Despite 30 years of leadership training, there is still a gap

According to Gartner, the thing that most CPOs are lying awake worrying about at night is that their organisational leaders and managers aren’t yet equipped for the complexity they face daily. Gartner’s 2025 priorities put Leader & Manager Development at the top, ahead of culture, workforce planning, organisational design, and change management. In other words, capability at the coalface is the constraint on strategy.

The usual response is more training! Slide decks on feedback models. Toolkits for hybrid meetings. Maybe an e-learning bundle on “difficult conversations.” Useful, sometimes. But if you’ve ever coached a manager who intellectually “knows” the model and still avoids the conversation, you know the limits of this approach. In moments of quiet introspection, as HR leaders, we recognise that despite spending millions on these techniques over the last 30 years, the needle has, I'm sorry to say, barely moved. The blocker isn’t knowledge; it’s psychology - habit loops, threat responses, identity narratives. This is where coaching psychology can make a difference.

From competencies to capacity

Traditional programmes transfer content; coaching psychology develops capability, the inner musculature leaders draw on under pressure: self-awareness, emotional regulation, cognitive flexibility, and values-aligned action. Evidence is catching up with what many practitioners observe: coaching improves leadership effectiveness through shifts in authentic and change-oriented behaviours and self-efficacy. Think of it as changing the operating system, not just installing another app!

A micro-example. A new people manager keeps deferring performance conversations. She can roll off the SBI feedback model, yet freezes in the moment. A coaching-psychology approach doesn’t start with more technique; it surfaces the underlying schema (e.g., approval-seeking), works with physiological arousal (breath, posture, micro-pauses), and rehearses values-based scripts so she can act despite discomfort. That’s not “tips”; that’s behavioural change!

Why 2025 needs depth, not just scale

Two contextual headwinds make depth non-negotiable. First, burnout and manager squeeze remain high. Surveys this year continue to show over-stretched managers juggling too many meetings, competing expectations up and down the chain, and chronic decision fatigue. If managers are disengaged, teams follow; Gallup estimates that only around a quarter of managers are engaged, and that managerial engagement drives most team variance. A tired manager won’t absorb another toolkit; they need regulation skills and sense-making capacity.

Second, change exhaustion. CHRO forums and Gartner’s briefings point to change fatigue as a structural reality, not a passing phase. Leaders require a stance that holds both ambiguity and action, rather than defaulting to either paralysis or performative urgency. That stance is, at root, psychological.

What coaching psychology actually adds (in practice)

1. Emotional regulation under load Acceptance & Commitment Coaching (ACT-informed) trains leaders to notice difficult internal experiences (anxiety before a board review; anger in a stand-up), label them accurately, and take values-aligned action anyway. It’s not catharsis; it’s workable presence. RCT-grounded meta-analyses and programme studies increasingly show coaching’s effects on self-efficacy and performance outcomes—useful when you need to defend budget.

2. Cognitive flexibility and better decisions Cognitive-behavioural coaching helps leaders test assumptions, reframe binary choices, and create small experiments. In fast cycles (weekly 30-minute sessions), managers learn to replace “I must get this perfect” with “What’s the minimum viable next step?” That shift alone shortens decision latency and reduces avoidant behaviour, often visible in your cycle-time metrics.

3. Relational leadership and psychological safety Coaching-style leadership (distinct from “being a coach to your team”) is associated with higher engagement, vigour, dedication, absorption, partly via enhanced organisational self-esteem. In practice, this involves more thoughtful one-to-ones, cleaner contracting, and curiosity before judgement. It’s not soft. It’s how you keep discretionary effort when the roadmap changes for the third time this quarter.

4. Motivation that lasts longer than the offsite Self-Determination Theory (SDT) offers a crisp lens: leaders can design for autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the day-to-day, how goals are framed, how feedback is delivered, and how decisions get made. The result isn’t just nicer vibes; it’s stickier motivation and steadier execution under stress.

A Small Case Example

“Amira” runs a distributed product team. Energy is slipping; two senior team members are disengaging. She knows the frameworks. The block is psychological: conflict avoidance plus a belief that “good leaders shield people from pressure.” So, over six weeks of coaching psychology, she:

• Maps her avoidant loop (tension → over-function → resentment → delay).

• Practices micro-recovery in-meeting (two-breath reset; slow voice; ask one genuine question).

• Reframes leadership identity from protector to contractor of realities, explicit trade-offs, adult-to-adult.

• Implemented SDT-aligned team norms (opt-in goal setting; demo leadership from ICs).

Result? On the surface: cleaner commitments, fewer escalations, two talent moves. Underneath: a leader now able to act in the presence of discomfort. That sticks.

But what about AI coaching?

AI ‘coachbots’ are trending because they’re cheap, available, and consistent. Used well, they’re great for rehearsal (role-playing a conversation) or reflection prompts. Used poorly, they risk pseudo-empathy and ‘carewashing’, an activity that looks supportive while sidestepping systemic load issues. The pragmatic answer is to both automate practice and reserve human coaching psychology for the thorny, identity-laden problems where nuance and duty of care matter. (Even CHRO communities emphasise leadership depth as the lever with the most significant business impact in 2025.)

A quick litmus test I offer clients: If the issue would embarrass the coachee if surfaced in a town hall, don’t give it to a bot. If it’s a rehearsal or pre-brief for a routine chat, fine. If its values conflict, shame triggers, and systemic trust deficits arise, bring a human.

For the sceptics (bring your CFO)

Coaching interventions have shown goal-level improvements versus controls in executive populations; leadership-coaching studies link outcomes to authentic/change-oriented behaviours and self-efficacy; coaching-style leadership correlates with higher engagement. Yes, effects vary by context and quality, which is precisely the case for investing in trained coaching psychologists rather than generic “coaching-adjacent” provision.

And the cost of doing nothing? According to Gallup, persistent manager disengagement and burnout, which multiple sources flag as structurally high going into 2025, is a drag on retention, productivity, and culture that no amount of 'slideware' will fix.

How to start next quarter (simple, credible, low-risk)

1.      Pick one population, one behaviour, eight weeks. For example: all first-line managers in Operations; target behaviour = “contract early, escalate less.”

2.      Blend: three 1:1 micro-coaching sessions, two group pods, AI rehearsal in between.

3.      Measure wisely: self-efficacy delta; peer 180 on the target behaviour; one operational metric (e.g., time-to-decision or queue age).

4.      Publish the learning internally—what shifted, what didn’t, what to change next cycle. Treat it as a product, not a one-off programme.

The bottom line is this. 2025 doesn’t need another leadership toolkit. It needs leaders who can stay present under pressure, make cleaner choices, and build trust while the ground moves. Coaching psychology develops that capacity, evidence-informed, ethically grounded, and scalable with care. If Leader & Manager Development is your top priority this year, this is the deepest lever you can pull.

If you want to discuss this topic in more depth, please feel free to email me (here)

Sources / further reading: Gartner HR priorities for 2025; Evanta CHRO perspectives; Gallup manager engagement; peer-reviewed studies on leadership coaching and coaching-style leadership; recent analyses on manager burnout.