The science

This is how we’re leading the field.

‍Let’s take a closer look at the science behind it all. Starting with our peer-reviewed research, how we build our programs and how we measure their impact.

Some people ask if we are afraid of showing our competition our “secrets”. The answer is not really. What we’ve done is neither easy nor fast.

Peer-reviewed Research.

Study 1. Defining Employee Coachability & Measuring Its Impact.

Study 2. Assessing Coachability - The Foundation for the CQ Assessment.

How we build our programs.

How we measure impact.

Peer-reviewed Research.

Our goal at CCI is to stay at the forefront of coachability research – and practice. We were the first in the field and we continue to do so. We go into organizations, collect data, and study what coachability looks like in real corporate settings.

But all that effort would be meaningless without submitting our research to be reviewed. That’s why we have two peer-reviewed publications that form the foundation of our work. Both studies collected data from life sciences organizations. We’re actively working on more research papers to stay at the forefront of coachability research – and practice.

Study 1

[01]

Defining Employee Coachability & Measuring Its Impact.

What we did:

Before our research, coachability only really existed in the sports psychology context. So we applied the much needed rigorous research in corporate or organizational environments. Our research established the construct of employee coachability in the academic literature.

Research

What we discovered:

Defined what it means to be highly coachable in a corporate setting — the specific observable behaviors that differentiate highly coachable individuals from others.

Quantified the impact of coachability on performance outcomes including job performance, agility, adaptability, and promotability.

Examined environmental factors and how organizational culture can enhance or undermine an individual's ability to operate in highly coachable ways.

Compared coaching behaviors vs. coachability as drivers of performance outcomes.

Performance

Key finding:

While coaching behaviors from managers are critical, coachability exerts a significant effect on outcomes above and beyond coaching itself.

This is why we focus on coachability — it's the bigger lever for driving performance – and coaching. Both in combination are much more impactful than coaching alone, which is what organizations to date have focused on.

Study 2

[02]

Assessing Coachability - The Foundation for the CQ Assessment.

What we did:

What individual characteristics, tendencies, and motivations lead someone to demonstrate highly coachable behaviors?

This research was critical for understanding how organizations can:

Hire for coachability.

Assess current coachability levels.

Begin to develop coachability systematically.

Coachability levels

What we discovered:

We identified the individual differences that differentiate individuals likely to be highly coachable from those with moderate or lower coachability.

This formed the foundation for the CQ Assessment we created.

CQ Assessment

The significance:

We are the people who conducted this research and published it in peer-reviewed outlets. The CQ Assessment is built on our original scientific research. We also have a robust “technical report” detailing the reliability and validity studies we conducted to create the CQ Assessment.

We haven’t published this in any peer-reviewed outlets yet because we don’t want anyone to reverse engineer the assessment. We are currently working on a solution that would allow us to share our findings safely.

Peer-reviewed Research.

How we build our programs.

How we measure impact.

How we build our programs.

Every program we develop is created by scientists — specifically, organizational psychologists who conduct deep dives into both academic and practitioner research.

What we did:

Research-informed development: Every program is built on data that indicates what success looks like across different domains, not just what worked in one company or what we think might work from our personal experience.

Citations throughout: You'll see citations on our slides because we want clients to know we're providing insights based on research evidence, not opinion or pseudoscience.

Expert team composition: This is a job that requires different skills. We identified these three key positions.

Organizational psychology PhDs

Citations throughout: You'll see citations on our slides because we want clients to know we're providing insights based on research evidence, not opinion or pseudoscience.

Instructional designers

Who understand how to create instructionally sound learning programs, pathways, and products based on learning science that lead to behavioral change and transfer of learned insights to one’s job.

Practitioner experts

With 30-35+ years of experience coaching at the highest levels (elite athletes, high-performing employees, organizational leaders).

In a nutshell, we marry scientific rigor with real-world expertise. Both essential to work in high-stakes environments.

Peer-reviewed Research.

How we build our programs.

How we measure impact.

We measure actual behavioral change and its relationship to business outcomes not just satisfaction scores.

At the beginning of engagements, we gather data that provides insight on baseline coachability, strengths, and gaps or opportunities. With it we can see what clients need to focus on and improve.

Then, over time, we collect data to see how behaviors are evolving and improving based on the coachability or coaching programs we are implementing.

We also work with clients to help them determine ROI.

What we measure:

Before the engagement:

When clients allow, we measure coachability behaviors (and/or coaching behaviors) before we start any intervention. This establishes a baseline.

