Title

Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders model:

coaches enabling transfer of learning

Author

Dr Janice Cook, Senior Lecturer,

Hertfordshire Business School, University of Hertfordshire,

De Havilland Campus, Hatfield, AL10 9UF

j.cook9@herts.ac.uk

Abstract

Purpose: to report on the findings of a post doctoral study exploring the Collaborative Action

Coaching for Leaders (Cook, 2011) model and its transferability to a range of external

coaches of leaders.

Design/methodology/approach: a collaborative action research study conducted by three

external coaches and the author of the coaching model. The study explored the six categories

and thirty-three themes of the coaching model with the aim of determining its transferability,

if any, to a range of external coaches of leaders in order to enable the transfer of learning.

Findings: the model enables the transfer of learning from coaching sessions to outside the

sessions when used by a range of professional external coaches of leaders. The categories of

the model have remained the same, five of the themes have been identified for possible

amendment and data was collected which suggests other changes to the model.

Research limitations/implications: not a longitudinal study and therefore only covers the

transfer of learning and not the sustainability of learning as in the original doctoral study.

However, the findings have indicated that sustainability of learning is also possible.

Practical implications: this practitioner research study is showing some interesting results

for both the professional field of coaching and those commissioning coaching in

organisations with its emphasis on transfer of learning as a return on investment.

Social implications: could potentially benefit numerous leaders in organisations if adopted

by more professional external coaches.

Originality/value: the Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders (Cook, 2011) model

continues to be the only model for coaching leaders which focuses on the transfer and

sustainability of learning.

Keywords: coaching for leaders, transfer of learning

Why is this post doctoral research study important?

“If organisations are going to invest scarce resources ... [they] will need evidence that such an

investment can produce desired results. Desired results could be interpreted as … learning

being transferred back into the workplace and then sustained over time.” (Cook, 2011)

As a commissioner of training, learning and development activities for over 30 years (and

most of those in limited resource environments in the public and private sectors), I know how

important it is to ensure that both the individuals and the organisation are experiencing

benefits from an investment in learning and development activities. This is important not just

in terms of return on financial investment but also return on investment of time which is also

very precious, both particularly important from an ethical perspective in public services and

charitable contexts. Coaching leaders on a one-to-one basis is at the top end of the spectrum

with regards to investment of both budget and time. Therefore, the benefits have to be

commensurate with that investment.

In my article (Cook, 2013) I presented the Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders

(Cook, 2011) model as a way of preventing coaching from becoming simply an expensive

conversation, it has to be much more than that to warrant the investment of money and time

in this learning and development activity. In this same article I quoted one of the leader

participants in the doctoral study from which this model emerged: “I know I have retained

information and reused it so much, and will continue to do so. It will also support me as I

move forward.” (Cook, 2013, p.123)

However, my doctoral study was focused on researching my own coaching practice and I was

left with the question of the transferability of my model to other professional external coaches

of leaders. In order to continue the contribution to the professional field of one-to-one

coaching this question needed to be answered. By asking other coaches to experiment with

my model in a research practice environment, this gave me the opportunity to explore the

Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders model from a range of professional perspectives

and experiences, importantly keeping the focus on the model enabling the transfer of

learning. This was not a longitudinal study; therefore it was not possible to include

sustainability of learning in this post doctoral study.

What relevant research already exists?

For my doctoral study I reviewed both coaching for leaders literature as well as transfer and

sustainability of learning literature and found that a gap existed with regard to exploring a

possible link between coaching process and relationship and the transfer and sustainability of

learning.

Coaching for leaders

The coaching for leaders’ literature focuses almost entirely on the coaching process and the

coaching relationship with some interesting results emerging about the specifics of the

coaching process, for example the coach challenging the leader being coached (Hall, Otazo

and Hollenbeck, 1999), and the collaborative nature of the coaching relationship (Law,

Ireland and Hussain, 2007). Over time, a common view has developed that coaching leaders

is about learning and change as opposed to a dialogic environment which continues the status

quo for the leader being coached, indicating a possible shift in thinking amongst coaching

practitioners and researchers. However, the specific issue of transfer and sustainability of

learning in respect of coaching process and relationship was minimal; and the issue of return

on investment in leadership coaching remains a thorny issue in coaching research with

scientific rationalisation less attractive to some researchers than others. In accordance with

my values and beliefs, I was mindful in my research to retain the humanity of coaching and

not to “reduce coaching to a functional and instrumental practice” (Garvey et al, 2009),

although keen to find the specifics of the coaching process and relationship which enabled the

transfer and sustainability of learning for the leader being coached.

