Estimated Reading Time: 17–19 minutes

A group coaching session begins, and eight people appear in eight rectangles on a screen. One participant is joining from a home office, another from a quiet corner of a bedroom, and someone else has positioned a laptop at the end of the kitchen table. There is no shared room, no conversation while people are finding their seats, and no opportunity to walk beside another participant during the coffee break and continue a conversation that felt unfinished. When the session ends, everyone disappears almost instantly. The physical experience of gathering together has been replaced by cameras, microphones, headphones, chat boxes, and an internet connection.

It is easy to conclude that something important must inevitably be lost. Human connection is embodied, and in-person groups provide information that video calls cannot fully reproduce. We notice posture, movement, subtle shifts in attention, the direction of someone's gaze, and the way the entire room responds when something significant is said. Yet online groups offer possibilities that physical groups cannot reproduce either. They allow people separated by cities, countries, mobility limitations, caregiving responsibilities, or demanding schedules to meet consistently. They can bring together participants because they are genuinely relevant to one another rather than simply because they live within travelling distance. For some people, joining from a familiar environment may even make participation easier.

The more useful question, therefore, is not whether online group coaching can perfectly reproduce an in-person experience. It cannot, and it does not need to. The important question is whether virtual groups can create the psychological conditions necessary for meaningful coaching: trust, social presence, reflection, challenge, participation, psychological safety, and learning from other people. Evidence from adjacent fields, particularly online group psychotherapy, videoconferencing research, and online learning, suggests that meaningful cohesion and learning can indeed develop online, while also showing that the medium changes how those processes occur. A 2024 systematic review of online group psychotherapy, for example, found evidence that members can experience connectedness and cohesion online, while also identifying distinctive challenges involving nonverbal communication, privacy, technology, distraction, and the development of group processes (Andrews et al., 2024).

Online group coaching can therefore work very well, but it works best when it is designed as an online relational experience rather than treated as an in-person group that happens to be viewed through a screen.

What You Will Learn

• Why meaningful connection can develop in virtual coaching groups

• What happens to social presence when people interact through screens

• How online environments change nonverbal communication, silence, attention, and participation

• Why virtual groups can sometimes increase accessibility and psychological comfort

• How technology can both support and disrupt psychological safety

• Why online fatigue matters for the quality of reflection and learning

• How coaches can deliberately design virtual groups for deeper connection rather than simply transferring in-person methods online

Online Does Not Mean Less Human, but It Does Mean Differently Human

When videoconferencing first became a normal part of professional and educational life, much of the conversation focused on what was missing. Screens reduce access to full-body communication, spontaneous interactions disappear, eye contact behaves strangely, and participants can be physically surrounded by people who are not part of the group. These differences are real, but focusing exclusively on loss can obscure what participants are still capable of doing online. People can listen carefully, recognize themselves in another person's story, become emotionally affected by a conversation, challenge one another, disclose uncertainty, experiment with new behaviors, and develop meaningful relationships without sharing the same physical room.

Evidence from online group psychotherapy provides a useful comparison, although coaching and psychotherapy should not be treated as interchangeable. Andrews, Ross, and Maroney's (2024) systematic review examined 33 publications addressing online group psychotherapy and found that group connectedness and alliance can develop virtually. The review also highlighted a more complicated picture than either “online works” or “online does not work.” Some sources reported that cohesion could be fostered successfully online, while others suggested that it might take longer to develop or be more easily disrupted. The authors concluded that established in-person practices do not always transfer directly into online environments and that facilitators need to adapt group processes and communication practices to the medium.

An earlier systematic review of 40 studies of telehealth group-based interventions reached a similarly encouraging but cautious conclusion. Banbury and colleagues (2018) found videoconference groups feasible, with generally high participant satisfaction and treatment outcomes broadly comparable with in-person groups, although relatively few studies had been designed specifically to establish statistical noninferiority. Studies examining group-process variables suggested that therapeutic alliance could be slightly reduced in videoconferencing conditions.

