Coaching Project Leaders

Core premise: Executive coaching is the most intensive and expensive form of leader development available — the source gives an illustrative, non-universal range of $1,500 per day to more than $100,000 for a multi-year engagement (not a universal market rate). It is also the intervention most likely to integrate assessment, challenge, and support into a coherent developmental experience. And yet, the supplied research observes, "there is little published empirical research other than case studies on the topic of executive coaching effectiveness." This article walks through the models, the stigma problem, the network effects, and the conditions under which coaching becomes a genuine catalyst for behavioural change on a defence programme.

1. The "Why" — Why Coaching Exists as a Distinct Practice

360-degree feedback delivers assessment. Classroom training delivers content. Mentoring delivers wisdom. What none of them reliably delivers is the one-on-one, structured, accountable space in which an executive actually changes their behaviour.

Consider a senior project manager at a defence prime who has just received a 360 report indicating that direct reports find her dismissive and that peers find her territorial. She accepts the feedback is accurate. She wants to change. And yet — left alone — she will almost certainly return to the same behavioural patterns within weeks. Why? Because:

• The feedback told her what to change, not how.
• Her defensive mechanisms are well-developed and situationally triggered.
• Real-time change requires an external observer who can interrupt the pattern.
• The organisational reward system still pays off the old behaviour in most daily interactions.

Executive coaching exists to close this gap between insight and action. Its defining feature is that it is practical, goal-focused, one-on-one learning and behavioural change, embedded in the participant's actual work.

2. The "What" — Definition and Scope

Practice note: Definition — the supplied research Executive coaching is a practical, goal-focused form of one-on-one learning and behavioural change. Its objectives are focused on improving individual performance and personal satisfaction, and consequently, enhancing organisational effectiveness.

Two features distinguish coaching from its neighbours:

1. It is an ongoing process rather than a discrete event. A coach is not a speaker or an assessor — they work alongside the participant over weeks or months.
2. It integrates all three development elements. Unlike 360 feedback (assessment-heavy) or mentoring (support-heavy), coaching explicitly weaves assessment, challenge, and support together — especially when linked with a preceding 360 process.

2.1 Range of Applications

Coaching can be applied to very different purposes:

Illustrative source values: Numerical values in this table are source examples, not universal requirements.

2.2 What It Costs

The supplied research is candid about the economics. Coaching by an external consultant ranges from:

• Illustrative source value — $1,500/day for a single day engagement
• $100,000+ for a multi-year programme with a single executive

This is why most organisations want coaching to be as short-term as possible — and why the strategic question is not "can we afford coaching?" but "can we afford to waste it?"

3. The "How" — Coaching Models and Mechanisms

3.1 Four-Step Coaching Model

The supplied research proposes a four-step coaching model that has become something of a default:

The critical feature of Step 3 is the three-way discussion with the supervisor. Coaching conducted in isolation from the participant's manager rarely produces lasting change — the supervisor sets the performance context and must be aligned with the developmental goals.

3.2 a leadership-development provider Individual Coaching for Effectiveness Model

The supplied research describes a three-phase coaching model:

1. Diagnosis — identifying the performance or development need
2. Coaching — the active intervention
3. Maintenance and support — sustaining change after formal coaching ends

These three phases map directly onto the source's assessment–challenge–support framework, which is not an accident — coaching, done properly, is a deliberate engineering of all three developmental ingredients.

3.3 The Stigma Problem

Here is the uncomfortable finding. The supplied research estimated that three-quarters of participants were in some danger of derailing when they began a coaching process. The supplied research add that typical motives for participation are remedial — usually associated with interpersonal insensitivity or a lack of influence ability.

The implication is that assignment to a coach can carry significant stigma. On a defence programme, where reputational currency matters and hiring managers share notes, an executive who is "getting coached" may be read as "in trouble." This creates a perverse dynamic where the people who most need coaching resist it hardest.