Transfer of learning

There have been several ways of interpreting transfer of learning over the years including

transfer of training and transfer system. Transfer of training usually refers to the transfer of

learning from a training programme (Baldwin and Ford, 1988) and it is difficult to see the

usefulness of this interpretation to the one-to-one coaching environment. Ruona, Leimbach,

Holton and Bates (2002, p.220) prefer the expression “transfer system” in which “transfer

involves the application, generalisability and maintenance of new knowledge and skills.”

However, a new researcher (Spencer, 2011) has studied the transfer of training using

coaching as a tool for that transfer. She reviews the work of Holton, Bates and Ruona (2000)

and concludes that “the LTSI [Learning Transfer System Inventory] model may be inadequate

to consider coaching’s contribution to training transfer” (2011, p.4); the limitations of

previous transfer of training and transfer system theories are also recognised in the work of

Stewart et al. (2008).

My doctoral study with a focus on the transfer and sustainability of learning has therefore

helped to fill a gap in the literature by augmenting the research of Stewart et al (2008) with a

focus on learning, and complementing the seminal work of Olivero, Bane and Kopelman

(1997) in respect of the use of coaching to transfer learning from a formal training

programme to the workplace. My study also added to the work of Stern (2004); Natale and

Diamante (2005); and Law, Ireland and Hussain (2007) on the concept of collaboration in

coaching, although my study looked specifically at the collaborative coaching processes and

relationship required of both coach and client.

Cox (2013, p.138) sums it up very well when she states that “one of the unwritten goals of

coaching is to ensure enduring learning and development for the client that can be sustained

long beyond the end of the coaching intervention”. Similarly, the definition for both the

doctoral and post doctoral studies is the transfer of learning from a coaching session to

outside the session, with that learning sustained over time without any additional coaching

intervention.

In preparation for the post doctoral study, I reviewed the contemporary literature and found

that there is a continuing lack of additional empirical research studying the transfer of

learning from an external, one-to-one, stand alone coaching experience to outside that

experience. Although, there has been some more recent published work on the transfer of

learning from training programmes (De Ridjt et al, 2013; Weisweiler et al, 2013).

Whilst there is some literature on the coaching relationship and the person being coached in

respect of transfer of learning (eg Stewart et al, 2008); there is also a clear gap in the

literature regarding what actually happens in the coaching process in respect of transfer of

learning. In an attempt to demonstrate to the business world that coaching can have a good

return on investment, Cook’s (2011) Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders model has

an additional focus on application of learning in the workplace as well as what facilitates the

learning and enables the transfer of learning back into the workplace (Styhre and Josephson,

2007; Allan, 2007).

If a commissioner of learning and development in an organisation is searching for leadership

coaching which enables a return on investment, then the Collaborative Action for Leaders

(Cook, 2011) model provides the option of considering transfer and sustainability of learning

as such a return on investment. Therefore the model’s possible use by a range of professional

external coaches is an important topic for research.

How was the post doctoral study conducted?

Within a paradigm of social constructivism in which meanings are constructed as people

engage with the world they are interpreting (Creswell, 2009), we were trying to answer the

following questions:

1. Is the Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders model transferable across a range of

professional coaches?

2. Does the Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders model enable the transfer and

sustainability of learning when implemented by a range of professional coaches?

As the doctoral study had been successful in its collaborative action research methodology

with the methodology itself influencing the content of the model, it seemed important and

relevant to continue with this methodological approach. In my doctoral study I created a new

Collaborative Action Research approach for coaching research (Cook, 2010) and therefore

applied this model to this post doctoral study (see Figure 1 below).

However, I was mindful that we were not creating a new theory but exploring an existing

theory. In this regard, Carr and Kemmis (1986, p.162) helpfully suggest that “Action

research is simply a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social

situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their

understanding of these practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out”

(Carr and Kemmis 1986, p.162). Also, the methodological approach could still be regarded

as a “living theory form” of action research in that it is grounded in the ontological “I” of the

researcher and uses a “living logic” of experiences at the moment (McNiff and Whitehead,

2006, p.41). The focus of the research remained entirely about creating meanings from

experience, in particular the experience of the coaches using the Collaborative Action

Coaching for Leaders (Cook, 2011) model. This retained the sense of a type of living theory

(McNiff and Whitehead, 2006) which allows the individual experiences to dictate the

research journey. This was important when researching with a range of coaches and their

unique experiences and contribution as individual coaches to the coaching experience in the

study.

As mentioned above, we followed my model of Collaborative Action Research (Cook, 2010)

adapted to reflect the specifics of this post doctoral study:

Figure 1: Developing a coaching theory from researching your own coaching practice, through collaborative action research (Cook, 2010) (adapted)

In the first action research cycle, each coach/researcher coached one or two leaders each.

