Assessment-Informed Coaching: Why Data-Driven Development Works Better Than Generic Coaching
Your top investment professional needs coaching. But on what?
In most firms, the answer is vague: “Leadership development” or “communication skills” or “we’ll figure it out.”
So they go to a generic executive coach who works with everyone from startup founders to nonprofit directors. Coaching is generic too: “Let’s talk about your strengths.” “What’s your vision?” “How can you communicate better?”
Six months later: Coaching was okay. But was it worth the time and money? Did it actually improve performance?
Assessment-informed coaching is different.
Instead of “let’s figure out what to work on,” assessment data tells you exactly what to work on. Instead of generic coaching, development is targeted. Instead of “did it help?” you can measure improvement.
The Problem with Generic Coaching
Generic Coaching Misses the Mark
Generic coaching treats all professionals the same. The coach explores strengths and weaknesses (but misses real gaps), helps develop a vision (but not aligned with what your role requires), works on communication (but not your specific challenges), builds confidence (but you’re already confident—you need something else).
Result: Coaching that’s nice but not transformative.
Why Self-Assessment Falls Short
Generic coaching often relies on self-assessment: “What do you think you need to work on?”
Problem: Self-assessment is biased.
- People overestimate strengths in areas they care about
- People underestimate weaknesses (blind spots are blind)
- People work on things they find interesting, not things that matter for their role
- People default to “communication” or “leadership” (vague catch-alls)
Example: An investment professional says “I need to work on communication.” But really, the issue is:
- They don’t ask clarifying questions in client meetings
- They don’t listen to others’ perspectives in deal discussions
- They jump to conclusions instead of exploring multiple viewpoints
Those are specific gaps. Generic “communication coaching” won’t address them.
The Measurement Problem
With generic coaching, how do you know if it worked?
- The coachee says “I feel better” (good, but not proof)
- The coach says “great progress” (coaches always say that)
- You see behavior change? (Maybe, but hard to measure)
Without baseline data, improvement is subjective.
What Assessment-Informed Coaching Actually Does
Step 1: Baseline Assessment
Before coaching starts, behavioral assessment measures:
Thinking style and decision-making approach:
- How analytical or creative?
- How decisive or consultative?
- How detail-focused or big-picture?
Personality and interpersonal style:
- How direct or diplomatic?
- How independent or collaborative?
- How emotionally expressive or reserved?
Stress response and resilience:
- How does this person respond under pressure?
- Do they maintain discipline or get distracted?
- Do they lean on support or isolate?
Assessment reveals your actual capability profile—not how you see yourself.
Step 2: Define Coaching Priorities
Instead of vague “leadership development,” assessment data identifies specific gaps.
Example: Assessment shows:
- Strong analytical thinking (good)
- Lower creative thinking (gap)
- Strong confidence (good)
- Lower listening/perspective-taking (gap)
Coaching priorities are now clear:
- Develop creative thinking (imagine possibilities, see connections)
- Improve listening (understand others’ perspectives before deciding)
Not “become a better leader.” Specific capability gaps.
Step 3: Targeted Coaching
Coaching now addresses specific gaps identified by assessment.
Instead of generic “tell me about your challenges,” coaching is targeted:
- For creative thinking gap: “You naturally see details. Let’s work on stepping back to see patterns and connections. Here’s a framework…”
- For listening gap: “Your assessment shows you make decisions quickly. Let’s develop a more consultative approach. Here’s what that looks like…”
Coaching addresses root causes, not symptoms.
Step 4: Measurement
Before coaching, assessment creates a baseline. After 6 months, re-assess.
Compare baseline to follow-up:
- Did creative thinking improve? (Measurable)
- Did listening improve? (360 feedback confirms)
- Did decision-making quality improve? (Measurable through 360 feedback and outcomes)
Now you can prove coaching worked: “80% improvement in creative thinking score” or “Listening capability improved from 35th percentile to 58th percentile.”
Why Assessment-Informed Coaching Works Better
Reason 1: Targeted Development
Assessment identifies the specific gaps that matter for this person in this role.
Generic coaching tries to help with everything. Assessment-informed coaching addresses exactly what needs development.
