We can probe even deeper: what is the rationale for the decisions that are made and what biases operate in establishing this rationale? What are the vested interests that operate among those establishing the criteria? Doesn’t the rationale being used have a major influence on the criteria being established and determination of a program’s success based on these criteria? Do not the vested interests, values and perspectives of those at the table have a major impact on the assessment of outcomes? Is evidence ever gathered and interpreted in a neutral manner?

What about the challenges faced by those doing research on professional coaching? Are not some people and perspectives absent from the table? If return-on-investment is identified as a key criterion for determining the success of coaching programs, then how is “investment” defined and what does “return” mean? Are both terms defined primarily in financial terms? If this is the case, then are some outcomes being devalued or even ignored? Are there important investments other than money that must be taken into account? It is not just a matter of expanding “investment” to include time spent and facilities engaged, it is also the investment of hope and the price paid by loss or regret. How do we take these into account?

If we reframe the criteria and speak of “return-on-expectations” we may be bringing more people to the table, but at the same time we may be making assessment even more difficult and increasing the intrusion of biases and preconceptions. The world gets messier or at least the mess that is already there becomes more apparent. What are we going to do about this challenge and what would a process of determining criteria for establishing evidence look like when many people are invited to the table—bringing with them diverse perspectives and values. Many behavioral economists propose that this diversity brings more creativity to the table (Page, 2011; Johansson, 2004; Kahneman, 2011). The key question is: do we need creativity when we are trying to build the foundation for evidence-based coaching? Are clarity and consensus more important?