For coaching, the implication is important. Virtual delivery should not automatically be viewed as an inferior substitute for the “real” experience. It is better understood as a different environment with different relational affordances and constraints. The question becomes how to use those conditions intelligently.

The Central Challenge Is Creating a Sense That Other People Are Truly Present

A participant can technically attend an online coaching group without ever feeling psychologically present in it. The camera may be on, the microphone may work perfectly, and the person's name may be visible beneath their image, yet they can still feel as though they are watching a program rather than participating in a human encounter. This distinction between technological connection and psychological connection is fundamental to understanding online groups.

Research on online learning frequently uses the concept of social presence to describe the extent to which people experience others as socially and psychologically real within a mediated environment. Richardson, Maeda, Lv, and Caskurlu (2017) conducted a meta-analysis examining social presence in online learning and found strong positive relationships between social presence and both student satisfaction and perceived learning. Although an educational course is different from a coaching group, the findings illustrate an important principle: simply providing information online is not equivalent to creating an environment in which people experience themselves as learning with other human beings.

A later meta-analysis examining the Community of Inquiry framework similarly found relationships among teaching presence, cognitive presence, social presence, perceived learning, and satisfaction in online and blended learning environments (Martin et al., 2022). These findings reinforce the idea that effective online learning is not merely about transmitting content through a digital platform. Facilitation, thinking, and social connection interact to shape the experience.

In group coaching, social presence develops when participants feel that the people on their screens are attending to them rather than merely receiving their audio. A member remembers something another person said in the previous session. Someone notices that a participant has become unusually quiet and asks whether they want to add anything. A member laughs naturally rather than responding with a reaction icon. Another person follows up on a difficult conversation someone was preparing for the week before. These small interactions gradually transform digital images into relationships.

This is why a technically excellent online session can still feel emotionally flat. High-resolution cameras and sophisticated platforms cannot create social presence by themselves. People create it by demonstrating that they notice, remember, respond to, and become affected by one another.

The Screen Changes What We Can Read About One Another

In a physical room, participants communicate continuously even when nobody is speaking. Someone shifts forward when a topic becomes interesting. Another person glances toward a member whose story resembles something discussed earlier. Someone looks uncomfortable, and the coach notices that their hands have become tense. A participant preparing to speak may inhale slightly or change posture, giving others an opportunity to make space.

Videoconferencing compresses much of this information into faces and upper bodies. Depending on camera placement, lighting, screen size, and connection quality, even those cues may be incomplete. The facilitator may not know whether someone is looking down because they are emotional, writing notes, reading a message, or simply checking something on another screen. A participant who appears disengaged may actually be concentrating intensely.

The 2024 systematic review of online group psychotherapy identified reduced access to nonverbal communication as one of the recurrent challenges of online group work. The review also noted that participants and facilitators can adapt by relying more deliberately on facial expression, voice, explicit verbal communication, and other available cues (Andrews et al., 2024).

For group coaching, this means that processes which happen implicitly in a physical room may need to become more explicit online. A coach might occasionally ask what participants are noticing in themselves rather than assuming their body language will reveal it. Members may need to say, “I want to respond to that,” because subtle signals of conversational intention are harder to detect. Someone who becomes quiet after receiving challenging feedback may need a gentle verbal check-in because the group cannot rely on the same range of embodied information it would have in person.

This does not mean online communication is emotionally shallow. It means the group must become more intentional about communicating information that physical presence would otherwise carry automatically.

Turn-Taking Becomes More Structured, and That Changes Group Conversation

Natural face-to-face conversation is remarkably complex. People overlap, interrupt gently, begin responding while another person is finishing, exchange glances, and create brief side interactions without necessarily disrupting the whole group. Much of this happens without conscious planning.