Result: Time and money focused on what matters. Faster improvement.
Reason 2: Overcomes Blind Spots
You’re probably biased about your own strengths and weaknesses.
Assessment provides objective data. It reveals blind spots—gaps you didn’t know you had.
Example: Investment professional thinks “I’m a great listener.” Assessment shows listening capability at 40th percentile. 360 feedback from team confirms: “Doesn’t listen to others’ perspectives.”
Without assessment, the coaching would never address this blind spot.
Reason 3: Role-Specific Development
Different roles require different capabilities.
- MDs need origination capability (relationship skills, persuasion, persistence)
- Deal team leads need execution capability (project management, follow-through, coordination)
- Portfolio company CEOs need strategic capability (vision, business acumen, decision-making)
Assessment identifies what capabilities YOUR role requires. Coaching develops those.
Generic coaching can’t do this.
Reason 4: Measurable Improvement
With baseline assessment, improvement is measurable.
“Did I improve my communication?” is subjective. “Did my listening capability improve from 35th percentile to 60th percentile?” is objective.
This matters for:
- Proving ROI (coaching worked)
- Identifying if more coaching is needed (still a gap? keep coaching)
- Celebrating progress (here’s the concrete improvement)
- Learning what works (which coaching approaches drive improvement?)
Real Results: Assessment-Informed Coaching Outcomes
Case Study 1: Managing Director Origination Coaching
Challenge: MD had strong deal execution but weaker origination. Assessment showed:
- Strong analytical thinking
- Lower relational thinking
- Decisive but not consultative
- Lower listening/perspective-taking
Coaching Focus:
- Develop relational thinking (build relationships, understand others)
- Practice consultative approach (ask before deciding)
- Improve listening (understand client perspectives)
Results (6 months):
- Relational thinking improved 25 percentile points
- New client acquisition increased 23%
- Client satisfaction scores improved
- Team feedback showed improved listening
Outcome: MD became a better originator AND a better leader.
Case Study 2: Investment Committee Coaching
Challenge: IC was contentious. Assessment showed:
- All analytical thinkers (no creative, relational perspectives)
- Low psychological safety (people feared speaking up)
- Limited diversity of perspective
Coaching Focus:
- Improved communication norms (safety for dissent)
- Leveraged complementary perspectives
- Structured decision-making
Results (6 months):
- Decision confidence improved (7.2 to 8.6)
- Meeting time reduced 35%
- Decision quality improved
Outcome: More effective IC, better decisions, faster meetings.
Case Study 3: Portfolio Company CEO Coaching
Challenge: CEO was strong operationally but weak strategically. Assessment showed:
- Strong practical thinking
- Lower creative thinking
- Detail-focused, missing big picture
Coaching Focus:
- Develop strategic thinking (see connections, imagine possibilities)
- Shift from execution to strategy
- Stakeholder communication
Results (6 months):
- Strategic capability improved 30 percentile points
- Board confidence increased
- Value creation plans executed more effectively
Outcome: CEO better prepared for next growth phase.
Why This Matters
Generic coaching is nice. But assessment-informed coaching is transformative because:
✓ Targeted – addresses specific gaps, not generic development
✓ Blind spot aware – reveals what you don’t see about yourself
✓ Role-specific – develops capability for YOUR role
✓ Measurable – you can prove improvement
✓ Efficient – time and money focused on what matters
The result: Better leaders, faster development, measurable ROI.
Getting Started
Step 1: Assess
Run behavioral assessment to understand current capability.
Step 2: Identify Gaps
Compare assessment results to role requirements. What gaps matter for this role?
Step 3: Develop
Work with coach on specific gaps identified by assessment.
Step 4: Measure
Re-assess after 6 months. Measure improvement.
Conclusion
Generic coaching is one-size-fits-all. Assessment-informed coaching is custom-built for your specific gaps.
Assessment removes guesswork. You don’t wonder “what should I work on?” You know, because data tells you.
Coaching becomes targeted, efficient, and measurable.
Ready to transform your coaching with assessment-informed development?
Explore how assessment informs targeted coaching →
See real coaching results from professional services firms →
