Calming Influence

Can coaching reduce work-related stress?

No employer can have failed to note the recent explosion of interest in the issue of stress at work. This rise is no doubt due to the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) staggering figures. According to its estimates for the period 2003-2004, workplace stress, along with depression and anxiety, is responsible for the loss of 13.4 million working days per year1. Defining stress as “the adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demands placed on them”, the HSE recently developed stress management standards along with a work-related stress questionnaire to help organisations manage this worrying issue.

Organisations inevitably try many different interventions in an attempt to prevent and manage workplace stress, but for the purposes of our research we considered the benefits of coaching. Although not commonly associated with stress reduction (and with a lack of research identifying a link), there are suggestions that it can be used for this purpose. According to professional coach Wendy Hearn2, coaching can be a useful tool in helping to identify the factors causing stress; to develop effective strategies for change, and then to maintain such change. As well as tackling stress directly, Hearn also believes coaching can reduce stress indirectly by helping individuals to improve performance, efficiency, communication skills, and work-related goals.

Our research into this subject was focused on three main areas. The aim of Part I of the study was to investigate whether participation in coaching reduced stress; Part II considered whether or not there was a relationship between participation in coaching and lower levels of stress; Part III looked at participants’ experiences of coaching. In all three sections we also set out to discover whether coaching was considered effective by the coachees.

• Part 1 measured stress before and after coaching in 31 employees from a large UK finance organisation. Stress was measured by a valid and reliable stress questionnaire, “The Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales-21” (DASS). Two groups were included in the study: one group consisted of individuals who had attended coaching and the other group consisted of individuals who had not – the control group.
• Part 2 of the study measured stress after coaching in 103 employees from one large UK finance organisation and one large Scandinavian telecommunication organisation. Stress was measured using the DASS after coaching in a coaching group and a control group. Stressors (potential causes of stress) were also measured by the HSE’s Indicator Tool. The Indicator Tool consists of seven sub-scales: demands, control, managerial support, colleague support, relationships, role, and change.
• Part 3 of the study used in-depth interviews and aimed to investigate individuals’ experiences and views of coaching. Overall, nine employees (from the UK and the Scandinavian organisations) were interviewed.

Interestingly, the three parts of the study produced somewhat different findings (see below). Part I did not find that coaching significantly reduced stress and Part II did not find that participation in coaching was associated with lower levels of stress. Moreover, Part III found that coaching did in fact reduce stress indirectly. A possible explanation for this discrepancy is that the stress process is too complex to measure by means of a questionnaire, or that larger numbers of participants were needed. On the other hand, the individuals who were interviewed may have represented a minority, other coaching clients may have reported very different experiences of coaching and stress. However, high levels of coaching effectiveness were reported by all participants, which suggests that coaching was effective in tackling the specific issues targeted in the sessions, such as improving confidence, which in turn led to improved job performance and increased assertiveness. The coaching relationship was viewed as valuable and supportive, while the provision of coaching was perceived by employees as proof that the employer cared for, and was willing to invest in, their staff. With such support for coaching from employees, and their claims regarding its effectiveness, we believe that coaching will not be a passing fad. 

Details of the findings:

Part I

Depression, anxiety and stress

At the beginning of the study the coaching group and the control group reported similar levels of depression, anxiety and stress. At the end of the study levels of anxiety and stress had decreased more in the coaching group compared to the control group, and were lower in the coaching group compared to the control group. However, levels of depression had decreased more in the control group compared with the coaching group. Thus it could not be concluded that coaching was responsible for reducing stress.

Coaching effectiveness

Each of the 16 individuals who received coaching (receiving an average of four sessions) were asked how effective they found it, with a score of one being not at all effective and a score of seven being very effective. Participants reported very high levels of coaching effectiveness, with a mean score of 6.43.

Part 2

Depression, anxiety, and stress

Levels of stress (depression, anxiety, and stress) were very similar for the coaching and control groups. The tests found that participation in coaching was not associated with lower levels of depression, anxiety and stress.

Coaching effectiveness
Overall, 62 participants attended coaching and the average number of coaching sessions attended was four. Coaching effectiveness was measured by the same question as in Part I of the study. Participants once again reported high levels of coaching effectiveness with a mean score of 5.64.

Part 3

The interviews were analysed and four main themes emerged:

Management of stress

Identified as the main theme, this in turn consisted of a number of sub-themes illustrated in Figure 1. Coaching was found to help participants reduce stress indirectly by improving their confidence; saying “no” to extra work and improving problem-solving skills.
The ability to cope with stressful situations was also improved by coaching, and participants said that it was a resource they would consider using to tackle stress in the future. But it was also found that coaching had the potential to cause stress by being perceived as “a waste of time” and as being unproductive by failing to lead to any specific action.

The coaching relationship

This was valued by participants and viewed as very important for effective coaching. Trust and transparency were also important aspects of a good relationship.

Confidence

Coaching helped improve participants’ confidence, which was associated with improved job performance, more assertive behaviour and benefits outside of the workplace.

Coaching as staff investment

The provision of coaching was viewed as a sign that the organisation valued and invested in their employees. It was also suggested that the provision of coaching could improve company morale.

Kristina Gyllensten & Professor Stephen Palmer are researchers at City University, Department of Psychology, London.