Executive Summary
This whitepaper emphasizes the vital role of coaching in driving performance across commercial and medical affairs teams within life sciences organizations. While these organizations invest heavily in learning content and platforms, training alone rarely leads to consistent behavior change or improved field execution. Coaching—when treated as a structured, organization-wide capability—is the key lever that turns knowledge into observable results. Life sciences training organizations have over-invested in content delivery and under-invested in the management capability required to turn learning into consistent field execution.
The paper reviews the current state of coaching in Learning & Development, finding it is often informal, inconsistent, and heavily dependent on managers who may lack formal coaching experience. Managers and employees have distinct expectations for feedback, developmental conversations, and authentic communication, highlighting the need for intentional, tailored coaching strategies.
Effective coaching relies on a combination of growth-oriented mindset, practical skills, and organizational support. Clear frameworks, defined expectations, practice with feedback, and alignment with real-world field dynamics embed coaching into daily workflows. Measuring impact through observable behavior, skill progression, and the quality of coaching conversations—not activity alone—reinforces effectiveness and drives continuous improvement.
Key recommendations include defining coaching as an enterprise capability, equipping managers with structured guidance and development, integrating coaching into workflow, and linking measurement to behavioral outcomes and performance impact. When implemented consistently, these practices unlock sustained capability, engagement, and measurable results across commercial and medical teams.
Introduction
In life sciences, billions are invested annually in commercial training, medical education, and digital learning platforms. Yet many organizations still struggle with the same question: Why doesn’t training consistently translate into improved field performance?
The U.S. spends nearly $100 billion on corporate training each year, with healthcare and life sciences contributing tens of billions.¹˒² Despite this scale of investment, outcomes remain inconsistent, and ineffective training costs companies ~$13.5 million per 1,000 employees annually.³ Some studies suggest up to 75% of employees forget training within a week, with only 12% applying learning.⁴
In life sciences, performance isn’t about memorizing a deck, it’s about how effectively someone applies the science in a live conversation. It shows up in the way a sales representative responds to a complex market access question or how a medical science liaison (MSL) adapts a discussion based on a physician’s research interests. Those moments require judgment, confidence, and skill—they can’t be built through content alone.
Evidence across industries points to the same conclusion: Coaching is what drives performance transfer. Even minimal encouragement to coach can drive measurable performance gains of 7–12%, while equipping managers with formal coaching and content training can elevate those gains to as much as 55%.⁵
Despite this, coaching is often treated as a periodic initiative rather than a core leadership responsibility. It tends to intensify around product launches or performance concerns, instead of being embedded in routine management practice. Front-line managers are in the best position to influence behavior change, yet many face competing demands and have had little formal preparation in how to coach effectively.
Why Coaching Matters More Than Content
In life sciences, the volume of training has grown dramatically—but performance hasn’t always kept pace. Recent studies show that training in life sciences is expanding rapidly: 78% of companies now offer formal upskilling programs, up from 52% in 2020.⁶ However, only about one in five employees in regulated industries say their training actually prepares them for their job.⁷
Commercial and medical affairs roles require far more than product knowledge or message recall. Success depends on sound judgment, credible communication, and the ability to adapt in real time to the needs of a payer, provider, or key opinion leader. Still, many organizations rely on completion rates and post-training assessments as proof of capability.⁸ That assumption deserves closer scrutiny.
Many organizations face what could be called the capability transfer gap: the space between learning exposure and consistent field execution.
Training → Awareness
Practice → Confidence
Coaching → Consistency
Training introduces information and frameworks. It builds initial understanding. But understanding alone doesn’t ensure consistent execution in the field. Without reinforcement, even well-designed programs fade quickly from day-to-day practice.
This is where coaching makes the difference. Coaching connects strategy to execution. It helps managers translate abstract learning objectives into specific behaviors expected in customer conversations and scientific exchanges. Studies across industries have shown that pairing training with ongoing coaching leads to stronger skill application than training alone (up to an additional ~23% versus those who only completed training).⁹ The pattern is consistent—information exposure produces incremental gains; reinforcement and feedback drive sustained behavior change.
