trials. We interpret this result using AI and goal theory and present three significant implications: AI coaching could be scaled to democratize coaching; AI coaching could grow the demand for human coaching; and AI could replace human coaches who use simplistic, model-based coaching approaches. At present, AI’s lack of empathy and emotional intelligence make human coaches irreplicable. However, understanding the efficacy of AI coaching relative to human coaching may promote the focused use of AI, to the significant benefit of society.