Does goal-setting form a part of every coaching engagement?

This article is a reprint of a Coaching Research in Practice (March, 2015).

Coaching is by and large assumed to be a goal-directed process and most of the existing body of coaching research reflects this assumption. However, some research suggests not only that goals can be detrimental to particular coaching outcomes, but that culture, coach training and coaching experience shape, or at least influence, a coach’s orientation to using or not using goal-setting.

This issue of Coaching Research in Practice reviews a recent paper that highlights the risks of goal-setting and reports on a study which reveals the factors affecting coaches’ goal orientation.

COACHING RESEARCH:

In their literature review, David, Clutterbuck and Megginson (2014) highlight potential risks that can result from goal-setting, including “narrowed focus”, “inappropriate time horizon”, “increased risk-taking behaviour”, “unethical thoughts and action tendencies” and “the inhibition of learning (in the case of performance goals)” (p. 136), as well as “increases in stress, feelings of failure, using goals as a ceiling for performance, ignoring non-goal areas, short-range thinking, and dishonesty/cheating” (p. 137).

With this in mind, David, Clutterbuck and Megginson embarked on their study of goal orientation among 194 coaches, including 45 from Europe and 149 from the United States. Each participant completed a 5-minute survey that aimed to examine the degree to which formal coach education, length of experience and other demographic factors impacted their goal orientation. Here’s a summary of the research findings:

“U.S. [coaches] are more likely than European coaches to begin coaching by setting goals for the entire assignment, to preserve those goals throughout the engagement, to refer back to established goals in subsequent sessions, and to use them to determine the appropriateness and effectiveness of the coaching intervention, as well as when to conclude coaching” (p. 139). The authors suggested this may be a result of the traditions from which coaching originated: The European coaching field has been more strongly influenced by psychology and psychoanalysis; the US coaching field has been more strongly influenced by goal-setting theory, which originated in the US.
“The longer a European coach had been practicing, the lower his or her score on goal orientation” (p. 139). The researchers suggested this may be due to the tendency for coaches to “let go of standard models like SMART and GROW, to engage in a more emergent form of coaching” (p. 141) as they grow in experience and competency.
Coaches who had learned to coach through experience alone, used goal-setting significantly less frequently than those who had taken a long coaching course. The authors suggested that this finding may be due to explicit goal-related frameworks taught in formal coach education, or that coaches who are naturally more goal-oriented may also be more likely to enrol in longer, formal courses (p. 142). Notably, the way in which the researchers determined that the coach participants actually engaged in the coaching process (as opposed to mentoring, consulting or counselling, for example) was not clear, in that participants were recruited from their professional networks and “were active in their own development, either through attending conferences or through a higher education course” at the time of the research (p. 138).

IN PRACTICE:

This research highlights three important points for practicing coaches:

Although common, goal-setting need not form a part of every coaching engagement. By recognising this, a coach may decide whether or not goal-setting forms part of his/her particular coaching approach and whether or not to use it with any particular client.
Coaches need to be aware of the potential risks of goal-setting. With such awareness, coaches are in a better position to watch out for any consequences of those risks and, when they occur, to help raise their clients’ awareness of them.
Goal-setting models may be very valuable to new coaches, but attachment to such models should not be at the expense of engaging in emergent coaching, once the coach has reached a level of experience and competency from which s/he can work effectively in an emergent coaching realm.

Lastly, although not mentioned by the researchers, the findings of this research pointed to another avenue for necessary research: The coaching field needs a study to examine the impact of coaching with and without goals. If you are aware of any such research, I encourage you to let us know via our online discussion. If you are a coach who coaches specifically with and/or without goals, I also invite you to share your observations with us via our online discussion.

Access more than 100 issues of Coaching Research in Practice, and stay informed about new coaching research, here.

Reference:

David, S., Clutterbuck, D., & Megginson, D. (2014). Goal orientation in coaching differs according to region, experience, and education. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 12(2), 134-145. Retrieved March 23, 2015, from http://ijebcm.brookes.ac.uk/documents/vol12issue2-paper-10.pdf

Translating coaching research into coaching practice,

Kerryn Griffiths, PhD (The Process of Learning in Coaching)
ReciproCoach Founder and Global Coordinator

Not yet a member?

Already a member?