Preventive Coaching
Author(s): Saskia Duijts, Ijmert Kant, Piet van den Brandt, & Gerard Swaen                      Country: Netherlands
Is the intervention sector specific?	No
Is the intervention usable with different enterprise sizes?	Yes
Is the intervention equally applicable to both genders?	Yes
Is the intervention based on theory?	Yes
Can the intervention approach be adapted/ tailored?	Yes
Does the intervention promote CSR and how?	The intervention was not explicitly linked to responsible business practices although it does promote employee well-being.
Does the intervention promote social dialogue and how?	An integral element of the intervention is dialogue between the employee and his or her supervisor; in order to identify problems and outline solutions.
Overview (including risk assessment and law – legal requirements etc.):   The aim of ‘preventative coaching’ is to target employees ‘at risk’ for sickness absence due to psychosocial health complaints. It is an approach that can be used to enhance employee wellbeing and performance, and to improve overall functioning, achievement of goals, and management of stress. It aims to: assist individuals by promoting strengths and minimising weaknesses, gain a better understanding of underlying individual behaviour, and successfully manage changes.   The role of the coach, during this process, is not to provide advice or solutions; but rather to facilitate the process by attempting to improve internal reflection.
Implementation:  The initial stage of this intervention begins by identifying those employees ‘at risk’ of sickness absence due to psychosocial health complaints; this is accomplished by using a screening instrument. Those employees identified ‘at risk’ of sickness absence are invited to participate in the preventive coaching intervention. The preventive coaching intervention consists of 7 to 9 one-hour sessions within the time period of six months. The intervention begins with an introductory interview (between coach and employee) where an outline of personal and coaching objectives are discussed and an overall problem is formulated. Following this, an introductory 3-way consultation with the employee, his/her supervisor, and the coach is conducted; outlining the aim and process of coaching. The next four to six meetings are individual meetings between the employee and the coach where underlying behavioural characteristics are identified in the employee, and methodologies and instruments are discussed and identified to help facilitate change. The programme ends with a final 3-way consultation meeting with the employee, supervisor and coach; where a discussion and overall evaluation of the coaching programme transpires. During this final meeting, future plans are outlined to support and promote the continuation of the initiated changes to the workplace setting. Following the completion of the intervention, follow up meetings are arranged with the coach to exchange experiences and provide a general update.
Practical applications: The preventive coaching intervention has been standardized and outlined in a fully developed intervention protocol. A checklist for coaches has been developed. This checklist provides a general outline of all the main features of each session; and is a useful resource tool for the effective implementation of preventive coaching.  A trained professional is required to support the successful implementation of preventive coaching. Preventive coaching has been successfully implemented in both the healthcare and education sectors with large-scale organisations. However the authors emphasise that medium and small companies can utilize this intervention.
Innovative aspects:   This intervention provides an instrument to identify/successfully screen ‘at risk’ employees of sickness absence due to psychosocial health complaints; and provide these individuals with an early intervention in order to reduce the risk, and the overall level of sickness absence.
Evaluation (including process issues, outcomes and sustainability): The present intervention was assessed by comparing a reference group (non-intervention group) to the intervention group; at baseline and follow up (12 months, 24 months, and 36 months).
Benefits (including cost effectiveness):   The authors conclude that preventive coaching is an appropriate intervention for employees ‘at risk’ for sickness absence. Preliminary evidence, as the evaluative research of this intervention is currently ongoing, demonstrated that preventative coaching was significantly effective at lowering sickness absence days; a reduction of 14% as compared to the control group.
References:   Duijts, S., Kant, I,  can den Brandt, P., & Swaen, G. (2007). The compatibility between characteristics of employees at risk for sickness absence and components of a preventive coaching intervention. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 5, 19-29.
Comments:   This intervention primarily focuses on the individual level and does not consider risk sources (hazards) at the organisational level.