critical moments of clients and coaches

8/3/2019 Critical Moments of Clients and Coaches

1/20

Critical moments of clients and coaches:A direct-comparison studyErik de Haan, Colin Bertie, Andrew Day & Charlotte Sills

I dont understand. I just dont understand. ()

I dont understand it at all. I just dont understand.

Whats wrong? What dont you understand?

Ive never heard such a strange story.

Why dont you tell me about it?

Opening lines ofRashomon(1950), Akira Kurosawa.

Purpose:In this study descriptions of critical moments of coaching as experienced by both executive coaches

and their clients are analysed and compared, to find out more about what works in coaching conversations.Design/Methodology:This is a real-time direct-comparison study of coaches and clients critical-moment

experiences with data collected straight after mutual coaching conversations. Eighty-six critical-moments

descriptions were collected by independent researchers (not the authors) from measurements straight after

independent coaching conversations (not with the authors). Exactly half of these descriptions were taken

from clients and the other half from their coaches. They are analysed with reference to the full dataset of 352

critical-moment descriptions (102 by clients and 250 by executive coaches).

Results:Both coaches and clients report new realisations and insights as most critical in their direct

experience of coaching, and they are also in substantial agreement about the specific moments that were

critical in the sessions and why. Hence we find no evidence for the so-called Rashomon experience in

executive coaching. Differences with earlier coach data which showed a completely different picture could beexplained by drawing attention to the fact that those earlier data were biased towards moments of

exceptional tension experienced by the coach, verging on ruptures within the coaching relationship.

Conclusions:This study has produced both a confirmation of earlier work when studying critical moments

in executive coaching as well as a connection between the various diverging results hitherto found.

The findings help us to understand better: (1) why clients and coaches descriptions in earlier studies were

so different; and (2) how descriptions from clients and coaches coming out of coaching sessions can be

extremely similar, as was the case here. The main conclusion is that coaches need to be prepared for quite

different circumstances in run-of-the-mill coaching and in the presence of exceptional tensions and

ruptures.

International Coaching Psychology ReviewG Vol. 5 No. 2 September 2010 109 The British Psychological Society ISSN: 1750-2764

EXECUTIVE COACHING the profes-sional development of executivesthrough one-to-one conversations with

a qualified coach is a discipline within thebroader field of organisation development(OD) which is comparatively amenable toresearch. Executive coaching conversationsare usually explicitly contracted, andbounded in both time and space (fixed dura-tion, similar intervals, quiet and dependablespace, away from the clients organisation,etc.). Most coaching manuals suggest

keeping the space for conversation as muchas possible neutral, uncluttered and comfort-able, without interference or distraction(Hawkins & Smith, 2006; Starr, 2003). Coachand client may spend some 10 to 20 hours inthis same environment, in addition tosporadic email and telephone exchanges.The executive coach does not normally havea lot of contact with others in the clientsorganisation, unless there are additionalcoaching clients in that organisation or thecoaching is part of a larger-scale consulting

Ashrid e Business School htt ://www.ashrid e.or .uk


2/20

Erik de Haan, Colin Bertie, Andrew Day & Charlotte Sills

110 International Coaching Psychology ReviewG Vol. 5 No. 2 September 2010

intervention. This relative simplicity and theunderlying unities of space, time, action andactors, create a relatively bounded laboratoryin which consulting interventions can bestudied. This is what makes executive

coaching particularly exciting to investigate.In order to understand the impact and

contribution of executive coaching andother organisational consulting interven-tions, it is not enough to just understandgeneral effectiveness or outcome. One alsohas to inquire into and create an under-standing of the underlying coachingprocesses themselves, from the perspectivesof both clients and coaches. The executive

coaching profession is still young andalthough there are several studies oncoaching outcome (e.g. Ragins, Cotton &Miller, 2000; Smither et al., 2003; Evers,Brouwers & Tomic, 2006), all rigorous quan-titative research papers can probably becounted on the fingers of one hand. Forrecent overview studies that together coversome 20 serious coaching outcome researchpapers, see Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson

(2001), Feldman and Lankau (2005) andGreif (2007). However, much pioneeringwork has been done in recent years, there isreally no comparison with the related butmuch more established field ofpsychotherapy which boasts many hundredsof solid research papers (for an overview ofoutcome research in psychotherapy see

Wampold, 2001).Outcome or effectiveness research

reduces the whole of the coaching interven-tion to only one number, or perhaps a set ofnumbers, for example, averages of psycho-metric instruments or client ratings.Outcome research has to be silent on whathappens withina coaching relationship: themany gestures, speech acts and attempts atsense-making that make up the whole of theintervention. At best it can tell us in a statis-tical manner how the full sum of all thoseconversations taken together may contributeto a digit on a Likert scale, at worst it may noteven tell us that. What interests us in thisstudy is how outcomes are achieved within

the coaching intervention, i.e. within andbetween individual coaching conversations.This is the realm of so-called suboutcome(Rice & Greenberg, 1984): outcomeachieved in moments or sessions of

coaching.Research into coaching process is not as

straightforward as research into coaching

outcome. Whilst reducing the whole of acoaching relationship to one or a few quan-tifiable outcomes (e.g. a rating by thecoach, the client, the clients boss, an inde-pendent observer, etc.) allows a clear-cut andspecific definition of that variable, when itcomes to process one has to deal with mani-

fold suboutcomes (Rice & Greenberg,1984). Moreover, studying an ongoingprocess will influence that process, whichmakes it harder to study.

Notwithstanding the difficulties withprocess research, it is of vital importance forcoaching practitioners to understand better

what happens in their conversations, whatboth partners in the conversations pay atten-tion to and what they think is achieved

through engaging in conversation. This articlesets out to find some preliminary answers tothe following main research questions:1. What is the nature of key moments that

clients and coaches report immediatelyafter their session together?

2. In what ways and to what degree are thereports by coaches and their clientsdifferent?

3. How do the results obtained with thisnew sample of real-time key momentscompare with findings from earlierstudies?

Although to the best of our knowledge of theexecutive coaching literature, comparisonstudies into coaches and clients experi-ences of coaching have not been undertakenbefore, they are not without importantprecursors in psychotherapy. Admittedly,psychotherapy has distinctive professionalqualifications, different ways of working anda different knowledge base (Spinelli, 2008).However, there is enough similarity in termsof one-to-one conversations with a profes-



3/20

Critical moments of clients and coaches

International Coaching Psychology ReviewG Vol. 5 No. 2 September 2010 111

sional helper to be interested in similarresearch findings from that field. Yalom andElkin (1974) famously wrote up their two-

year therapy journey, so that for some 75sessions we have a first-person account from

both therapist and client written up inde-pendently and shortly after each session. Foran overview of more quantitative studies itseems appropriate to start with Feifel andEells early (1964) account of therapyoutcomes as reported by both patients andtherapists. They report a thought-provokingcontrast in the patients accent on insightchanges compared with those of symptomrelief and behaviours by therapists (Feifel &

Eells, 1964, p.317). In a more extensive study where patient and therapist reports aftersingle sessions were compared (Orlinsky &Howard, 1975), patients and therapistsagreed in rating insight and problem-resolu-tion as the dominant goal of the patients,

with relief as a prominent althoughsecondary, goal (p.66). Stiles (1980) did adirect-comparison study of sessions, bycomparing clients and therapists ratings of

sessions that they had together. By corre-lating ratings, he was able to show thatclients positive feelings after sessions werestrongly associated with perceived smooth-ness/ease of the sessions, whilst therapistspositive feelings were associated withdepth/value of the sessions. Broadly,clients and therapists tended to agree intheir characterisations of sessions. Caskey,Barker and Elliott (1984) have comparedpatients and therapists perceptions of pre-selected individual therapist responses andthey found reasonable agreement betweenpatients and therapists on therapists impactand intentions, as well.