Strong coaching clarifies expectations, provides real-time feedback, and creates accountability. It gives individuals a safe environment to refine their approach, test judgment, and adjust based on experience. Over time, that repetition builds consistency, the hallmark of true capability.
Training lays the groundwork. Coaching determines whether that groundwork becomes daily practice. Organizations that treat coaching as central to their performance strategy—not as a follow-up activity—are far more likely to see learning investments translate into measurable impact in the field.
The Current State of Coaching in L&D
In many life sciences organizations, coaching is recognized as important, but it rarely receives the same structured attention as formal training. Findings from a 2025 survey of sales professionals across industry found that 53% of employees receive coaching quarterly or less frequently and 37% indicate they receive minimal or no personalized feedback.¹⁰
Coaching is frequently treated as event driven. It happens during ride-alongs, quarterly field visits, or shortly after major training initiatives. There may be checklists or post-training follow-ups, but sustained reinforcement is inconsistent. Once the intensity of a launch fades or other priorities take hold, coaching often drops off, leaving learning unreinforced in the field.¹¹
Adding to the challenge, most organizations lack a shared definition of what “good coaching” looks like. Without clear expectations, coaching can drift toward status updates, compliance checks, or directive feedback rather than meaningful skill development. Practices vary across teams, leaders, and regions, producing uneven impact.
The result is a fragmented coaching landscape: well-intentioned, sometimes effective, but not consistently positioned as a central driver of performance.
Constraints, Barriers, and the Reality for Managers
Managers are central to performance in life sciences teams. They translate strategy into daily actions, reinforce learning from training, guide how representatives and MSLs engage with stakeholders, and assess whether learning is being applied effectively. They also act as a feedback loop, flagging when training is falling short or when patterns of poor practice are emerging. Without their involvement, even the most well-designed learning programs can fail to produce results in the field.
Frontline managers carry the primary responsibility for coaching, but many are not fully prepared for it. In Achievers Workforce Institute’s 2024 Manager Empowerment Report, based on a survey of 2,094 employed respondents, just 48% of managers reported receiving training in coaching, professional development, and recognition.¹²
Additionally, managers face real challenges that make coaching difficult. A typical frontline field manager may oversee 8–12 representatives, manage administrative requirements, participate in cross-functional initiatives, and support product launches; all while being expected to serve as the primary driver of capability development.¹³ Combined with the perception that coaching is “extra work,” it’s easy for managers to default to status updates rather than meaningful skill development.¹⁴
These challenges are design issues, not motivation problems. Managers want to support their teams, but they are often unequipped. Coaching works best when it is clearly defined, structured, and supported. Even capable leaders can struggle without examples, guidance, and clarity on expectations.
Managers today are expected to do more than evaluate performance. Many employees look for leaders who can guide development, provide context for growth, and support learning through regular dialogue rather than infrequent reviews. Timely feedback, two-way communication, and psychologically safe environments have become increasingly important factors in employee engagement and development. When these expectations are not aligned, organizations risk lower engagement, missed development opportunities, and frustration on both sides.
Making coaching feasible requires integrating it into the workflow. Managers can focus on fewer, high-impact moments that reinforce key behaviors instead of trying to cover every skill at once. Shifting from evaluative check-ins to developmental conversations encourages dialogue that builds confidence, capability, and consistent application of learning.
What Shapes Coaching Effectiveness: Mindset, Skill, and Enablement
Mindset: Managers see development as their role.
Effective coaching rests on three interrelated elements: mindset, skill, and organizational support. At the core is the coaching mindset. Managers who focus on development rather than evaluation create space for learning and experimentation. Curiosity takes precedence over control, and trust and psychological safety allow employees to engage openly, take risks, and apply new skills with confidence.¹⁵
Skill: Managers know how to coach.
Skill is equally critical. Coaching requires practical techniques, not just good intentions. Observation-based feedback helps managers identify behaviors as they happen and provide timely guidance. Asking questions instead of giving directives encourages critical thinking, while guided problem-solving helps employees bridge knowledge and application. When managers combine these approaches, they build both capability and confidence, reinforcing learning in real-world contexts.¹⁶
Enablement: The organization makes coaching possible.