Behaviors

During and after the engagement:

We track how our programs affect change in behaviors over time and how they impact on impact on business outcomes.

Outcomes we focus on:

Behavioral change around coachability (not just intentions or confidence — actual observable behavior change).

How behavioral change relates to key performance indicators the company wanted to impact through our partnership. This is key for assessing ROI, which will differ by company or client.

Other aspects we measure:

Satisfaction scores with the program.

Intentions to engage in certain behaviors.

Self-reported confidence levels.

The main benefit for our clients.

Lets talk

Assess your company‘s coaching profile

The concept and thescience of coachabilty.

The concept that gave us our name

Like many other business ideas, ours comes from observation and experience. Companies investing billions in coaching yet not consistently performing better.

The science

This is how we’re leading the field.

Peer-reviewed Research.

Study 1. Defining Employee Coachability & Measuring Its Impact.

Study 2. Assessing Coachability - The Foundation for the CQ Assessment.

How we build our programs.

How we measure impact.

Peer-reviewed Research.

Study 1

[01]

Defining Employee Coachability & Measuring Its Impact.

What we did:

Before our research, coachability only really existed in the sports psychology context. So we applied the much needed rigorous research in corporate or organizational environments. Our research established the construct of employee coachability in the academic literature.

Research

What we discovered:

Defined what it means to be highly coachable in a corporate setting — the specific observable behaviors that differentiate highly coachable individuals from others.

Quantified the impact of coachability on performance outcomes including job performance, agility, adaptability, and promotability.

Examined environmental factors and how organizational culture can enhance or undermine an individual's ability to operate in highly coachable ways.

Compared coaching behaviors vs. coachability as drivers of performance outcomes.

Performance

Key finding:

Study 2

[02]

Assessing Coachability - The Foundation for the CQ Assessment.

What we did:

What individual characteristics, tendencies, and motivations lead someone to demonstrate highly coachable behaviors?This research was critical for understanding how organizations can:

Hire for coachability.

Assess current coachability levels.

Begin to develop coachability systematically.

Coachability levels

What we discovered:

We identified the individual differences that differentiate individuals likely to be highly coachable from those with moderate or lower coachability. This formed the foundation for the CQ Assessment we created.

CQ Assessment

The significance:

Peer-reviewed Research.

How we build our programs.

How we measure impact.

How we build our programs.

Every program we develop is created by scientists — specifically, organizational psychologists who conduct deep dives into both academic and practitioner research.

What we did:

Research-informed development: Every program is built on data that indicates what success looks like across different domains, not just what worked in one company or what we think might work from our personal experience.

Citations throughout: You'll see citations on our slides because we want clients to know we're providing insights based on research evidence, not opinion or pseudoscience.

Expert team composition: This is a job that requires different skills. We identified these three key positions.

Organizational psychology PhDs

Citations throughout: You'll see citations on our slides because we want clients to know we're providing insights based on research evidence, not opinion or pseudoscience.

Instructional designers

Who understand how to create instructionally sound learning programs, pathways, and products based on learning science that lead to behavioral change and transfer of learned insights to one’s job.

Practitioner experts

With 30-35+ years of experience coaching at the highest levels (elite athletes, high-performing employees, organizational leaders).

In a nutshell, we marry scientific rigor with real-world expertise. Both essential to work in high-stakes environments.

Peer-reviewed Research.

How we build our programs.

How we measure impact.

How we measure impact.

What we measure:

Before the engagement:

When clients allow, we measure coachability behaviors (and/or coaching behaviors) before we start any intervention. This establishes a baseline.

Behaviors

During and after the engagement:

We track how our programs affect change in behaviors over time and how they impact on impact on business outcomes.

Outcomes we focus on:

Behavioral change around coachability (not just intentions or confidence — actual observable behavior change).

How behavioral change relates to key performance indicators the company wanted to impact through our partnership. This is key for assessing ROI, which will differ by company or client.

Other aspects we measure:

Satisfaction scores with the program.

Intentions to engage in certain behaviors.

Self-reported confidence levels.

The main benefit for our clients.

The main benefit for our clients.

So, shall we start with an assessment?

Your team needsboth sides of coaching.

The concept and the
science of coachabilty.

What individual characteristics, tendencies, and motivations lead someone to demonstrate highly coachable behaviors?

This research was critical for understanding how organizations can:

We identified the individual differences that differentiate individuals likely to be highly coachable from those with moderate or lower coachability.

This formed the foundation for the CQ Assessment we created.

The main benefit for
our clients.

Your team needs
both sides of coaching.