Videoconferencing makes conversational coordination more fragile. Two people begin speaking simultaneously, hear the collision, and both stop. Someone says, “You go ahead,” while the other says exactly the same thing. A brief delay makes an interruption appear more aggressive than intended. Participants eventually become cautious about entering conversations because they cannot easily tell whether someone else is about to speak.

Research and clinical commentary on online group processes have repeatedly noted that virtual conversations can become more linear because simultaneous speech is difficult to manage (Andrews et al., 2024; Weinberg, 2021). This can reduce spontaneity, but it can also create unexpected advantages. A group in which fast, confident speakers normally dominate may benefit from more deliberate turn-taking. A facilitator can create reflective pauses, invite participants who have not yet spoken, or allow people to indicate that they want to contribute without fighting their way into the conversation.

The risk is that the coach becomes a digital traffic controller. If every contribution must pass through the facilitator, the group can begin resembling a webinar or classroom discussion rather than a coaching group. Participants speak to the coach while everyone else waits. Relational learning weakens because members stop communicating directly with one another.

Effective online facilitation therefore needs enough structure to prevent chaos without centralizing every interaction. Participants can be encouraged to respond to one another by name, ask each other questions directly, and follow conversational threads rather than waiting for the coach to select the next speaker. Over time, the group can develop its own rhythm for entering conversations, allowing a form of natural interaction to emerge even within the limitations of the technology.

Silence Feels Different Online

Silence can be powerful in coaching. A participant receives a difficult question and needs time to think. The group remains quiet, allowing an insight to develop rather than rushing to rescue the person from discomfort. In a physical room, silence contains abundant information because everyone can still see bodies, breathing, gaze, and subtle movement.

Online, silence is more ambiguous. Has the participant frozen because the internet connection failed? Are they thinking? Did the microphone stop working? Are they uncomfortable? Did they hear the question? A silence that might feel reflective in person can quickly become technically uncertain on screen.

This ambiguity often leads facilitators to fill silence too quickly. They rephrase the question, offer examples, or move to another participant because they fear the online interaction has stalled. Yet repeatedly removing silence can reduce the reflective depth of coaching. Some questions need several seconds before a useful answer is possible, particularly when participants are being asked to examine assumptions rather than retrieve information.

The solution is not to eliminate silence but to frame it. A coach can say, “Take a moment to think about that,” allowing participants to understand that the pause is intentional. A member can say, “I'm thinking,” rather than feeling pressure to respond immediately. When the group becomes accustomed to deliberate reflective space, silence stops being interpreted automatically as technical failure.

This illustrates a broader principle of virtual coaching: ambiguity that physical presence would normally resolve often needs to be resolved through clearer communication.

Online Groups Can Make Participation Easier for Some People

It would be misleading to describe virtual group coaching only in terms of what it removes. Online environments also remove barriers that can prevent people from participating in the first place.

Travel disappears. A participant with caregiving responsibilities may be able to join after putting a child to bed rather than arranging several additional hours away from home. People living in different countries can join the same specialized coaching group. Someone with mobility limitations does not need to navigate an inaccessible venue. Participants can choose programs based on relevance, language, expertise, or shared developmental needs rather than geographical proximity.

Systematic reviews of videoconference-based group interventions have repeatedly identified accessibility as an important advantage. Banbury et al. (2018), for example, found home-based videoconferencing feasible and generally acceptable, with participants valuing the ability to overcome barriers related to distance, mobility, and attendance. Their review also found evidence that group processes such as bonding and cohesion could occur through videoconferencing.

The psychological implications can extend beyond logistics. For some participants, joining from a familiar environment lowers the threshold for participation. A person who finds entering an unfamiliar room of strangers intimidating may feel more comfortable beginning from their own desk. Someone can keep a comforting object nearby, use headphones for privacy, or take a moment off camera if the group's agreed norms allow it and the experience becomes overwhelming.

None of these advantages applies universally. Another participant may find home distracting, lack privacy, or feel more self-conscious on camera than in person. The important point is that online participation changes the distribution of barriers rather than simply increasing them. Some difficulties become greater while others become substantially smaller.