Organizational support ensures coaching is sustainable and relevant. Clear expectations and shared frameworks provide a common language for managers and employees. Embedding practice, feedback, and reinforcement into daily workflows transforms occasional interactions into consistent behavior change. Coaching aligned with field realities—whether commercial engagements with healthcare providers or medical-scientific discussions—remains credible and actionable. Alignment with organizational culture further positions coaching as a core capability rather than a peripheral activity.
In life sciences, where both commercial conversations and scientific exchanges require precision and credibility, coaching emphasizes not just what is communicated but how it is delivered. Post-training reinforcement ensures that knowledge translates into applied skills, strengthening both performance and stakeholder relationships.
When mindset, skill, and organizational support are addressed together, coaching moves beyond isolated events to become a repeatable, high-impact capability. The result is consistent application of learning, stronger performance, and sustained development across commercial and medical teams.
Measuring Coaching Impact
In life sciences, coaching should be measured by its impact on behavior and skill development, not by the number of sessions conducted. Relying solely on session counts, checklists, or completion metrics risks conflating activity with true impact.
Measurement should focus on observable behavior change, skill growth over time, and the quality of coaching conversations. Consistent application in the field is critical—are representatives and MSLs translating learning into effective customer interactions, scientific discussions, and stakeholder engagement? Qualitative indicators, such as manager reflection and employee feedback, complement quantitative tracking, emphasizing development and growth over compliance.
Structured frameworks—such as behavior-based coaching assessments or coaching capability maturity models—help evaluate coaching quality, reinforce best practices, and guide development. These approaches make coaching measurable, actionable, and aligned with organizational priorities, while also addressing generational dynamics, ensuring that employees in the coaching dynamic benefit from purposeful, targeted coaching.
A strong organizational coaching model includes five elements:
Clear expectations. Managers must understand not only that coaching is important, but also what effective coaching looks like, how frequently it should occur, and which behaviors it should reinforce. Shared frameworks and common language help create consistency across teams, regions, and roles.
Manager skill development is equally critical. Like any capability, coaching improves through deliberate practice, structured observation, and guided feedback. Managers need opportunities to build and refine their coaching skills, just as employees need repeated feedback to strengthen performance in real-world situations.
Workflow integration ensures coaching becomes a natural part of daily routines rather than an isolated event. When coaching is integrated into regular workflows, managers can provide timely guidance and employees can apply new skills in context.
Reinforcement over time is what turns awareness into sustained behavior change. A single session may raise awareness, but repeated coaching embedded in daily workflows builds lasting capability and consistent field performance.¹⁶
Finally, behavior-based measurement is essential to understand impact and drive improvement. Tracking coaching frequency, quality, and outcomes enables organizations to identify gaps, adjust approaches, and continually enhance coaching effectiveness.
Taken together, these elements form the foundation of an effective organizational coaching model—one that moves coaching from an informal manager activity to a consistent capability-building system.
The implications are clear: When coaching is treated and measured as a strategic capability, it becomes a reliable driver of performance outcomes. Leaders can link coaching to commercial excellence, scientific impact, and return on learning investment, demonstrating real value across the organization. In a world where content is abundant, but behavior change is rare, coaching is the factor that turns knowledge into performance.
High-performing coaching involves managers engaging in focused, development-oriented conversations, providing timely feedback based on observation, and following up to ensure skills are applied in real-world scenarios. Organizations that embed these practices and measure their effectiveness consistently see stronger execution, greater field confidence, and closer alignment between learning objectives and outcomes.
Case Examples:
Standard Coaching Approach
A life sciences organization invested heavily in training content, including workshops, digital modules, and message certification, to support sales representative readiness. Managers were expected to reinforce learning in the field, but coaching expectations were loosely defined and varied by region. Some managers focused on ride-along observations, others emphasized message recall, and follow-up was inconsistent. While training completion was high, field execution remained uneven.
