The first of these two outcome determination questions (Has it done what was intended?) is “researchable.” We usually can determine whether or not a specific set of outcomes have been achieved. The second question (Was it worth doing?) requires an imposition of values. Hence, it is not “researchable.” We can’t readily answer this question without substantial clarification of organizational intentions. Yet the issue of values and organizational intentions cannot be avoided in the determination of outcomes. In another Library of Professional Coaching document (Intentional Analysis: A Comprehensive and Appreciative Model for the Evaluation of Organizational Coaching Programs) I examine ways in which the second question regarding the value of a program can be handled. In this essay, I explore ways in which the first question regarding achievement of pre-specified outcomes can be addressed.

Determining the Achievement of Prespecified Outcomes: There are two levels at which a program can be evaluated regarding the achievement of predetermined outcomes. At the first level, one can determine whether the outcomes have been achieved, without any direct concern for the role of the program in achieving these outcomes. This type of outcome-determining evaluation requires only an end-of-program assessment of specific outcomes that have been identified as part of a program planning process. To the extent that minimally specified levels have been achieved, the program can be said to have been successful, though, of course, other factors may have contributed  to or even been primarily responsible for the outcomes. If one needs to know specifically if the program contributed to the achievement of those outcomes, then a second set of procedures also must be used.

Determining a Program’s Contribution to the Achievement of Pre-specified Outcomes: This type of assessment requires considerably more attention to issues of design and measurement than does an assessment devoted exclusively to the determination of outcomes. In order to show that a specific program contributed to the outcomes that were achieved, a program evaluator should be able to demonstrate a causal connection. For example, a coaching program evaluation should show that one or more comparable groups of potential coaching clients who did not receive these coaching services did not achieved the pre-specified outcomes to the extent achieved by coaching clients who did receive these services.

In order to engage this comparison between a group that has participated in a coaching program, called the “experimental” group, and a group that hasn’t participated in this program, called the “control” group, several research design decisions must be made. Most evaluators try to employ a design in which people are assigned randomly to the experimental and control groups, and in which both groups are given pre- and post-program evaluations that assess the achievement of specific outcomes. Typically, the control group is not exposed to any program. Alternatively, the control group is exposed to a similar program that has already been offered in or by the organization. In this situation ideally there should be at least two control groups for the study of coaching practices, one that receives no coaching services and the other that receives an alternative to the coaching program being evaluated (such as a leadership training program or an alternative form of coaching).