Particularly relevant from the perspectiveof this inquiry is the direct-comparison studyofkey momentsof therapy by Llewelyn (1988).She interviewed 40 patient-therapist pairsand collected 1076 critical events (bothhelpful and unhelpful) from 399 sessions (anaverage of 2.7 per session). She found highlysignificant differences between the selectionand description of the events by therapists

and by patients. These differences turned outto be greater when the outcome of thepsychotherapy was relatively less helpful.Llewelyn used Elliotts (1985) taxonomy toclassify the events, and found that:

G Patients valued reassurance/relief andproblem solutions more highly, whilst

G Therapists valued gaining of cognitive/affective insight highest, whilst

G Both patients and therapists valuedpersonal contact highly.

Llewelyn (1988) concludes that patientsseem to be more concerned with solutions totheir problems, and that they place higher

value on advice and solutions, provided they

feel free to reject them. Therapists, on theother hand, seem more concerned with theaetiology of the problems and potentialtransformation through the patients insight.

Earlier research of critical moments ofcoaching conversations followed a narrativeand retrospective approach. De Haan andassociates (2008a, 2008b, 2010) and Day andassociates (2008) asked three groups ofcoaches and one group of clients of execu-

tive coaches to describe briefly one criticalmoment (an exciting, tense, or significantmoment) from their coaching journeys. SeeTable 1 for a brief overview of all fiveinquiries into critical moments of executivecoaching from 2002.

The studies to date have found quitedivergent material with coaches and clientsclearly submitting different descriptions andalso placing a different emphasis within thedescriptions (see De Haan et al., 2010). Theresults of previous investigations promptedthe present direct-comparison study as a wayto explore and clarify some of the differ-ences and also to test the conclusions fromearlier papers, with the help of a new dataset.Direct-comparison in real-time is of coursenot possible without seriously interfering

with the executive-coaching sessions them-selves. In order to minimise interference,coach and client were interviewed only onceand directly after a session. Other than logis-tical issues, potential relational difficulties

were anticipated as the research would



4/20

Table 1.The five datasetsof Critical MomentsDescriptionsthat we have gathered over the years20022009.

Please note that the number of critical momentsin the firststudy (De Haan, 2008a)is lower (56).

Thisisbecause we have extended thisdataset beyond the work for thatpublication.

Dataset Who has provided the Number of Main Publicationthe descriptions? critical- conclusionsmomentdescriptions

1 Inexperienced executive 80 All critical moments could De Haancoaches: approximately be expressed as doubtsof (2008a)75 per cent were (internal coaches. Critical momentsand external) consultants were seen as importantwho had recently completed sources of informationa full-year programme in and potential breakthroughmanagement consulting moments.

and about 25% independentcoaches.

2 Experienced executive 78 All critical moments could De Haancoaches: at least eight be expressed as anxieties (2008b)years experience. of coaches. Experienced

coaches grapple withrecurring struggles in theirclient work.

3 New sample of very 49 An experienced rupturein Day et al.experienced executive the relationship (2008)

coaches (on average (e.g. misunderstanding,11.3 years experience) anger, re-contracting andwho were interviewed referral, withdrawal andin depth. termination) was found

around every criticalmoment. Critical to theoutcome of that process waswhether continued andshared reflection waspossible after the criticalmoment.

4 Clients of executive 59 What clients report as most De Haancoaching. helpful from their et al.

experience of coaching are (2010)new realisations and insights.

5 Direct comparison of 86 Both coaches and clients This study.experienced coaches with report new realisations andtheir clients. insights as most critical in

their direct experience ofcoaching, and they are alsoin substantial agreement

about the specific momentsthat were critical in thesessions and why.





5/20



impinge on very sensitive, private and confi-dential relationships. To quote Elton Wilsonand Symes (2006) pertinent book Objectivesand Outcomes(p.82): Asking clients for theiropinion is a process fraught with controversy,

with many therapists asserting the possibilityof harm to the therapeutic alliance or,conversely, affecting the transference. Inaddition, clients may wish to please or praisetheir therapists or even to covertly attacktheir therapist. Unfortunately, a practi-tioners own observations may be laden withassumption and a defensive need to provetheir own worth or the effectiveness of theirown theoretical and methodological

approach. The same can very well be truefor asking coaches and their clients abouttheir findings whilst they are still engaged ina long-term coaching intervention. One

would expect the reports of key momentsfrom their recent conversation to be influ-enced by what they think of the over-allquality of the work and the relationship, by

what they expect us as researchers to belooking for, or even by their relationships

with us and our institution.Following De Haan and associates(2010), the main hypothesis for this study

was that the perspectives of clients andcoaches will be significantly different, as isalso the case for critical-event studies inpsycho-therapy (see, for example, Caskey etal., 1984; Llewelyn, 1988). We wereexpecting not only substantial differences inthe moments that were selected for recall,but also in terms of the emphasis within themoment descriptions. To our surprise weactually found that clients and coaches datain this study were very similar, that in morethan 50 per cent of cases the same moment,event or topic was described, and that there

were substantial similarities in emphasesbetween the coaches and their clients.

Method

Since 2002, we have opted for the study ofso-called critical-moment descriptions as a

way of understanding the impact of execu-tive coaching engagements, following similar

methods as pioneered by Flannagan (1954),Elliott and associates (1985) and Llewelyn(1988). Critical moments are rememberedas exciting, tense, and/or significantmoments after coaching conversations. They

can be assumed to be a reflection of changethrough executive coaching as it happens inconversation. Descriptions allow patternanalysis, both qualitatively and quantitatively,and they afford comparison proceduresbetween different datasets. As a comparison

with the previous research on criticalmoments in executive coaching conversa-tions, a setting was devised that allows asmuch as possible to directly compare clients

and coaches perceptions of key moments intheir sessions, in such a way that the distor-tions of memory (Goodman et al., 2006)

would be minimised by gathering the criticalmoment descriptions as quickly after thesession as possible. We contacted directlyand personally about 20 executive coaches ofour acquaintance and agreed with 14 to

work with us on this research programme.Each of these coaches agreed to be inter-

viewed and selected a client who would alsobe interviewed straight after the coachingsession they had together, for a maximum of30 minutes. Two of the 14 coachescontributed two client sessions, and onecontributed seven client sessions (alldifferent clients). The coach whocontributed seven sessions with seven clients,did not pre-select and just offered us datafrom all her clients within one particularorganisation. All interviews were recorded,and in one case the recording equipmentdid not work so that this data had to bediscarded. All in all, the sample size was 21coaching conversations, yielding 42recorded interviews.