Home Can Feel Safer, but It Can Also Compromise Safety

Joining a coaching group from home creates an interesting paradox. Home may be the environment in which someone feels most comfortable, but it may not be the environment in which they have the greatest privacy.

A participant might be willing to discuss a difficult relationship with their manager while sitting in a coaching room several kilometres from the office but become much more cautious when a partner or family member is in the next room. Someone living with roommates may worry about being overheard. A participant may use headphones, but that only protects what others in the group are saying; it does not prevent people nearby from hearing the participant's own contributions.

The online group psychotherapy literature identifies privacy, confidentiality, boundaries, and control of the physical environment as significant considerations in virtual groups (Andrews et al., 2024). These concerns translate readily to coaching, particularly when participants are discussing workplace conflicts, leadership difficulties, career decisions, or personal experiences they do not want overheard.

For this reason, psychological safety online is partly architectural. The facilitator controls the digital meeting room but cannot fully control the physical rooms from which participants join. Establishing expectations around private locations, headphones, recording, screenshots, and interruptions becomes part of creating the coaching container.

Participants also need realistic rather than absolute language about confidentiality. A facilitator can establish strong agreements and use appropriate technology, but they cannot guarantee what happens in every participant's physical environment. Responsible online group coaching acknowledges this limitation instead of pretending that a virtual room has exactly the same boundaries as a closed physical one.

Seeing Yourself Changes the Experience of Being Seen

One of the strangest features of videoconferencing is so familiar that we rarely question it: while interacting with other people, we can continuously see our own face.

This does not normally happen during face-to-face conversation. We do not sit in a coaching circle holding mirrors in front of ourselves while speaking. Yet on many video platforms, participants can observe their own facial expressions throughout the session. For someone already concerned about how they appear to others, this can divide attention between participating in the conversation and monitoring themselves.

Bailenson (2021) proposed several mechanisms that may contribute to videoconferencing fatigue, including prolonged close-up gaze, constant self-view, reduced physical mobility, and the increased cognitive effort required to produce and interpret nonverbal cues through video. His paper was explicitly theoretical and called for further empirical testing, so these mechanisms should not be treated as settled explanations for every experience of online fatigue. Nevertheless, subsequent research has provided evidence connecting factors such as mirror anxiety, perceived hyper-gaze, restricted movement, and effortful nonverbal communication with videoconferencing fatigue.

For coaching groups, constant self-monitoring may matter because useful reflection requires attention. A participant trying to describe an uncomfortable experience may simultaneously notice that they look tired, wonder whether their facial expression seems strange, and adjust their posture because they can see themselves on screen. Part of their cognitive and emotional attention has shifted away from the conversation.

Simple design choices can help. Participants who find self-view distracting can hide their own video after confirming that the camera is positioned appropriately. Facilitators can also normalize movement and avoid designing long sessions in which participants are expected to stare continuously at a grid of faces without breaks.

Virtual Coaching Can Be Surprisingly Intense

Online interaction is sometimes assumed to create emotional distance, but screens can also produce an unusual form of interpersonal intensity. Faces may appear much larger than they would during ordinary conversation, and gallery view can create the impression that several people are looking directly toward us simultaneously. Bailenson (2021) identified this intensified gaze as one potential contributor to videoconferencing fatigue.

This can matter in a coaching group when someone becomes the focus of attention. In a physical circle, the participant is aware of other members but also has access to the room, their body, and a wider visual field. Online, the same person may see seven faces positioned close together on a screen, all apparently looking directly toward them while they discuss something difficult.

The effect will vary considerably between individuals, but facilitators should not assume that being physically alone means a participant feels less exposed. For some people, virtual attention can feel unusually concentrated.

This is another reason online group design should include flexibility. A participant may occasionally benefit from looking away from the screen while thinking, switching from gallery view, standing during part of the session, or reducing the visual prominence of the video window. These behaviors should not automatically be interpreted as disengagement. Sometimes reducing visual intensity makes deeper attention possible.

