This study examines how managers experience and evaluate AI coaching agents through the lens of Task Technology Fit theory. Against the backdrop of rapid advances in generative AI and ongoing debates about whether AI can coach, we ask how well Task Technology Fit explains user attitudes and how designers should develop AI coaching tools to meet expectations. Using an exploratory, qualitative design, we conducted semi structured interviews with twelve managers from diverse sectors who had recently used one or more AI coaching agents. Our findings suggest Task Technology Fit is most salient when aligned not only with tasks but also with user perceptions, ethical expectations and organisational conditions. The study indicates that AI coaching currently serves best as a scalable, low friction complement to human coaching rather than a direct substitute.

Workplace coaching has become an international phenomenon being applied in various organisational and national contexts. The increasing globalisation of coaching culture raises the question of how the social and cultural contexts of its application interact with the coaching practice and its main components, such as the coaching working alliance (WA). Of particular interest is how the perspectives of clients and coaches of diverse cultural backgrounds are integrated in the coaching practice and affect their experience. The present study focused on the client's perception of the role of cultural factors in the coaching WA. A thematic analysis was applied to analyse the data from semi-structured interviews (n = 10) with recipients of individual online coaching sessions. The findings reflect participants' individual visions of the concept culture and indicate an interaction of perceived cultural influences with the main components of the WA. The addressed components included understanding and trust, bond and quality of communication between client and coach, success of coaching conversations, as well as the evaluation of coach's competence. The findings are discussed together with their implications for the coaching research and practice.

This paper explores the evaluation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) AI coaching agent (coachbot) as a tool for workplace performance and wellbeing conversations. The paper starts by considering methods for the evaluation of coach performance, including client evaluation, qualitative and quantitative methods and coach competencies. Using a coach competency as a framework, this study uses a qualitative approach to assess a real-world AI coaching agent's 'behaviours' in the form of an assessment by trained ICF assessors of a genuine session with a human client. The study involved a sample of 43 managers who volunteered to be coached by an AI Coaching agent. ICF assessors used the ICF coach competency framework and supporting behavioural anchored rating (BARS) framework developed by the ICF. The results indicated the AI coaching agent was able to demonstrate many elements of both ICF ACC level and PCC level coach competencies. The assessment also revealed gaps in AI coach competence. We conclude AI coaching agents are highly competent at some aspects of the coach process, while less competent at others. Further, AI development is needed to address these gaps.

Purpose- This study examined the methods, processes and outcomes of digital coaching by undertaking a systematic review of peer-reviewed published papers. Design/methodology/approach- Eight databases were searched using the systematic literature review (SLR) method for articles published between 1st January 1990 and 1st September 2024. Two researchers and a third arbiter conducted a quality assessment using the ROBINS-I tool to evaluate the quality of the papers and the risk of bias in the included studies. They conducted the reviews independently and simultaneously. Following a search identified n = 355 possible papers and screening of duplicate and excluded studies, a narrative synthesis of 27 quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods studies was completed. Findings- The SLR identified four key themes: defining digital coaching, its growth, impact and ethical considerations. Research limitations/implications- The study reflects the coaching field, which remains relatively immature as a research area. Practical implications- The evidence suggests that digital coaching delivers positive results and comparable outcomes to face-to-face coaching for organisations and leaders, managers and individual contributors. Originality/value- This paper represents the first SLR of digital coaching. It employs clinical research standards such as the use of Quality Assessment and Risk of Bias evaluations, which have yet to be widely embraced in SLR management research.

Purpose Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to dramatically change the human approaches to work, and specifically to learning and development. While AI coaching can reduce costs and increase accessibility, it also presents both opportunities and threats to human coaches. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed research on the use of AI in coaching. Design/methodology/approach A systematic literature review (SLR) method was used to search eight databases for articles produced up to March 2024. Data extraction was conducted, with Quality Assessment undertaken independently, in parallel, using two researchers and a third arbiter. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. A narrative synthesis of a total of 16 quantitative, qualitative or mixed-method studies covering n = 2312. Findings The SLR identified four key themes: Research design and AI integration, AI usefulness in coaching, impact of AI coaching and ethical considerations. The findings suggest that AI coaches can be effective, accepted, useful and match human coaches in competence for specific tasks. Practical implications AI coaching is a growing area of practice and research. This paper brings together the literature and identifies future research priorities and potential next steps in AI coach development. Originality/value The paper uses clinical research SLR methods applying these robust processes to the field of organisational research, to set a new standard through the use of a pre-determined research protocol, quality assessment and ROB, well providing a comprehensive literature review of AI coaching.