Of the 14 coaches participating in thisinquiry, two were Ashridge staff, five

Ashridge associated coaches who do a lot ofexecutive coaching work for Ashridge, threebelonged to a wider network and four werein the second year of their MSc in ExecutiveCoaching at Ashridge. Nine of the coacheshad been accredited by Ashridge, and all



6/20



had over two years experience as an execu-tive coach, with an average experience levelof more than 10 years. The coaches selectedclient, coaching conversation and interviewday the researchers worked as much as

possible around their requirements andpreferences. Three of the participatingcoaches were male and 11 were female. Ofthe 21 participating clients six were femaleand 15 were male. Most clients and coaches

were white and British/Irish; there was oneIsraeli and one Australian coach and oneSouth African client. The average number ofsessions that coach and client had alreadyhad with each other was 5.4 with a

minimum of two and a maximum of 15. Onaverage coach and client had worked witheach other for almost 10 months.

As the authors have developed theirthinking about critical moments in executivecoaching over the years, they decided not toparticipate in the study as coaches, or asclients, or even as interviewers. Two MSc-students in Organisational Behaviour at Birk-beck University, Heather Reekie and Monica

Stroink, were willing to run all the interviews,as they collected material for their ownMasters dissertations. All interviews wereconducted in private rooms, mostly close tothe location where the coaching had takenplace. Some interviews were over the tele-phone. The interviews with client and coach

were done as much as possible by bothstudents to avoid potential biases. Logisti-cally, this was not possible in three cases asthe client and coach were promised an inter-

view straight after the coaching session sothere would be least memory loss. Also, infour (~10 per cent) of the client interviews amember of the author group stepped in andconducted the interview.

Unexpected logistical challengesoccurred because for every pair of interviewstwo different researchers had to travel to theright location or telephone in at the righttime. This sometimes meant hiring a secondconsulting room. Even with the logisticsunder control, the interviewees weresubjected to detailed questioning having just

come out of presumably intensive andexhausting coaching encounters. Neverthe-less, 42 interviews with clients and coachestook place shortly after their sessions, whichgenerated 86 descriptions of key moments of

interest.All interviews had the same structure and

they were all transcribed (except one). Thecore questions about the critical moments

were as follows:1. Looking back on the session, what seems

to be the important or key or criticalmoment(s) of your time together? Whathappened? Please can you provide a briefdescription of the moment(s).

2. What tells you that this was a criticalmoment?

3. What was your role in that moment?4. What was your partners role in that

moment?5. How do you think this moment will

impact on the future (i.e. the future ofthese conversations or what you takefrom the coaching)?

In this way the interviewers were able to

obtain 86 critical moments from 21 sessions,i.e. an average of just over two per interviewand 4.1 per coaching session. Exactly 43 ofthese moments were obtained from clientsand another 43 were obtained from coaches.This article reports on the descriptions ofkey moments as they are found in the tran-scripts, i.e. mainly answers to questions 1 and2 above, and occasionally more data weretaken from answers to the other questions,

when this yielded additional clarity.From this dataset the inquiry proceeded

as follows:1. Using grounded theory (Corbin &

Strauss, 1990) we came up with 30 shortcodes describing critical aspects in thecritical moment descriptions.

2. Five in the research team (the fourauthors and one MSc-student) coded thedataset using as many of these codes asthey wanted per critical moment. The fourcodings were correlated for inter-raterconsistency and first conclusions weredrawn from the frequencies of codes.



7/20



3. The same method of grounded theory was again followed to come up with amuch smaller code set, containing only12 more disparate and mutually exclusivecodes, which could be used for this

dataset but also for all four previousdatasets (De Haan 2008a, 2008b; Day etal., 2008; De Haan et al., 2010).

4. All five sets of critical moments, totalling352 critical moments, were coded on thenew codes using a sort method (exclusivecoding of only one code per criticalmoment), by two of the authors (CB andEH) and by one outsider, a colleague notpreviously introduced to this research

(AC).

Results

First impressions on reading through the dataset

The following features of this new dataset,some of which clearly different from earlierresearch data, stand out:G Both clients and coaches found it easy to

come up with critical or key moments.Contrary to earlier research into the

experiences of clients of coaching (DeHaan et al., 2010) there were no noresponses. In fact, there was at least onecritical-moment description from everyinterview and the total amount of keymoment descriptions volunteered byclients exactly equals the number ofthose volunteered by coaches (43, i.e. onaverage 2.05 key moment descriptionsper interview). There is, however, oneclient who says Theres nothing reallythat sticks out, obviously its always a verycasual conversation I think that thebiggest thing is that its always verythought provoking, it makes you look at

yourself quite a lot, but he thencontinues to volunteer one key moment.

G There was a clear and sustained focus onthe client throughout the descriptions:only one of the 43 coach descriptionsreferred exclusively to the coachs internalprocess (this one description still referredthree times briefly to the client, by name)and only one of the client described

exclusively what the coach was doing. Fifty-three per cent of coaches descriptionsreferred to themselves and theirinterventions, and 44 per cent of clientsdescriptions referred explicitly to the

coach and to what the coach had done.G The coding of the content of the critical

moments with 30 codes similar to those inDe Haan and associates (2010) showedthat the most prevalent codes were againthose about personal realisations (bothabout issues and about self) and thosethat are about specific behaviours of thecoach (both directive and facilitativeinterventions). Together these four of the

30 codes make up almost 50 per cent ofthe coded content. When client andcoach descriptions are compared thereare two clusters of codes which arestrongly skewed towards the coachcritical-moment descriptions: (1) thecoachs emotional reactions which madeup five codes but only six per cent of thecontent; and (2) physiological reactionsof the client (such as skin tone, agitation

and breathing), a single code whichcovered two per cent of the content.G A lot of clients and coaches comment on

the same moment or situation, and theytalk about those moments and situationsin similar terms. In fact 46 of the 86 keymoment descriptions (53 per cent) wereclearly about the same moment or event(examples below are the pairs 3co9 and3cl10 and 14co51 and 14cl52).

G The descriptions are narrative in nature,and seemed to all four authors lessexciting or engaging compared with theprevious research. They seem to be lowerrisk and of less immediate impact. At thesame time they can be seen as anillustration of the straightforward,helpful and practice-based character ofour own experience of everydaycoaching.