Distraction Is Easier to Hide Online

In a physical coaching room, checking email while another participant speaks would be conspicuous. Online, it can be almost invisible. A participant can open another window, answer a message, scan a document, or browse a website while still appearing to face the screen. Notifications arrive from the same device through which the coaching group is being delivered, creating a constant invitation to divide attention.

This matters because relational learning depends on more than being technically connected. A participant who is only partially attending misses subtle links between conversations, emotional changes, and the details that allow members to remember one another's stories over time. The group may gradually feel less cohesive because people are present without fully experiencing one another.

The 2024 systematic review of online group psychotherapy identified distraction as one of the recurring challenges of virtual delivery and emphasized the importance of planning and explicit expectations for the online environment (Andrews et al., 2024).

Coaches can respond without turning the group into a surveillance environment. Expectations about closing unnecessary applications, silencing notifications, and protecting session time can be established collaboratively. Breaks can be incorporated into longer sessions so participants do not feel they must secretly manage other needs while the group continues. The aim is not to demand perfect attention, which is unrealistic in any environment, but to treat attention as part of the relational agreement participants make with one another.

When someone shares something important, the quality of the group depends partly on whether the other members are actually there to hear it.

Technology Becomes Part of the Group Dynamic

A poor internet connection is technically a problem, but it can quickly become a relational one. Someone freezes while describing an emotional experience. The group cannot tell whether they are silent or disconnected. Another participant repeatedly loses audio and becomes embarrassed about asking people to repeat themselves. Someone struggles with the platform during the first session and begins to feel like the least competent person in the group.

Technical competence therefore matters more than it might appear. Andrews et al. (2024) found technology to be a major theme in the online group literature, with facilitators needing to address software, hardware, connectivity, preparation, and the way technical problems influence group processes.

A well-designed online coaching group reduces unnecessary technological uncertainty before deeper work begins. Participants know how to enter the session, adjust audio, use relevant features, and reconnect if disconnected. They understand what happens if the facilitator's connection fails and whether the chat is part of the coaching conversation or reserved for technical problems.

The facilitator's own comfort with the technology also influences the emotional climate. A coach who becomes visibly flustered every time a microphone fails can inadvertently increase anxiety. A coach who treats minor technical disruptions calmly communicates that the group can absorb imperfection.

Technology cannot be separated entirely from the psychological experience because the platform is the environment through which the relationships are being enacted.

Breakout Rooms Can Create a Different Kind of Intimacy

One of the most useful possibilities in virtual coaching is the ability to move quickly between different group sizes. In a physical environment, dividing eight participants into pairs may require people to move chairs, find separate corners, or leave the room. Online, pairs or trios can be created almost instantly.

Smaller conversations can be especially useful for participants who need time before speaking in the full group. Someone who contributes little in a group of ten may become highly engaged in a pair. A participant can rehearse an idea with one person before discussing it with everyone else. Two members who have interacted only indirectly may discover unexpected common ground when given fifteen minutes together.

Breakout rooms are not automatically effective, however. Sending participants into small rooms with vague instructions can produce awkwardness rather than connection. Clear prompts, sufficient time, and an understanding of what will happen when participants return to the main group make these conversations more useful.

The larger principle is that online coaching does not need to consist of everyone staring at the same grid for ninety minutes. Virtual environments can move between individual reflection, pairs, small groups, whole-group discussion, written responses, and brief periods away from the screen. Thoughtful variation can support both cognitive engagement and relationship building.

Online Groups Need More Deliberate Transitions

In-person groups contain natural transitional moments. Participants arrive and greet one another. They may exchange a few words before the formal session begins. During a break, someone asks another member about something mentioned earlier. After the session, people gather their belongings slowly, and conversations continue on the way out.

