How to Measure ROI of Executive Coaching Programmes

Introduction: The Need to Demonstrate ROI in Coaching

Executive coaching is no longer a “nice to have”. Boards want evidence that it improves performance, takes the risk out of key decisions, and pays back with demonstrable ROI.

The good news: the research base is now strong enough to move beyond anecdotes.

Recent analysis shows coaching reliably improves goal attainment, self‑efficacy and resilience—capabilities that feed directly into execution and results. Across organisations, coaching programmes have produced headline ROI figures from 5.7:1 to 7:1 (and higher in case studies) when benefits are tracked and converted into monetary value.

This article sets out a practical approach to determining the ROI of executive coaching programmes: what to measure, how to measure it, what “good” looks like in the evidence, and how Mentor Group can help you turn coaching into tangible ROI.

What to Measure, and Why

Whenever you determine ROI, the first step is to identify what you’re going to measure, and why you’re measuring it. That looks like identifying the leading indicators that you can directly influence, and linking those to the lagging indicators that the board actually care about – just like in sales, there’s no value in reporting on numbers that don’t interest the key decision makers.

This chain of lead and lag indicators should be short – no flooding the zone with hundreds of metrics. The connection between them should also be transparent to ensure clarity and drive credibility in your reporting.

So, with that in mind, what leading indicators should we be looking to track?

When it comes to coaching, we’re looking at behaviours first and foremost. This can include:

• Clearer goals and pipelines
• Better decision speed and follow-through
• High quality 1:1 coaching cadences
• Resilience and self-efficacy

Coaching data backs these metrics up; goal attainment, self-efficacy, psychological capacity and resilience demonstrate consistent, positive impacts on sales pipelines and seller performance.

When we come to lagging indicators, we’re dealing with execution that’s measured by raw numbers.

• Revenue efficiency: win rates, average deal value, sales cycle times 
• Forecast credibility: deal slippage, push rates, ‘mirage’ deals 
• Productivity: output per manager, time saved as a result of fewer escalations or rework 
• People outcomes: talent retention, internal mobility, reduced replacement costs

The link between the lead and lag indicators is simple: coaching drives the right behaviours, and the right behaviours result in consistent execution. After all, it’s the execution that moves the numbers, and your reporting should make that link as visible as possible.

What This Looks Like In Your Business

Thankfully, you don’t need a laboratory to prove executive coaching ROI. There are, however, three critical elements that need to be in place to ensure accuracy and consistency: a fair baseline, a clean comparison, and transparent reporting.

What does that look like practically, from start to finish?

1. Fair baseline. Capture 8–12 weeks of ‘before’ data for your participating leaders on the leading and lagging metrics you’ve chosen.
   
   
2. Clean comparison. Identify a ‘control’ group, matched on tenure, team size and market. If that’s not possible, use a pre/post design and document other changes that could affect results.
   
   
3. Instrument the behaviours. Run the coaching programme, keeping an eye on seller adoption and ensuring that managers are intentional and consistent with their 1:1 cadences.
   
   
4. Transparent reporting. This is where we start measuring results in the lagging indicators. A pre/post design and/or a matched control group is often enough. If you have analyst support, add a difference‑in‑differences cut (how much more your coached cohort improved vs the control group over the same window).
   
   
5. Translate improvements to real money.Increased metrics is all well and good, but ROI will always boil down to monetary value, especially at board level. You need to demonstrate that the lead indicators are making a difference to the lag indicators, and that the lag indicators are making a difference in the pipeline - and ultimately in terms of revenue.
   
   
   • Win rates = more bookings: A 3–4 point lift at steady volume is a material revenue gain. Structured coaching programmes often report win‑rate improvements in this range or higher; treat any single‑number claim with caution, but the directional impact is well‑evidenced.
   • Forecast accuracy = better resource allocation: Fewer “mirage” deals reduces wasted pursuits; quantify hours saved and redeployed.
   • Talent retention = avoided recruitment costs: Sum recruiting fees, ramp time, and lost productivity for senior roles.
   • Time saved = improved managerial capacity: Translate faster decisions and fewer escalations into hours and then into value per hour.

The process is simple, but it’s not necessarily easy. If you can get it right, however, you can go into every board meeting with confidence that you’re delivering where it matters most; on the bottom line.

What the Research Says ROI Should Look Like

Now that we’ve got the process nailed down, and we know what to look for, we need to know what good ROI looks like for executive coaching.

Any benchmark you set will need to be contextualized and tailored to your business context, but there is plenty of data to give you an indication of what types of numbers you should be looking for.

• Effectiveness on core capacities: Studies show significant positive effects of executive coaching on goal attainment, self‑efficacy, psychological capital, and resilience—the very levers that underpin commercial execution. A 2013 meta‑analysis reported medium-to-large effects across outcomes (e.g., goal‑focused self‑regulation). A broader 2023 review concluded that workplace coaching is effective in achieving positive organisational outcomes.
• Financial returns (when measured):
  • Manchester Inc. reported an average 5.7:1 ROI across 100 executives (conservative calculation).
  • MetrixGlobal found 529% ROI in a Fortune 500 telecom, rising to 788% when retention savings were included.
  • ICF reports a median company ROI around 7:1 across organisations that measure outcomes. Treat these as indicative rather than universal; they are context‑specific.
• Commercial mechanisms: Industry studies repeatedly link structured coaching with better sales outcomes, including higher win rates and productivity. Figures vary by source and design, but the directional link is consistent with what leaders see in the field.

What to take from this: ROI is always going to be context‑specific, but when you (a) target the right behaviours, (b) measure cleanly, and (c) convert improvements using accepted business maths, multiples in the 3–7x range are realistic—and sometimes higher.

The variance comes from programme quality, manager participation, and whether you track benefits beyond revenue (e.g., retention, decision speed).