G The nature of the descriptions is broadlypositive and constructive; there was onlyone moment approximating a rupture inthe relationship (see key moment 4co13,



8/20



below, and compare with Day et al., 2008,which found evidence of ruptures in therelationship in most critical-momentdescriptions). So, in summary with theprevious conclusion, there seems to be

an absence of tension, struggle andstrong emotion. There are threeoccasions where clients express interestin their coaches, see, for example, criticalmoment 8cl30 below. We assumed this

was partly because of an implicitpsychological contract between theparticipants, and between theparticipants and us, to be appreciativeand gentle towards one another, which in

turn may be due to the pre-selection andthe ongoing nature of all relationships.

G The only differences initially foundbetween clients and coaches accounts

were that coaches place more emphasison their own actions and they use more

jargon and psychological terms todescribe what went on compared withtheir clients. This reminded us of Yaloms(Yalom & Elkin, 1974, p.79) statement

that his own observations seemed moresophomoric than his clients writing.G There was a high number of references

by coaches (17 out of 43 moments) toclients physiological responses(frowning, posture, note taking,agitation, breathing, etc.), see, forexample, vignettes 3co9 and 5co17,below), whilst clients never referred tothese matters.

Vignettes of the 86 real-life critical moments

To help the reader gain a better connection with the full dataset we have chosen 17 vignettes from the 86 key moment descrip-tions. We have chosen this dataset purpose-fully, to give an indication of the range ofdata and also to show two occasions wherecoach and client comment on the samemoment in the session (the pairs 3co9 and3cl10 and 4co51 and 4cl52). Rather thanshowing a random selection here, we havedeliberately chosen a more meaningful andengaging range of vignettes. The numbering

of these vignettes follows the chronologicalorder of the interviews, i.e. conversationnumber, co for coach moment and cl forclient moment, and then key momentnumber. We have not edited these frag-

ments. These are just 1285 words. The fulldataset is over 27,000 words long.

[1cl2] I suppose really for me its throughthe process of discussion its the realisationon my part that theres something that I haveto do. So its the sort of the processes ofopening my eyes to you know, ooh hang ontheres something I need to do here that youknow wouldnt otherwise. So the you know

its the what helps me realise is the point thatI get the light bulbs going off to like, heyhang on why havent I thought about this?

[1cl4] So the feeling for me is really say itssort of a its a point that I recognise thattheres something thats needed. Its sort ofhighlighting it. So its almost a feeling ofsurprise and realisation around theressomething there that Im able to see its just

that I havent previously been able to.

[3co9] And that was the tipping point Ithink, when he recognised that he could useone thing to do the other, he thinks in a verylinear way. And he was thinking about Ivegot to do the projects, Ive got to be moreapproachable but really by linking the twotogether he was able to see that I think herecognised that actually I can do both ofthese together and one will help the other.

And that was the that was the the key Ithink. It was partly his erm he was clearlydoing some visualising sitting there inthought, looking up at the ceiling. So erm

And a period of silence after when he saiderm yeah I hadnt thought of looking at itlike that. Erm what else did he say? I thinkIve crossed a bridge, thats what he said.

[3cl10] Id written it down as an action todo, which is kind of respective of my style. Itsbecause its I describe it as opening myeyes to a blind spot really its easy with hind-



9/20



sight to say thats a good way of approachingit but prior to the conversation or prior totoday I would not have thought of trying todo the project in that particular direction. Soits a change in direction to what I would

have done otherwise.

[4co13] He was asking me to raise an issueoutside of the coaching relationship. Erm

you know to show I was sort of agreeing withhim a form of words that he was that he

would be happy with, for me to sort of tryand get something fed back into the organi-sation that he thought was important. Sothat was quite an important err an inter-

esting part of the conversation. Erm well thiswas an issue about the persons boss ermand the persons boss is being coached byerm one of my colleagues so is it was a sortof a can you use your influence with theother Coach?

[5co17] Er, he started to make notes actually he started to make notes and startedto get more animated in how he was talking

about it.

[5co19] That he began drawing on my pad.And the adult to adult was his meeting. Themeetings that he controlled. That was hismeeting. The big circle was his meeting.

[6co23] He sat back and thought about itrather than being accused by it.

[8cl30] I think the key moment might havebeen that I asked him what he felt about the

work wed been doing and he said that he was pleased that the report hed done hadled to substantial change and efficienciesand he seemed to take some pleasure in it.() I think it was good to hear that hedtaken some pleasure from it himself and feltthat taken some pleasure out of the factthat hed been effective.

[9cl32] Its basically stating the obvious, butI didnt see it, it was staring me right in theface.

[11cl40] Not a lot of other people knowabout it I have a limited amount of contact

with people to let them know about it andnot feel bad and embarrassed about it. It feltlike the right thing to do rather than waffle

around the edges.

[13cl50] Organising our future sessions thatdefinitely was and also you know another bit

was maybe time to talk about some otherissues you know that are going around youknow what we do and I had an opportunityto talk to someone whos not involved as

well. So that was probably the important partof it.

[14co51] It was a bit odd the way that westarted off because he thought that hed sentme some information and IIm perfect

you see I knew that I was thinking, I didcheck all of my e-mails but I dont recollect

what youve sent me you know and I lookedthrough Im sure I printed everything offthat folk had sent me. So we had a kind of a20-minute forage around whether we could

find this information. So its kind of like erm,it felt like a weird start to the session and Idid say to him given that we havent got theinformation can you talk to me about what

was important to you and what youd writtenthrough and we can cover it here and now.() So its really important to him aboutappearances and again being professional,doing the right thing, you know doing whathe says hes going to do. So it was a real I was really noticing how I was gettinghooked into, well I havent got the informa-tion you know were looking on computers, I

was searching my Blackberry thinking this isbizarre really because we dont need it. So it

was this bizarre start to him () It reallylinked into how he wants to get things doneand wants to get things right and look goodto other people. Thats really, really impor-tant to him. Erm, so links from that.

[14cl52] Its important that we got sortedtoday, the mix up we had at the beginning so

we knew where we were going. That was



10/20



important and I must say within two or threeminutes we had it sorted. We realised theredbeen a mistake and agreed appropriateaction and it got resolved very easily. It wasntconfrontational in any way, dont think that,

just a mix up but a few negotiation skills onboth our parts we could resolve it, so wedidnt lose anything out of those five minutesof the hour-and-a-half session, so it was veryimportant that we could speak our wayround it to recover the situation.

[21cl83] It was really the characterisation. Itwas just kind of that makes perfect sense tome. Ive been thinking, reflecting about this

at various levels for a long time. Occasionallyyou have those moments of realisation, youforget them and then when youre remindedit not only provides clarity it providescomfort to the person whos being coached.

[21co84] My hunch is its probably moreimportant to my client than it was to me. Hecan tell you for himself but my hunch wasthat was new and interesting information

that he was quite intrigued by.

[21co86] I was surprised. So I suppose I wasmonitoring my own reactions and my ownreactions were well that feels like somethingimportant and new so I guess it felt like itmeant something. Whether its just because I

was worried I missed it I dont know but it was something about this is new and feelssignificant. My client was very animated intalking about it.

