Case Study: Transforming NGO Collaboration with Behavioural Coaching

Navigating NGO Collaboration Challenges

The Role of Behavioural Coaching

Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) play a vital role in addressing global challenges whether that be from climate change to humanitarian crises. However, effective collaboration between NGOs are often hindered by organisational silos, differing priorities, communication barriers and resource constraints. Research highlights over 70 key challenges in NGO collaboration, categorised into structural issues, process-related inefficiencies, role ambiguities, trust deficits, and power dynamics (O’Leary & Bingham, 2009).

To maximise impact, NGOs are exploring innovative solutions, one of which is behavioural coaching. This approach enables teams to improve communication, align objectives and build collaborative trust, ultimately driving more effective partnerships.

The Role of Behavioural Coaching in NGO Collaboration

Behavioural coaching helps individuals and teams identify and adjust behaviours that may be hindering collaboration. It focuses on developing self awareness, emotional intelligence and adaptive communication skills, all of which are essential in NGO environments where diverse teams work towards shared goals (Passmore, 2010).

By integrating behavioural coaching into NGO operations, organisations can:

✅ Enhance communication by addressing misunderstandings and fostering active listening.
✅ Improve decision making through structured reflection and behaviour-modification strategies.
✅ Strengthen team dynamics by encouraging constructive conflict resolution and mutual trust.

A meta-analysis by Theeboom et al. (2014) found that coaching interventions led to a significant increase in goal attainment and psychological wellbeing, with an effect size of 0.50–1.27, depending on whether self assessments or external evaluations were used. (see below for explanation and further understanding)

Implementing Behavioural Coaching in NGOs

Integrating behavioural coaching into NGO collaboration requires a structured, evidence based approach.

Key steps include:

1️⃣ Assessment – Conducting an initial evaluation to identify behavioural and communication challenges within teams.
2️⃣ Goal Setting – Establishing clear, shared objectives for the coaching intervention.
3️⃣ Customised Coaching – Delivering tailored coaching programmes that address specific organisational needs.
4️⃣ Monitoring & Feedback – Regularly assessing the impact of coaching, adjusting strategies where necessary.

Case Study:

Behavioural Coaching in Environmental NGOs

A compelling example of behavioural coaching improving NGO collaboration can be seen in the Responsible Soy Project, a partnership between The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and agribusiness giant Cargill. Initially, the NGOs faced significant barriers, including conflicting priorities and a lack of trust.

By implementing a behavioural coaching model, the organisations aligned their goals and improved communication, leading to:

🌍 A 30% increase in compliance with sustainable soy production in Brazil. 📉 A measurable reduction in deforestation rates in the Amazon (Jung & Polasky, 2018).

Similarly, the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP) in Indonesia, supported by NGOs and government agencies, used coaching led leadership development to enhance collaboration. This approach resulted in:
🌱 A 50% reduction in illegal logging activities. 🔄 Stronger engagement with local communities in forest conservation efforts (Rosenberg & Wilkinson, 2013).

The Future of NGO Collaboration

As NGOs continue to tackle complex global challenges, behavioural coaching offers a proven, scalable method to enhance collaboration. Organisations that invest in coaching frameworks see higher efficiency, stronger partnerships, and improved long term impact.

By embedding behavioural coaching into their collaboration strategies, NGOs can move beyond traditional barriers, foster more resilient partnerships, and drive sustainable change on a global scale.

You can ask us about our behavioural coaching approaches. Email us

References

Jung, S. and Polasky, S. (2018) 'Partnerships to Prevent Deforestation in the Amazon: The Case of the Responsible Soy Project', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 92, pp. 498-516.

O’Leary, R. and Bingham, L. B. (2009) The Collaborative Public Manager: New Ideas for the Twenty-First Century. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Passmore, J. (2010) Excellence in Coaching: The Industry Guide. London: Kogan Page.

Rosenberg, A. and Wilkinson, J. (2013) 'Demonstrating Approaches to REDD+: Lessons from the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership', San Giorgio Group Case Study. Available at: Climate Policy Initiative.

Theeboom, T., Beersma, B. and Van Vianen, A. E. (2014) 'Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context', The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), pp. 1-18.

Understanding Effect Size

Effect size is a statistical measure used to indicate the strength of a relationship or impact in research. (I only know this from my MBA) In this case, it measures how much coaching interventions improve performance, goal attainment and psychological wellbeing.

The specific effect sizes in the study are:
✅ 0.50 – When an external observer (e.g., a manager or colleague) rates improvements in the coachee.
✅ 1.27 – When individuals self assess their own improvement after coaching.

Interpreting These Numbers

Effect size is typically interpreted using Cohen’s d, where:

0.2 = Small effect
0.5 = Medium effect
0.8+ = Large effect

A 0.50 effect size means coaching has a moderate impact when assessed by others, while a 1.27 effect size suggests a very large impact when self reported. The discrepancy may indicate that coachees perceive a bigger improvement in themselves than external evaluators do. This is a common psychological effect.

Why Does This Matter for NGOs?
For NGOs considering behavioural coaching, this research suggests:

Moderate external validation (0.50) – Meaning coaching visibly improves collaboration and performance.

High self-reported impact (1.27) – Meaning participants feel significantly more capable, which can boost motivation and engagement.