It should be noted that the organization-oriented group is larger than the personal coach-oriented group: 85 personal coaching and 114 organizational coaching. This discrepancy is partially attributable to the fact that the catchment area for organizational coaching was quite a bit larger than that for personal coaching, with those primarily involved in the training of coaches being included with those doing organizational coaching. In future analyses, we will offer a more finely differentiated analysis. And we need to assert the important caveat that many coaches who completed the survey do both personal and organizational coaching: we assigned respondents to our two categories based on percentages—not exclusive engagements– in one of the two areas of coaching.
Having found results from the two surveys to be closely aligned in our initial analyses, we combined the responses to both surveys (having also done so in the analyses we offered in the three previous reports). Furthermore, as we did in the fourth, fifth and sixth analyses, we went beyond the calculation of means and variances for the two different groups. We conducted simple T-Tests to determine if differences between responses to any of the survey questions by the personal and organizational coaches were significant. We present the mean, variance and T-Test Scores in the next section of this report for each of the seven questions on which we focused in the first six studies, In addition, because some significant (or near significant) differences were found, we present not only the t-test score for each question, but also the degrees of freedom and, when significant, the critical value (cv) associated with the .10, .05, .01 or .001 level of significance.Download Article 500 Club