Content-analysis of the critical moments

All critical-moment descriptions were codedto identify recurrent themes, with similarcodes as in our previous research (see, forexample, De Haan et al., 2010). The codingdid not show a large or consistent differencebetween coach and client moment descrip-tions, and it showed less consistency amongmarkers than before (Cohens Kappa wasonly 0.34 on average), which can beexplained by the fact that the fragments arelonger (on average 316 words per descrip-

tion) so there is more information conveyedin every key moment description. Because ofthe failure of the existing set of codes todivulge distinctive patterns in the dataset,and because of the striking differences with

earlier datasets, a new more succinct set ofcodes was drawn up and tested, which wouldcapture all critical aspects across all fivedatasets. There were four broad categories inthese 12 codes: a moment of learning (codes1 and 2), a moment of relational change(codes 3 and 4), a moment of significantaction (codes 5 and 6) and a moment ofsignificant emotional experience (codes 7 to12). To provide help with the emotional

codes (7 to 12) a table with the full range ofemotions, based on a tree structure built onsix primary emotions (three positive andthree negative) by Parrot (2001) wasprovided to the coders. For brief descriptionsof the 12 codes, see Table 2.

Two of the authors (EH and CB) and onecolleague who was not an executive coach(AC) coded the full dataset of 352 criticalmoments with these codes. All codes were at

least used three times by every coder, thoughthere were four codes that were used for lessthan three per cent of the dataset: 6, 7, 8, 11.

We had anticipated this when drawing upthe set of 12 codes, but we kept these codesin to keep a balanced and structurallycomplete set. Figure 1 shows the frequencyof use of the codes, for all three observersand the full dataset of 352 moments.

To determine inter-rater reliability,Cohens Kappa (Cohen, 1960) wascomputed between all coders and found anaverage Kappa of 0.44 which seems a reason-able figure given the number of codes: it ismore than thirty times chance level. In anycase, the coding of individual momentdescriptions will not be reported: all conclu-sions will be based only on the totals of codesused for each of five datasets see Table 1.These sets of totals correlate 0.77 on averagebetween the three coders. High reliabilitybetween raters of helpful events was alsoreported in psychotherapy research(Llewelyn, 1988; Elliott et al., 1985).



11/20

Table 2.The 12 codesthat have been used to analyse all five datasetsin Table 1.

Code Short description of the codenumber

1 A moment of learning: a moment in which new insight was created for coach and particularly client.

2 A moment of learning: a moment of working through, reflecting, gaining newperspectives and/or making sense of existing material.

3 A change in the relationship in the moment (positive).

4 A change in the relationship in the moment (negative).

5 Significant action in the moment (coach-led): applying oneself to a unique scriptedprocess such as drawing, visualisation, role-play, GROW,

6 Significant action in the moment (client-led): organising future sessions, negotiatingthe session, taking away action points, making notes,

7 Significant emotional experience in the moment: joy (client);heightened positive emotion.

8 Significant emotional experience in the moment: joy (coach);heightened positive emotion.

9 Significant emotional experience in the moment: anxiety (client);heightened negative emotion.

10 Significant emotional experience in the moment: anxiety (coach);heightened negative emotion.

11 Significant emotional experience in the moment: doubt (client);

fundamental not-knowing, often a starting point for reflection.12 Significant emotional experience in the moment: doubt (coach);

fundamental not-knowing, often a starting point for reflection.

Biases between the three coders weresmall (see Figure 1). EH codes more nega-tive changes in the relationship (code 4; 40in total against 21/22 for the other coders)and AC codes more coach-led significance indoing (code 5; 43 in total against 22 for EH),

whilst CB codes more anxieties of clients(code 9; 25 in total against 10/11 for theother coders). The only boundary betweencodes which seems to have been interpreteddifferently is the one between codes 1 and 2,

which are both moments of learning code1 describes a sudden realisation and code 2 amore reflective working through. In truth,these forms of learning probably do not havea sharp boundary anyway. All coders usecodes 1 and 2 in just over a quarter of theircoding (mainly in datasets 4 and 5), but AC

uses code 1 in 62 per cent of those and CBuses code 1 in only 26 per cent of those, withEH in the middle: 50 per cent.

Figure 2 shows an overview of the codingof all datasets, by one of the coders (CB).From the figure, the following conclusionsare immediately apparent:G Dataset 1 (critical moments of less

experienced coaches) contains adisproportionate amount of doubts ofcoaches (code 12) and negativechanges in the relationship (code 4).This confirms the main conclusions ofDe Haan (2008a).

G Datasets 2 and 3 (critical moments ofexperienced coaches) share with Dataset1 a high proportion of anxieties ofcoaches (code 10) whilst they contain





12/20

Figure 1: An overview of the frequency of the use of all codes by all three coders,for the full dataset of 352 critical moment descriptions from coaching conversations.

For the definition of the 12 codes, see Table 2.



significantly less doubts of coaches. Thisconfirms the main conclusions of De

Haan (2008b) and Day and associates(2008).G Dataset 4 (critical moments of clients of

coaching) shows an altogether differentprofile, with a much higher proportionof moments of learning (codes 1 and2). This confirms the main conclusions ofDe Haan and associates (2010).

G Dataset 5 (critical moments of coachesand clients, directly compared) is overallmuch more similar to Dataset 4 than toany of the three datasets of executivecoaches.

G From Datasets 1 to 4 one can observe thatboth clients and coaches report more ontheir own emotions and sensations thanon their counterparts emotions andsensations, i.e. descriptions from coaches(Datasets 1, 2 and 3) lead to moreperceived codes 8, 10 and 12 (coachesemotions and doubts) than theequivalent 7, 9 and 11 (clients emotionsand doubts) and this is reversed in theclients descriptions (Dataset 4). This was

also reported in De Haan and associates(2010).

A more in-depth comparison between thefive datasets, distinguishing between the 43client moments and the 43 coachmoments in Dataset 5, yields the following:G The clients critical-moment Dataset 4

and the new clients critical momentdescriptions in Dataset 5 follow a verysimilar pattern (see Figure 3 in the caseof coder AC), both having a very highproportion of moments of learning(codes 1 and 2). On average thecorrelation between the coding ofDataset 4 and of the client moments inDataset 5 of AC, CB and EH was 0.92,

which is remarkably high and gives astrong confirmation of the conclusionsfrom a rather disparate set of clientmoment descriptions in De Haan andassociates (2010).

G Surprisingly, there is also a highcorrelation between Dataset 4 and thecoach moments in Dataset 5 (see againFigure 3, for coder AC). On average thiscorrelation is 0.58 among the three



13/20

Figure 2: A graph showing the distribution of codes selected by coder CB for all fivedatasets. 1: less experienced coaches; 2: experienced coaches; 3: very experiencedcoaches (phone interviews); 4: clients of coaching; 5: coaches and clients direct

comparison (interviews). For the definition of the 12 codes, see Table 2.



coders, whereas the correlations between

Datasets 1, 2 and 3 and the coachmoments in Dataset 5 is 0.003: negligible. We will come back to this surprisingfinding in the Discussion section.