Virtual sessions often remove these edges. A participant moves from answering emails directly into a coaching conversation, and ninety minutes later the meeting closes and the inbox instantly returns. There is little psychological transition between ordinary work and reflective group space.

This can make online groups feel more transactional unless the facilitator deliberately creates transitions. Beginning with a meaningful check-in can help participants arrive psychologically rather than merely log in technologically. Leaving a few minutes for reflection at the end allows members to identify what they are taking away before returning to everyday demands. Occasional informal time before or after the structured session can also support the small relational interactions that otherwise disappear online.

These practices are not decorative additions. They help create boundaries around the experience, signalling that the group is not simply another video meeting between two calendar appointments.

The Coach Must Design for Energy, Not Only Content

A two-hour in-person coaching session and a two-hour online coaching session may contain the same number of minutes, but those minutes do not necessarily place the same demands on participants. Videoconferencing can involve sustained visual attention, self-monitoring, limited movement, and effortful interpretation of reduced nonverbal cues. Research on videoconferencing fatigue suggests that frequency, duration, lack of breaks, and aspects of nonverbal interaction can contribute to exhaustion (Bailenson, 2021).

This matters because coaching depends heavily on cognitive and emotional quality rather than simple exposure to information. A fatigued participant may technically remain in the session while becoming less curious, less reflective, and more likely to give automatic responses.

Good virtual design therefore considers rhythm. A substantial discussion might be followed by individual reflection. A demanding coaching exchange may be followed by a short break rather than another equally intense conversation. Participants can occasionally stand, stretch, look away from the screen, or turn cameras off during a clearly defined reflective exercise when appropriate.

The goal is not to make every moment entertaining. Deep coaching sometimes requires sustained concentration and discomfort. The goal is to avoid wasting participants' limited attention on demands created unnecessarily by the medium.

Online Connection May Take a Different Route

Physical groups often build relationships partly through informal interaction. People learn about one another while arriving, leaving, sharing coffee, or sitting together during breaks. Online groups have fewer spontaneous opportunities for this type of incidental familiarity, so connection may need to develop more directly through the work itself.

This can initially make virtual groups feel slower to warm up. Some literature on online groups suggests that cohesion may take longer to establish or can be more fragile, even though meaningful connectedness remains possible (Andrews et al., 2024; Weinberg, 2021).

Yet the absence of informal physical interaction can also make the developmental purpose of the relationship unusually clear. Participants learn about one another through the questions they ask, the experiences they share, the commitments they remember, and the way they respond to difficulty. Connection becomes closely tied to attention and learning.

A participant in Canada may develop a meaningful learning relationship with someone in Qatar whom they would never otherwise have met. A leader in a small organization can learn alongside someone facing similar challenges in an entirely different industry. Geography becomes less important in determining who can enter the room.

Virtual coaching therefore removes one kind of proximity while making another possible. People may be physically distant yet psychologically relevant to one another in ways that geography would otherwise prevent.

The Best Online Groups Stop Trying to Pretend They Are In-Person

One of the most important principles emerging from research on online group work is that virtual groups should not simply attempt to reproduce face-to-face practice without modification. Andrews et al. (2024) specifically highlight literature arguing that facilitators should account for the distinctive characteristics of online environments rather than trying to recreate physical groups exactly.

For group coaching, this means using the medium intentionally. Written chat can occasionally capture thoughts from participants who are not ready to interrupt a conversation, although it needs clear norms so it does not become a distracting parallel discussion. Breakout rooms can create focused pair conversations. Shared documents can preserve insights or commitments. Geographic diversity can become part of the group's learning rather than an obstacle to it. The fact that people are joining from their own environments can sometimes provide useful context about how they work and live.

At the same time, the coach must actively compensate for what the medium reduces. Nonverbal ambiguity requires more explicit communication. The disappearance of informal interaction requires intentional relational time. Screen fatigue requires thoughtful pacing. Privacy requires clearer agreements. The ease of distraction requires stronger norms around presence.