What Good Looks Like
In a more mature coaching model, a life sciences organization treated coaching as an ongoing performance capability rather than a post-training add-on. Internal stakeholders identified 2–3 priority field behaviors tied to stronger execution, then equipped managers with a shared coaching framework and observation guide. Short coaching touchpoints were built into regular field interactions, and managers were trained not just on what to reinforce, but how to observe, question, and provide behavior-based feedback. Coaching quality and field behavior adoption were reviewed alongside performance indicators, allowing leaders to identify where reinforcement was working and where additional support was needed. The result was more consistent field execution, stronger behavior adoption, and better translation of training into day-to-day performance.
Conclusion
In life sciences, the challenge is no longer access to content. Scientific information, digital learning platforms, and training programs are more abundant than ever. The real differentiator is the ability of commercial and medical teams to apply knowledge credibly, confidently, and consistently in real-world interactions. Most organizations do not have a content problem—they have a capability transfer problem.
That is why coaching must move from a supplemental activity to a core performance strategy. Training builds awareness, but coaching is what drives application, reinforcement, and sustained behavior change in the field. When coaching is informal, inconsistent, or dependent on individual manager style, organizations leave too much performance to chance.
The next step for L&D leaders is clear: define the few high-impact behaviors that matter most, equip managers to coach them consistently, and reinforce them over time. In a market where field execution is a competitive differentiator, coaching is no longer a support activity—it is a strategic capability.
References
Freifeld, L. Training magazine. (2024). 2024 Training Industry Report. Training. https://trainingmag.com/2024-training-industry-report/
Eriksen, L. (2026). Corporate Training Industry Statistics: Market Data Report 2026. Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/corporate-training-industry-statistics/
CFTEA. (2022). Learning statistics. CFTEA. https://cftea.org/learning-statistics/
Zahan. (2026). 15 L&D statistics that should change how you think about training in 2026. https://zahan.ai/articles/ld-statistics-2026
Leimbach, M., Ph.D. (n.d.). (2026) Impact of manager coaching on learning transfer. Wilson Learning Worldwide. https://global.wilsonlearning.com/resources/impact-manager-coaching/
Blake, S. (2026). Upskilling and reskilling in the life science industry statistics. ZipDo. https://zipdo.co/upskilling-and-reskilling-in-the-life-science-industry-statistics/
TransPerfect Life Sciences. (2025). Improving learning outcomes in life sciences through data‑driven benchmarking. TransPerfect Life Sciences. https://lifesciences.transperfect.com/blog/improving-learning-outcomes-life-sciences-through-data-driven-benchmarking
Magagna W, et al. (2020) Current and Future Trends in Life Sciences Training: Questionnaire Study. JMIR Med Educ 2020;6(1):e15877. https://mededu.jmir.org/2020/1/e15877/.
Leimbach, M. Wilson Learning. (2016). https://www.wilsonlearning.com/documents/research/en/RR_Impact_of_Manager_Coaching_on_Learning_Transfer_16.pdf.
Price, C. (2025). Salesloft research reveals major sales skill gaps ahead. Investors Hangout. https://investorshangout.com/salesloft-research-reveals-major-sales-skill-gaps-ahead-257128-/
Mesch, R. (2024). Unleash Sales Excellence through Transformational Coaching. https://www.performdev.com/blog/unleash-sales-excellence-through-transformational-coaching.
Achievers Solutions Inc. (2020). Less than half of managers receive training to better support employees [Press release]. Achievers. https://www.achievers.com/press/less-than-half-of-managers-receive-training-to-better-support-employees/
Bhogendra, A., et al. (2023). Evolution of pharma field force deployment and targeting (2023 PMSA Journal report) [PDF]. Axtria Inc. https://insights.axtria.com/hubfs/Janssen%20RFP/PMSA%20Article%20-%20Evolution%20of%20Pharma%20Field%20Force%20Deployment%20and%20Targeting-2023%20Journal.pdf
Dhar, U. (2025). A model of managerial coach learning and development, Human Resource Management Review, Volume 35, Issue 2, 2025, 101073, ISSN 1053-4822, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2024.101073.
Atkinson, A., et al. (2022) Feedback and coaching. European journal of pediatrics, 181(2), 441–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-021-04118-8
Colgate, M. (2025). The Importance and Application of a Coaching Leadership Style in Businesses. Businesses, 5(3), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/businesses5030032