G The coders found an absence of negativechanges in the relationship (code 4) inDataset 5, confirming what was concludedmore informally at the beginning of theResults section, above, namely thatdescriptions in the new dataset seempositive and constructive, as if celebratingor protecting the ongoing relationships.

G Remarkably in Dataset 5 we have for thefirst time a higher occurrence of onespartners emotions than ones own:coaches in Dataset 5 come up with moreanxieties of the client (code 9; see Figure3 for coder AC) than of themselves.

G Coaches still report a significant numberof doubts (code 12), consistent withearlier research (De Haan 2008a, 2000b;Day et al., 2008).

These conclusions are true for all threecoders.

Finally, having this rather unique Dataset

5 which allows a direct comparison ofcoaches and their clients views on the samecoaching conversation, also affords theanalysis of those descriptions where coachand client seem to be speaking about the

very same moment or event within thecoaching conversation. Surprisingly, thereare 46 key moment descriptions, more thanhalf of the dataset, which are obviouslyrelating to the same event or moment withinthe conversations. Bear in mind that theduration of these conversations was onaverage, about two hours.

The usage of codes on these particulardescriptions were analysed by computingCohens Kappa (Cohen, 1960) for this newdataset, Kappa being the standard measurefor correlations between independentcoding processes. Cohens Kappas werecomputed for the coders choice of code forthe coach moment compared with thecoders choice of code for the correspondingclient moment. It is a relatively smalldataset of only 23 measurements, but Kappas



14/20

Figure 3: A graph showing the distribution of codes selected by coder AC for Dataset 4and for the coaches and clients descriptions of critical moments in the comparison

study, separately. For the definition of the 12 codes, see Table 2.



can be reliably computed. Cohens Kappaswere: 0.29 (AC), 0.38 (CB) and 0.47 (EH),

each much higher than chance levels whichare around 0.02. With the caveat that thisconclusion is based only on a small dataset of46 codes, we can provisionally conclude thatthese coaches and clients did not only agreein more than 50 per cent of key moments onthe particular event or subject matter theydescribed, but they also seem to agree on thenature of those events, which seems a strongagreement between the two partners, partic-ularly if one takes into account the lowagreement sometimes reported in psycho-therapy (e.g. Tallman & Bohart, 1999;however, Weiss, Rabinowitz & Spiro, 1996,report variability in the agreement betweenclients and therapists qualitative reports).

DiscussionIn summary, the direct comparison datacontributed by coaches and clients ofcoaching (Dataset 5) suggests the following:G Clients and coaches experiences of

coaching conversations are not asdifferent as would have been thought,

based on the earlier studies, neither inthe nature of selected events (coaches

and clients descriptions are coded insimilar distributions across a fixed set of12 codes) nor in their specific choice ofevents (46 of 86 descriptions refer to anevent also described by the partner inconversation), nor even in the emphases

within their event descriptions (those 46shared event descriptions were coded ina manner correlating about 20 timeschance level, for all three observers).

G Clients and coaches use similar languageand apart from one reported rupture inthe relationship all 86 descriptions werebroadly positive and indicated learning,progress, accomplishment. Partly this maybe due to the fact that for 14 of the 21sessions the client and conversation waschosen by the coach and they will havechosen positive client relationships as theyhad to invite their client to the research.

Comparing this dataset explicitly with all ofthe earlier datasets of clients and coachesdescriptions of critical moments of executivecoaching led to the following results:



15/20



G Overall a strong endorsement of themain conclusions in the earlier articles.

Although the new dataset correlatesstrongly only with Dataset 4, the newdataset does also replicate some of the

trends found in the other previousdatasets. Sixty-two per cent of clientsmoments in the Dataset 5 were coded as1 or 2 (moments of learning), and 40per cent of coaches moments; inDatasets 1 to 4 these numbers had been59 per cent for clients moments andnine per cent for coaches moments.

Another interesting example is theoccurrence of coaches doubts: 56 per

cent for inexperienced coaches (Dataset1), 18 per cent/27 per cent forexperienced coaches (Dataset 2/Dataset3 respectively), nought per cent forclients of coaching (Dataset 4) and nowin Dataset 5: nought per cent for clientsand five per cent for coaches.

G A high correlation between the coding ofthese direct-comparison client data andthe earlier client critical-moments dataset

(Dataset 4, correlations consistently over0.90).G No correlation at all between the coding

of the new dataset (Dataset 5) and theearlier coach data (Datasets 1, 2 and 3),to the extent that the average correlationbetween the coaches descriptions fromDatasets 1 to 3 and from Dataset 5 wasexactly zero.

We think that these findings can be under-stood best from the realisation that this direct-comparison study contains a fairrepresentation of straightforward, run-of-the-mill, successful and everyday executivecoaching, with client and coach being inbroad agreement, not only about the goalsand outcomes of their sessions but also abouttheir coaching process and coaching relation-ship. We can assume that this type of run-of-the-mill coaching is exactly what the clientsin Dataset 4 also reported on, as many studieshave shown executive coaching to be satisfac-tory and successful in most cases (see, forexample, McGovern et al., 2001; De Haan,

Culpin & Curd, in press). On the other hand,Datasets 1, 2 and 3 were drawn from a muchbroader and deeper experience of executivecoaching and have probably included rarerand more extreme examples of transforma-

tion, resistance or ruptures in the workingalliance. In other words, whilst Datasets 4 and5 focus on the everyday learning that takesplace in generally positive coaching relation-ships, Dataset 1, 2 and 3 take their inspirationfrom special occurrences in coaching,moments and events that may occur only afew times in the lifetime of an executive coach and in particular at the beginning of acoaches career when there are still great inse-

curities and doubts (De Haan, 2008a). We cannot rule out the possibility that

there are other qualitative differencesbetween what coaches and clients associate

with the term critical moment when itapplies to the session they have just hadtoday (Dataset 5), as compared to whencritical moment applies to a wholecoaching relationship (Dataset 4) or to acareer of coaching experience, however

short in some cases (Datasets 1, 2 and 3).It may well be that the term criticalmoment does not apply in the same way tothe past hour as to a lifetime of work.

Both run-of-the-mill and exceptionalcircumstances are part of coaching practice,so all various datasets have something to teachexecutive coaching practitioners. Studies likethese can provide crucial information for thetraining and development of executivecoaches, whilst they may also help to informand manage the expectations of clients ofexecutive coaching. Here is a short summaryof what we believe these data can teach us:

G Datasets 1, 2 and 3 give an indication thatin the careers of most executive coachesthere are such things as exceptionalmoments where the relationship is testedor ruptured and where coachesexperience strong doubts and anxieties.Generally, the levels of anxiety of coachesin such events remain high, whilst thedegree of doubting abates over time(De Haan, 2008b).