Practice note — supplied research: Recommendation — Coach the Entire Group "Providing a coach to an entire executive group has the advantage of placing all recipients on equal footing. When everyone has a coach, it is not a secret — neither a stigma nor perceived source of favouritism. Coaching an entire team to get one particular executive help, however, without appearing to single out the individual is almost always transparent to the team, and can create more ill-will than if coaching is focused on the one individual who truly needs it."

On a defence PMO, this translates to a simple design rule: coach the whole senior leadership team, or coach the individual openly. Don't coach the whole team as a cover for targeting one person — the team will see through it and resent the manipulation.

3.4 source proposition 2a — The Selection Imperative

Practice note — source Proposition 2a: "Coaching effectiveness is enhanced to the degree that individuals are carefully selected for coaching, matched with a compatible coach, and are willing to change."

Three variables, all of which must be right:

1. Selection — is this the right person to coach?
2. Matching — is this the right coach for this person?
3. Willingness — does the participant actually want to change?

Get any one wrong and the coaching will fail.

3.5 The Social Capital Effect — Coaching as Network Builder

The supplied research makes a subtle but important argument (Proposition 2c): coaching increases a recipient's weak and strong network ties. If coaching successfully builds individual self-confidence and interpersonal effectiveness, it should also encourage the formation of new, non-redundant contacts both inside and outside the organisation.

The source's treatment of strong and weak ties matters here. It argues that effective leadership requires both:

A coach who helps a project manager develop both types of ties is building human capital (individual confidence and skill) and structural social capital (network position) simultaneously. This supports the source synthesis that "using executive coaching to provide the challenge and support in conjunction with the assessment provided by 360-degree feedback may be an effective means of linking leader and leadership development."

3.6 Implementation Intentions — the supplied research Mechanism

Source proposition 2d introduces a mechanism from the cognitive literature that deserves attention:

Practice note: Implementation Intentions — the supplied research When people experience difficulty translating goals into action, they can use situational cues to make their responses effortless and automatic by forming the cognitive structure: "When situation X arises, I will do Y." The person pre-commits to a specific response to a specific trigger, which removes the moment-of-truth from conscious deliberation. the supplied research and subsequent research show this simple technique produces large behavioural change effects. The application to executive coaching is direct: a coach helping a project manager curb a habit of interrupting direct reports in meetings might design an implementation intention such as:

"When a direct report begins speaking in our team meeting, I will keep my hands flat on the table and count to three before deciding whether to respond."

The supplied research notes a nuance worth remembering: because implementation intentions remove behaviour from conscious control, there is some question about whether deep learning occurs through automatically enacted behaviour. The technique is powerful but is not a substitute for the insight work of coaching.

3.7 Coaching and Organisational Relationship Quality

Source proposition 2b draws on the supplied research on social accounts and motivated reasoning:

Practice note — source Proposition 2b: "The quality of an individual's relationship with an organisation is positively associated with the effectiveness of coaching for development for that individual."

If a participant already distrusts the organisation — perhaps because they have been through a restructure or a failed acquisition — they will interpret the coaching offer as a manipulation, a setup, or a prelude to termination. Change motivation collapses. The coaching fails not because of the coach or the method, but because of the relational context in which it is embedded.

4. The Pitfalls — Where Coaching Goes Wrong

1. Assigning coaching without willingness. If the participant does not want to change, the best coach in Australia cannot make them.
2. The stigma trap. Selective assignment of coaches signals "this person is in trouble" and poisons the intervention.
3. Excluding the supervisor. Coaching without a three-way development conversation drifts from the performance context and rarely produces sustained change.
4. Confusing coaching with therapy. A qualified coach works on behaviour and performance, not on underlying psychological structure. When the need is therapeutic, the referral must be explicit.
5. Evaluating only short-term productivity. the supplied research found coaching-after-training increased productivity 88% in public-sector managers, but "no evaluation was conducted that addressed the important, but different, issue of leadership development." Productivity gain is not development.
6. Mismatched coach-participant pairing. Personality fit, industry understanding, and style compatibility all matter. A brilliant generalist coach may fail with a senior defence engineer if there is no shared vocabulary.
7. Treating coaching as an event. A two-day intensive is a workshop, not coaching. Coaching is ongoing.
8. Ignoring the organisational relationship. If trust in the employer is low, coaching effectiveness collapses (Proposition 2b).
9. Overreliance on implementation intentions. They produce behavioural change but can mask the absence of deeper understanding.