Successful virtual coaching is therefore not created by forgetting that a screen exists. It is created by understanding what the screen changes and designing accordingly.

So, Can Group Coaching Really Work Online?

The evidence available from related fields gives good reason to reject the assumption that meaningful group connection requires physical co-presence. Systematic reviews of videoconference-based group interventions show that cohesion, alliance, support, and useful outcomes can develop online, while research on online learning demonstrates the importance of social and facilitative presence for perceived learning and satisfaction (Andrews et al., 2024; Banbury et al., 2018; Richardson et al., 2017). At the same time, the evidence does not justify pretending that online and in-person experiences are psychologically identical.

Virtual spaces redistribute the strengths and difficulties of group participation. They reduce geographical barriers while introducing technological ones. They can make participation more accessible while making privacy more complicated. They provide close visual access to faces while removing much of the body. They can help some quieter participants find different routes into conversation while making natural conversational overlap harder. They bring the group into participants' homes while eliminating the informal moments that normally surround a shared physical gathering.

Whether online group coaching works therefore depends less on the existence of screens than on what people do through them. A poorly facilitated virtual group can become a sequence of individual conversations watched by distracted participants. A thoughtfully designed one can become a psychologically meaningful community in which people remember one another's stories, recognize patterns, challenge assumptions, test new behaviors, and develop relationships across distances that would once have made the group impossible.

The medium matters, but the medium does not determine the depth of the relationship.

Conclusion: Connection Is Not Located in the Room

There is something irreplaceable about sharing physical space with other people. A screen cannot reproduce every aspect of embodied communication, spontaneous conversation, or the subtle sense of being together that develops when people occupy the same room. Acknowledging this does not require concluding that virtual coaching is a lesser form of group work. It requires recognizing that online groups create connection through a somewhat different set of pathways.

Virtual coaching asks participants and facilitators to make some relational processes more deliberate. Attention needs to be demonstrated because it is easier to divide. Silence sometimes needs to be framed because its meaning is less obvious. Privacy requires explicit planning because the facilitator cannot control everyone's physical environment. Informal connection may need to be intentionally created because there is no shared corridor or coffee break. Energy must be managed because videoconferencing places distinctive demands on attention and nonverbal communication.

In return, virtual spaces can create forms of access that dramatically expand who is able to learn together. People who would never share a physical coaching room can develop a shared history. Participants can be selected around meaningful developmental needs rather than location. Someone who could not regularly travel to a program may participate consistently from home. Diversity of geography, profession, culture, and experience can become part of what makes the group valuable.

Ultimately, meaningful group coaching depends on whether people become psychologically present to one another. When members listen closely, remember what matters, become curious about differences, take interpersonal risks, respond thoughtfully to vulnerability, and remain engaged with one another over time, connection can develop even when thousands of kilometres separate their chairs. The screen changes how the group communicates, how it manages attention, and how the facilitator creates the conditions for learning, but it does not eliminate the human capacity to form relationships through which development becomes possible.

The strongest online coaching groups therefore do not succeed because technology disappears. They succeed because participants gradually stop experiencing themselves as isolated individuals looking at screens and begin experiencing the people on those screens as genuine learning partners.

References

Andrews, K., Ross, D., & Maroney, T. L. (2024). Online group psychotherapy: A systematic review. Community Mental Health Journal, 60, 1511–1531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-024-01304-4

Bailenson, J. N. (2021). Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000030

Banbury, A., Nancarrow, S., Dart, J., Gray, L., & Parkinson, L. (2018). Telehealth interventions delivering home-based support group videoconferencing: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(2), e25. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8090

Martin, F., Wu, T., Wan, L., & Xie, K. (2022). A meta-analysis on the Community of Inquiry presences and learning outcomes in online and blended learning environments. Online Learning, 26(1), 325–359. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i1.2604

Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students' satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001

Weinberg, H. (2021). Obstacles, challenges, and benefits of online group psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 74(2), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.20200034