16/20



G Datasets 4 and 5 give an indication that what clients are most looking for incoaching conversations are moments ofrealisation and emerging insight, i.e.learning of some form that they can

bring to use in their own practice.Coaches can and do work in such a waythat they seem in agreement with theirclients about which are the events thatmatter and the nature of those events.Under exceptional circumstances adifferent picture may emerge, wheredisruptions to the relationship betweencoach and client become more figural,and then we are back in the realm of

Datasets 1, 2 and 3.In summary, more agreement than disagree-ment was found between clients andcoaches:G Forty-six of 86 moments or events were

selected by both clients and coaches (53per cent);

G The critical-moment descriptions fromclients and coaches were similar (seeFigure 3) and they use similar language

apart from a few occurrences of jargon inthe language of the executive coaches.G Clients and coaches place similar

emphases within their description ofthose events, witnessed by the substantialcorrelations between the coding of thesepairs of moments.

G For the first time one can even noticethat the anxieties that both partners inthe conversation attend to are in a waysimilar: they are predominantly theanxieties of the client (see Figure 3), asone would hope in executive coaching.

In psychotherapy research there are someindications that clients and therapists arelooking for quite different events andmoments, and that they have incommensu-rate memories of the sessions themselves(Elliott, 1983, 1990; Llewelyn 1988; Rennie,1990; Elliott & Shapiro, 1992; Tallman &Bohart, 1999); however, one review studyinvestigating all publications to date onagreement between clients and therapists

found a high variability (Weiss et al., 1996).One interpretation worth noting is that ther-apists will address perceived weaknessesmore than coaches, and will, therefore, havemore emphasis on challenging, disruptive

and even corrective interventions, whichmay result in less agreement between thera-pist and client than between coach andclient.

ConclusionThis direct-comparison study of coachesand clients critical moment descriptionsthat were gathered straight after mutualexecutive-coaching conversations, has

produced both a confirmation of earlierconclusions when studying critical momentsin executive coaching and a linkage betweenthe various disparate studies hitherto under-taken. We think we now understand better

why clients and coaches descriptions inearlier studies were so different, and we arebeginning to understand how descriptionsfrom clients and coaches coming out ofcoaching sessions can also be extremely

similar, as was the case here.Interestingly, the results of this direct-comparison study connect with an olddebate in psychotherapy process research(Mintz et al., 1973) which seeks to clarify to

what degree the experiences and accounts ofboth parties in helping conversations aresimilar versus different. On the one hand,coach and client are essentially similar beingboth 21st century professionals with aninterest in leadership and development.Moreover, during the conversation theyattend to the same reality of the conversa-tion as it emerges between them. On theother hand one can argue they take upentirely different and complementary rolesin the same conversation, with one focusingon own issues and the other focusing on theprogress and development of the partner inconversation. So clearly, in the accounts ofcoaching one would expectbotha reasonableconsensus and the Rashomon experiencenamed after Akira Kurosawas classic 1950

Japanese movie Rashomon, where four partic-



17/20



ipants re-tell a single event and come up withequally plausible but totally different andincompatible accounts. Most processresearch in psychotherapy has confirmed theRashomon-side of the debate, showing that

clients and therapists do indeed place anentirely different emphasis in recall, selec-tion and interpretation of significant eventsof therapy (Mintz et al., 1973, Weiss et al.,1996). Here is how Yalom (Yalom & Elkin,1974; p.222) formulates that side of the argu-ment: I am struck by () the obviousdiscrepancies in perspective between Ginnyand me. Often she values one part of thehour, I another. I press home an interpreta-

tion with much determination and pride. Tohumour me and to hasten our move to moreimportant areas she accepts the interpreta-tion. To permit us to move to work areas,I on the other hand humour her by grantingher silent requests for advice, suggestions,exhortations, or admonitions. I value mythoughtful clarifications; with one masterfulstroke I make sense out of a number ofdisparate, seemingly unrelated facts. She

rarely ever acknowledges, much less valuesmy labours, and instead seems to profit frommy simple human acts: I chuckle at hersatire, I notice her clothes, I call her buxom,I tease her when we role play. These presentresults seem to favour the other side of thedebate, with a surprising degree of overlapbetween coach and client accounts, both intheir recall/selection and in their emphasis/interpretation. However, given the origi-nality of the design and the limited scope ofthe dataset, it may be too early to argue thatcoach-client pairs have more in commonthan therapist-patient pairs.

From the point of view of education andprofessional development for coaches, thefollowing recommendations can be drawnfrom this research:1. Coaches need to be prepared for quite

different circumstances in run-of-the-millcoaching and in the presence of realdramatic moments and ruptures. Inordinary coaching they need to keep thefocus with what clients are interested in

most: realisations, emerging insight, andreflection. In extraordinary conversa-tions, they need to be able to deal withtheir own substantive doubt and anxiety,and also with strong emotions in their

clients.2. More effort can be put into preparing

coaches for what they can expect inordinary, successful conversations. Theresults of this inquiry have shown thatcoaches need to help clients to lookbeyond their current solutions andmindset, to achieve new realisations andinsight. They need to remain focused onnew learning and how they can support

their clients to achieve that. Epiphaniesare not necessarily what is needed.Sometimes creating a sense of supportand reflection is adequate. As concludedbefore (De Haan et al., 2010), coachesneed awareness of the fact that clientsseem to be focused on changing theirthoughts and reflections rather than onpure space for reflection, reassurance ornew actions. Coaches should ensure they

have the skills to facilitate the emergenceof new learning, reflection, realisationand insight.

3. When teaching the important findings ofoutcome research, for example, theso-called common factors that in psycho-therapy have so often been shown to besignificantly related to outcome and

which teach us the importance of therelationship, expectancy and personality

when it comes to effectiveness (Wampold2001), it is important to consider also

what suboutcome research (Rice &Greenberg, 1984) may teach in terms of,for example, what a practicing coach canexpect in terms of their own doubts andanxieties, or clients expectations ofsession-by-session learning outcomes(realisations, changing perspectives, etc.).

When aspects such as the above find their way into coach training and developmentprogrammes, this would help in making amore clear-cut case for executive coachingfor the benefit of purchasers of coaching,



18/20

including more information on expectedbenefits and limitations of working with anexecutive coach.

We would suggest there is a great needfor further investigation in this area, particu-

larly in the following domains:1. Critical moments research, if only to

assemble larger datasets upon whichfirmer conclusions can be based. A largerdataset can also be used to (dis-)confirmthe more tentative conclusions in boththis and other articles.

2. Direct-comparison studies such as thepresent one should be extended intolongitudinal studies of coach-client

relationships, which could study theprogress of the intervention through theevolving reported critical moments. Insuch research, more care should be takento minimise interference with thecoaching intervention as a whole.