5. Key Takeaways

Practice note: Seven Things to Remember

1. Coaching is the most integrated developmental practice — it combines assessment, challenge, and support in one intervention.
2. Selection, matching, and willingness are the three prerequisites (Proposition 2a). Get any one wrong and the coaching fails.
3. The stigma problem is real. Coach entire leadership groups together, or coach individuals openly — never disguise individual targeting as group work.
4. Always include the supervisor in development planning (the supplied research Step 3).
5. Coaching builds social capital as well as human capital — it increases both strong and weak network ties (Proposition 2c).
6. Implementation intentions are a powerful behavioural change mechanism: "When X, I will do Y."
7. Coaching effectiveness depends on the participant's relationship with the organisation (Proposition 2b). Low organisational trust = failed coaching.

6. Knowledge Check

Practice note: Test Your Understanding

1. A prime contractor senior project manager is offered executive coaching. She tells her supervisor: "I'll do it, but I'm only doing it because you're making me. Let's just get through the sessions." Using source proposition 2a, assess the likelihood that this engagement will produce behavioural change.
2. Write an implementation intention (in the supplied research "when X, I will do Y" format) for a project director who has received feedback that he dismisses concerns raised by junior engineers in technical reviews.
3. Explain why the supplied research recommends coaching entire executive groups rather than individuals identified as needing help. What organisational dynamic is he trying to avoid?
4. Distinguish strong ties and weak ties in the source's usage. Why does the supplied research argue that effective coaching increases both?
5. The supplied source reports an 88% productivity increase in the study's public-sector manager sample, but also identifies a critical limitation — what is it, and why does it matter for leadership development research?

Applying the Guidance as a Controlled Practice

Use this subject as a decision aid, not as a label applied after the event. Start by defining the delivery problem, the people affected, the authority available and the consequences of a poor decision. Record assumptions before selecting an intervention. That simple discipline makes later review possible and prevents a preferred leadership style from being treated as the answer to every situation.

Six-Step Application Cycle

1. Define the trigger. State the decision, behaviour, team condition or delivery risk that requires attention. Separate observation from interpretation.
2. Map the context. Identify the project phase, task uncertainty, dependencies, stakeholder interests, time pressure, team capability and formal authority.
3. Choose a proportionate response. Select the smallest intervention capable of improving the condition. Explain why it fits the evidence and what alternatives were rejected.
4. Agree ownership and boundaries. Make decision rights, escalation points, review dates and non-negotiable safety or ethical limits visible to the people involved.
5. Act and observe. Monitor both delivery indicators and human signals such as challenge, information sharing, participation, trust and follow-through.
6. Review and adapt. Compare the result with the original intent. Retain, adjust or stop the intervention, and capture the learning for the next phase.

Evidence and Verification

Evidence should be proportionate to the project's risk and governance needs. A short decision note may be sufficient for a routine team adjustment; a high-consequence change may require sponsor approval, formal consultation, controlled records and a scheduled assurance review. Documentation must support judgement rather than replace it.

Review Questions

• What observable condition are we trying to change, and how will we know if it improves?
• Whose perspective is missing from the diagnosis or decision?
• Are authority, accountability and capability aligned, or are we asking someone to own an outcome they cannot control?
• Could the intervention suppress challenge, conceal risk or create dependency on one individual?
• What evidence will trigger escalation, adaptation or closure?

Practice boundary: Frameworks in this article organise thinking; they do not guarantee performance. Project context, contractual obligations, safety duties, workplace requirements and approved governance remain controlling.