• How we evaluate
    • It’s really important to us to know if coaching is working.  Nancy, our Ceo and a Psychologist, believes that getting follow-up feedback is the only way to make sure that we are doing a good job.  Our commitment is to ‘evidence based practice’.

      Our evaluation process works like this:

      1 – Managers and clients rate current performance at the start of each program (independently of each other).  This rating covers the topics that will be focused on during the coaching and is scored out of 10.

      2 – Between 2 and 4 months after the coaching program has finished, a researcher calls both the client and the manager again.

      3 – We ask them to give a new score, but we don’t remind them of their first score.  This helps keep them from giving extra high scores because of a ‘feel-good factor’ that they might have from liking their coach.

      4 – We do this for all clients.  Around 75% of clients and 40% of managers return our calls and give feedback.  These scores are used to measure the effectiveness of our coaching strategies and of individual coaches.

      5 – In one-year follow up samples, 23% of clients had been promoted, 90% had retained employment and 10% had moved to a more suitable role.

  • The topics chosen in coaching
    • The most popular topics chosen by clients and managers (combined) for coaching are:

      Memory: 91%

      Organisational Skills 78%

      Time Management 75%

      Stress Management 67%

      Spelling 67%

      Communicating about needs %7%

      Reading 54%

      We think this speaks volumes about how neurodiversity affect adults and shows that it is not just about literacy and behaviour.  There are lots of other things that affect our work life and help us to be successful.  That is why our coaching and our Genius in Training resources are aimed at these issues.

  • Results
    • We looked through the feedback to identify some overall ‘distance travelled’ feedback. These results were subjected to peer review and published academically.

      In our most recent sample*, we found that:

      1)    Our clients get an average of 4.5 sessions, which is just 9 hours of coaching time.

      2)    Managers, on average report a performance improvement of 47% over this time (4.8 – 7.1 out of 10)

      3)    Employees report a performance improvement of 71% (4.1 – 7.0 out of 10)

      Because the client and manager scores are so different at the start, we think this shows how our clients lack in self confidence.  We are very happy that they post similar scores by the end!

      We also found, evaluating 1 year on that 25% of our clients had been promoted in this time!  90% were still in their jobs and the 10% who were not had moved on to a more suitable role.

      You can read more about this research if you have access to academic databases using the following reference:

      Doyle, N.E. & McDowall, A. (2015) Is coaching an effective adjustment for dyslexia in the workplace? Coaching: An International Journal of Theory and Practice, 8(2) 154-168

      *These data are based on 512 clients and 142 line managers and has been analysed using SPSS v22 in 2016.  The data show significance at the 0.01 level, indicating that the is a 99% chance that the improvement is the result of the intervention and only a 1% chance that future cohorts would not achieve similar results.  For more information, please contact

  • Further research in progress
    • We are currently actively researching the impact of group based coaching compared to 1:1 coaching with our partners at Birkbeck College and City, University of London.  We are also actively researching the impact of different types of disability accommodation with our partners at the Universite de Montreal.

      Nancy is also the Founder of the BPS Working Group looking at Neurodiversity and Employment.  In collaboration with our peers we are looking at the impact of diagnostic assessments and workplace needs assessments on job security and performance management, as well as the impact of hidden disability on wider health and wellbeing outcomes.