3. We would be most interested in findingout about critical moments and thecoaching process from the perspective ofthe oft-neglected (indirect) clients of

coaching which are the direct colleagues,managers and reports of the coachingclient within the organisation of theclient. It would be fascinating toinvestigate what they believe were thecritical moments of their colleaguescoaching journey.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank all the coaches andtheir clients who generously gave accounts oftheir experiences. We are also grateful toMonica Stroink and Heather Reekie fordoing most of the interviews, to AndyCopeland for helping us with the coding ofthe moments, and to Shirine Voller who hasco-ordinated this research programme fromthe Ashridge Centre for Coaching.

CorrespondenceDr Erik de Haan

E-mail: [email protected]

Colin Bertie


Dr Andrew Day


Professor Charlotte Sills


Ashridge Centre for Coaching,Ashridge Business School,

Berkhamsted,Hertfordshire HP4 1NS,United Kingdom.





19/20


Caskey, N., Barker, C. & Elliott, R. (1984). Dualperspectives: Clients and therapists perceptionsof therapist responses. British Journal of ClinicalPsychology, 23, 281290.

Cohen J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for

nominal scales. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 70, 213220.

Corbin, J. & Strauss A.J. (1990). Grounded theoryresearch: Procedures, canons and evaluativecriteria. Zeitschrift fr Soziologie, 19, 418427.

Day, A., De Haan, E., Blass, E., Sills, C. & Bertie, C.(2008). Coaches experience of critical momentsin the coaching. International Coaching PsychologyReview, 3(3), 207218.

De Haan, E. (2008a). I doubt therefore I coach Critical moments in coaching practice. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(1),

91105.De Haan, E. (2008b). I struggle and emerge

Critical moments of experienced coaches.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,

60(1), 106131.De Haan, E., Bertie, C., Day, A. & Sills, C. (2010).

Critical moments of clients of coaching: Towardsa client model of executive coaching. Academy ofManagement Learning & Education, 9.4

De Haan, E., Culpin, V. & Curd, J. (in press). Execu-tive coaching in practice: What determines help-fulness for coachees? Personnel Review.

Elliott, R. (1983). That is in your hands a compre-hensive process analysis of a significant event inpsychotherapy. Psychiatry, 46, 113129.

Elliott, R. (1985). Helpful and nonhelpful events inbrief counseling interviews: An empiricaltaxonomy. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 32,307322.

Elliott, R.K. & Shapiro, D.A. (1992). Client and ther-apist as analysts of significant events. In S.G.Toukmanian & D.L. Rennie (Eds.), Psychothera-peutic change: Theory-guided and descriptive research

strategies(pp.163186). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Elton Wilson, J. & Syme, G. (2006). Objectives andoutcomes: Questioning the practice of therapy. Maid-enhead: The Open University Press.

Evers, W.J.G., Brouwers, A. & Tomic, W. (2006). A quasi-experimental study on managementcoaching effectiveness. Consulting PsychologyJournal: Practice and Research, 58(3), 174182.

Feldman, D.C. & Lankau, M.J. (2005). Executivecoaching: A review and agenda for futureresearch.Journal of Management, 31, 829848.

Feifel, H. & Eells, J. (1964). Patients and therapistsassess the same psychotherapy. Journal of

Consulting Psychology, 27, 310318.Flanagan, J.C. (1954). The critical incidents tech-nique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327358.

Goodman, G.S., Magnussen, S., Andersson, J.,Endestad, T., Lkke, C. & Mostue, C. (2006).Memory illusions and false memories in real life.In S. Magnussen & T. Helstrup (Eds.), Everydaymemory. London: Psychology Press.

Greif, S. (2007). Advances in research on coachingoutcomes. International Coaching PsychologyReview, 2(3), 222249.

Hawkins, P. & Smith, N. (2006). Coaching, mentoringand organisational consultancy: supervision and

development. Maidenhead: The Open UniversityPress.

Kampa-Kokesch, S. & Anderson, M.Z. (2001). Execu-tive coaching: A comprehensive review of theliterature. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practiceand Research, 53, 205228.

Llewelyn, S. (1988). Psychological therapy as viewed

by clients and therapists. British Journal of ClinicalPsychology, 27, 223237.

Llewelyn, S.P., Elliott, R.K., Shapiro, D.A., Hardy,G.E. & Firth-Cozens, J.A. (1988). Client percep-tions of significant events in prescriptive andexploratory periods of individual therapy. BritishJournal of Clinical Psychology, 27,105114.

McGovern, J., Lindemann, M., Vergara, M., Murphy,S., Barker, L. & Warrenfeltz, R. (2001).Maximising the impact of executive coaching:Behavioural change, organisational outcomes,and return on investment. The Manchester Review,

6(1), 19.Mintz, J., Auerbach, A.H., Luborsky, L. & Johnson, M.

(1973). Patients, therapists and observers viewsof psychotherapy: A Rashomon experience or areasonable consensus? British Journal of MedicalPsychology, 47, 319334.

Orlinsky, D.E. & Howard, K.I. (1975). Varieties of psychotherapeutic experience. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Parrott, W. (2001). Emotions in social psychology.Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Ragins, B.R., Cotton, J.L. & Miller, J.S. (2000).

Marginal mentoring: The effects of type ofmentor, quality of relationship, and programmedesign on work and career attitudes. Academy ofManagement Journal, 43(6), 11771194.

Rennie, D.L. (1990). Towards a representation of theclients experience of the psychotherapy hour.In G. Lietaer, J. Rombauts & R. Van Balen (Eds.),Client-centred and experiential psychotherapy in the

nineties. Leuven University Press.Rice, L.N. & Greenberg, L.S. (Eds.) (1984). Patterns of

change: Intensive analysis of psychotherapeutic process.

New York: Guilford Press.


References



20/20

Smither, J.W., London, M., Flautt, R., Vargas, Y. &Kucine, I. (2003). Can working with an executivecoach improve multisource feedback ratings overtime? A quasi-experimental field study. PersonnelPsychology, 56, 2344.

Spinelli, E. (2008). Coaching and therapy: Similari-ties and divergencies. International Coaching

Psychology Review, 3(3), 241249.Starr, J. (2003). The coaching manual: A definitive guide

to the process, principles and skills of personal

coaching. Harlow: Pearson.Stiles, W.B. (1980). Measurement of the impact of

psychotherapy sessions. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 48, 176185.

Tallman, K. & Bohart, A.C. (1999). The client as acommon factor: Clients as self-healers. In M.A.Hubble, B.L. Duncan & S.D. Miller (Eds.), Theheart and soul of change: What works in therapy.

Washington, DC: APA Press.Wampold, B.E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate:

Models, methods and findings. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum. Weiss, I., Rabinowitz, J. & Spiro, S. (1996). Agree-

ment between therapists and clients in evaluatingtherapy and its outcomes: literature review.Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 23(6),493511.

Yalom, I.D. & Elkin, G. (1974). Every day gets a littlecloser: A twice-told therapy. New York: Basic Books.


critical moments of clients and coaches

Documents