PurposeThe aim of this exploratory study was to examine workplace managers' attitudes to artificial intelligence (AI) coaching agents compared with human coaches, along with the factors influencing AI technology adoption in the workplace.Design/methodology/approachA small-scale quasi-experimental pilot study featured white collar workers (n = 63) and used a custom-designed questionnaire to compare client responses to engaging with a human coach or an AI coaching agent, Alpina, across six factors: developing new insights, working alliance, goal attainment, commitment, trust, confidentiality and shame.FindingsFollowing a single coaching session, coaching clients reported higher scores when working with a human coach than clients working with an AI coaching agent on all factors.Research limitations/implicationsCaution is needed given the limited sample size, the use of a single session to evaluate and the use of a custom-designed measure.Practical implicationsWhilst AI coaches continue to improve technically and vary widely in functionality and sophistication, in this study, clients appear to rate human coaches more highly than the featured AI coach on a range of factors, such as insights and goal attainment. Further research is needed to validate these exploratory results and test how speech-to-speech or other factors may influence user ratings.Originality/valueThis is the first study exploring employee attitudes by comparing human and AI coaches across a range of factors.

Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) as a tool for knowledge synthesis, the production of written content and the delivery of coaching conversations. Design/methodology/approach The research employed the use of experts to evaluate the outputs from ChatGPT's AI tool in blind tests to review the accuracy and value of outcomes for written content and for coaching conversations. Findings The results from these tasks indicate that there is a significant gap between comparative search tools such as Google Scholar, specialist online discovery tools (EBSCO and PsycNet) and GPT-4's performance. GPT-4 lacks the accuracy and detail which can be found through other tools, although the material produced has strong face validity. It argues organisations, academic institutions and training providers should put in place policies regarding the use of such tools, and professional bodies should amend ethical codes of practice to reduce the risks of false claims being used in published work. Originality/value This is the first research paper to evaluate the current potential of generative AI tools for research, knowledge curation and coaching conversations.

First attempts to integrate positive psychology and behavioural nudging interventions show potential. However, how such interventions are perceived is central to help determine if and how positive psychological nudging interventions might be designed to potentially benefit individuals. This study investigated common themes in employees’ experiences of engaging with an intervention aimed at facilitating awareness of and application of signature strengths with behavioural nudging ( positive nudging ) in the workplace context. Reflexive thematic analysis was applied to identify patterned meaning across semi-structured interview data. Three themes were identified: (1) Nudges are key to turning strength awareness into behaviour change, (2) Active application of signature strengths is dependent on relevance for self, and (3) Positive nudges trigger a range of positive emotions. Results of the study and its potential implications for practitioners and researchers are discussed, such as the importance of active reflection and continued practice for long-term effects of choice architecture interventions, the potential of self-nudging as an instrument for individuals to facilitate their own behaviour change, as well as the potential role of social reference as an effective positive nudging technique.

This edition contains articles from a range of our keynote speakers and presenters from DoCP’s 2023 conference. The selection highlights how coaching psychology research can be integrated into practice and also how practice serves as an inspiration for research. The nine articles cover a range of research designs and topics of both practical and theoretical relevance in advancing the science of coaching psychology.

PurposeTo date, little research has been undertaken to test the effectiveness of team coaching, with past work focusing on models, frameworks and competencies. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of team coaching within real world organizational teams and its impact on individual perceptions of team cohesion and psychological safety.Design/methodology/approachA randomized control trial (RCT) using the comparable interventions: (1) team coaching (intervention) and (2) team facilitation (control) was employed with multiple teams and multiple facilitators, measuring the impact on team cohesion and psychological safety.FindingsThe data indicate participants engaging in the team coaching intervention made greater gains in terms of their individual perceptions of psychological safety and team cohesion than individuals who received the team facilitation intervention (T1–T2).Practical implicationsFacilitators should apply a team coaching approach when seeking to address issues of cohesion and psychological safety within workplace teams.Originality/valueThis study provides the first evidence, using an RCT method, of the effectiveness of team coaching as a workplace intervention for enhancing individual perceptions of psychological safety and team cohesion.

This paper examines data from a global survey of coaches (N=1380) undertaken by the research team in collaboration with EMCC Global, and with the support of a wide range of professional coaching providers, coaching schools and global coaching providers. This paper focuses on diversity within the global coach community, including race, gender and sexual orientation. There were seven hypotheses based on three broad topics: (a) Minorities and marginalised groups in the coaching community (gender, race, region) earn significantly different incomes. (b) Coaches of diversity (gender, race) have different preferences for digital coaching. (c) Coaches of diversity (gender, race) hold different perspectives on future trends in coaching. These were expressed in the seven hypotheses: (i) There will be a statistically different level of income generated by white coaches and coaches of colour. (ii) There will be a statistically different level of income generated by female and male coaches. (iii) There will be a statistically different level of income generated by coaches based within different regions. (iv) There will be a statistically different preference for digital coaching by white coaches and coaches of colour. (v) There will be a statistically different preference for digital coaching by female and male coaches. (vi) There will be a statistically different perspective on future trends in coaching by white coaches and coaches of colour. (vii) There will be a statistically different perspective on future trends in coaching by female and male coaches. The results indicated that region was a significant factor in explaining incomes, but that gender and race were not statistically significant factors. Secondly, there were gender differences in the use of digital coaching. Female coaches or coaches who did not identify as White were more likely to be engaged in digital coaching pre-Covid compared with other coaches, but this gap has narrowed since the global lockdown has drawn more coaches towards digital. Finally, the ‘future trends’ data highlights a number of differences based on gender and race, including the belief by female coaches that regular supervision is essential for professional coaches. The study has implications in terms of acknowledging the flexibility of coaching as a fair pay career for women and secondly the need to make coach training more available for coaches of colour through bursaries offered by providers and accrediting bodies.

This paper presents the results from a global coach survey of 1266 coaches from 79 nations conducted in Summer 2021, when the world emerged from global lockdowns and the 18-month COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to sharing data on the composition of the global coach community (national residence, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability), this study focuses on the impact of the global pandemic on the coaching industry using a quantitative analysis. The findings indicate that age, platform association, pre-pandemic online coaching experiences and average fee were significant predictors of the total impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on coaches. Those least able to adjust and transition to an online environment, or with the least experience working online, reported the greatest detrimental impact. Moreover, the data confirm coaching's transition towards online delivery, with the pandemic accelerating this process to a point where we believe that this trajectory will continue post-pandemic. To enable the success of this shift, coach supervisors, peer support and professional coach training need to recognise the need for this digital transition and adjust training, support and practices to reflect this new reality.

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) has led to the speculation that chatbots could revolutionise the coaching industry in the coming decade, replacing humans as the main provider of coaching conversations. The development of GPT4 has led to these bots becoming increasingly sophisticated and effective at providing support and guidance in various fields. Coaching providers have been quick to operationalise these generative language tools to create new products like AIMY, evoach and Vici. This paper examines the potential of AI chatbots and their integration into coaching tools. It will review the advantages and current limitations of AI coaching chatbots and offer a preliminary definition for the field, seeking to differentiate chatbots from human coaching. The paper also explores the role of coaching psychology, professional bodies and governments in the development and evolution of AI systems and coaching chatbots, and suggests the urgent need for action to protect clients and organisations from unregulated and unethical practices.

Workplace coaching has grown in popularity and is increasingly used for a plethora of purposes across organisations. As a growing field, coaching is still in need of a continuing commitment to evidence-based evaluation, especially considering the current unsystematic outcome literature. However, this need for scientific, evidence-based evaluation is not actioned and there is indication that coaching evaluation is even less rigorous in practice. This position paper explores what might be the barriers against a scientific, evidence-based coaching evaluation in practice. Suggestions grounded in the literature are presented with the aim that these might inform future research and practice.

With increasing evidence about the effectiveness of workplace and executive coaching as an organisational development intervention, research has turned to the components that may predict coaching outcome variance. The ‘common factors’ model from therapeutic outcome research suggests that ‘client and extratherapeutic factors’ is the single greatest contributing variable. This systematic review determines all statistically significant client factor variables from the peer-reviewed coaching research literature, with 17 distinct factors from quantitative studies and 22 factors from qualitative studies. It is hoped that the three most frequently identified client factors (‘willingness or motivation to change, ‘commitment to the relationship/process’ and ‘openness’) may be used as predictor variables in future research to bring focus to what has been a disparate field of study to date. Keywords: Coaching psychology; Common factors; Client factors; Coachability.

Insights from the Nature of Coaching Psychology and Coaching Supervision Jonathan Passmore, Jonathan PassmoreSearch for more papers by this authorDavid Tee, David TeeSearch for more papers by this author Jonathan Passmore, Jonathan PassmoreSearch for more papers by this authorDavid Tee, David TeeSearch for more papers by this author Book Editor(s):Jonathan Passmore, Jonathan PassmoreSearch for more papers by this authorDavid Tee, David TeeSearch for more papers by this author First published: 27 October 2020 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119656913.part1 AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Coaching Researched: A Coaching Psychology Reader RelatedInformation

The Future of Coaching Research Jonathan Passmore, Jonathan PassmoreSearch for more papers by this authorDavid Tee, David TeeSearch for more papers by this author Jonathan Passmore, Jonathan PassmoreSearch for more papers by this authorDavid Tee, David TeeSearch for more papers by this author Book Editor(s):Jonathan Passmore, Jonathan PassmoreSearch for more papers by this authorDavid Tee, David TeeSearch for more papers by this author First published: 27 October 2020 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119656913.part6 AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Coaching Researched: A Coaching Psychology Reader RelatedInformation

In this chapter, the authors provide an insight into different forms of evaluation and feedback, covering a range of useful theories that can inform coaching evaluation, before offering some practical steps on evaluation. It features models and techniques that often ringfence certain forms of data, at certain times from certain sources, as feedback. However, all information encountered by the coach when coaching, from a fleeting facial expression made by a client during a session through to a formal written audit of performance, has the potential to be treated as useful feedback. Theories concerning the importance of feedback are often linked to work by researchers such as Locke and Latham whose work focused on goal setting. In a similar way to Kirkpatrick's model, Level 1 is based on evaluation of the intervention by the individual. The evaluation at Level 2 is completed not by the individual themselves but by others. The evaluation could use either a predesigned internal or sector-specific questionnaire.