These coaching sessions were mainly face-to-face with one coach conducting some sessions

by telephone. They were required to conduct at least 3 sessions for two hours each time over

a period of about six months, with one coach conducting some sessions for one hour. Each

leader being coached was encouraged to keep reflective research diaries in whatever format

they chose and to gain feedback from colleagues at work about their transfer of learning.

Most leaders did both of these although formal feedback provider sessions were not popular,

most leaders preferred to gain feedback informally from colleagues instead; this is different

to the doctoral study but this change did not undermine the model in Figure 1 because the

informal feedback was collected as data by the coach/researchers. In the second action

research cycle, the coach/researchers did not coach the leaders but kept in touch with them to

check about the sustainability of their learning. This second cycle was shorter than the first

cycle and therefore the data collected was limited.

The coach/researchers were recruited on a voluntary basis via various professional coaching

networks; they were not required to have any specific qualification or experience as long as

they were external coaches who worked one-to-one with leaders in organisations with the

coaching not linked to any development programme. The leaders were recruited by the

coach/researchers in line with their usual process for working with clients. All ethical

procedures were followed including the use of a participant information sheet, signed consent

forms with confidentiality and anonymity for the leaders guaranteed. The coach/researchers

gave permission for their names to be included in any papers or presentations about the study

but confidentiality of their individual contributions has been maintained.

The practicalities of the study were potentially a challenge. In particular, I was mindful of

the potential practical problems of conducting more than one action research cycle with a

range of volunteer coaches and their clients with uncertainty at the beginning about the ability

to sustain the study over a sufficient period of time to explore transfer of learning. I am

indebted to the volunteer coach/researchers (Hilary Price Jones, Jane Molloy and Helen

Smith) for their sustained and continuous commitment to this study and to the development

of evidence-based research in our professional coaching community.

The Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders (Cook, 2011) model continues to be the only

model for coaching leaders which focuses entirely on the transfer and sustainability of

learning and its transferability to a range of professional external coaches was explored in this

study.

What is the Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders model?

The Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders (Cook, 2011) model emanated from a

professional doctorate study: “The effect of coaching on the transfer and sustainability of

learning: coaching for leaders, a collaborative action research study” (Cook, 2011). I

researched my own coaching practice over a period of about 15 months, coaching and

researching alongside leaders in the charitable sector. It was a highly qualitative study within

a social constructivist paradigm focused on improving practice in the professional field of

coaching.

As an experienced coach practitioner for over 20 years, at the time, I had a sense that my

coaching practice with leaders was enabling the transfer of learning but I was unsure what it

was about the coaching experience which might be enabling such a transfer. I was also

interested to explore if and how the coaching experience could enable that learning to sustain

over time. Hence the need for a longitudinal, in depth study. As mentioned above, a review

of the literature showed that this specific focus in coaching had not been the subject of any

prior research studies which indicated a potential contribution to the development of coaching

practice in general, not just a development of my coaching practice.

There were two main findings from this doctoral study:

1. Coaching can help the transfer and sustainability of learning

2. Both the coach and the client have individual and shared responsibilities in the

transfer and sustainability of learning from the coaching sessions to outside the

sessions

My research found that the six categories of the model enable this transfer and sustainability

of learning:

Figure 2: Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders (Cook, 2011)

The 33 themes underneath these six categories are:

CATEGORIES

COACH RESPONSIBILITIES

CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES

COACH AND CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES

CLIENT CENTRED PROCESS

ENABLING/FACILITATINGLEARNING

SESSION CONTENT

ACTIVE LEARNING

COACHING RELATIONSHIP

REFLECTIVE LEARNING

THEMES

Coach In Charge Of The Process

Encourage Practice Back In The Workplace

Contracting: Start Point

Colleague Feedback

Comfort Reflective Diaries

Tailored Tools/Techniques

Share Experience To Facilitate Learning

Client Bringing Content

Transfer Of Learning Measures Identified

Safety/Confidentiality/Trust

Feedback Provider Sessions

Challenge/Support

Suspend Judgement

Being Open To Learning

Coach And Client Match

Record-Keeping

Client Context

Not Therapy Client Takes Responsibility For Their Learning

Face-To-Face Coaching Supervision

Physical Environment

Lasting Impact Of Coach

Reflective Practitioner

External Coach

Setting Goals

Coaching Consultancy

Honest Dialogue

Sounding Board

Primary Role As Coach

Friendly Support

Keeping In Touch Outside Coaching Sessions

Figure 3: Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders (Cook, 2011), 33 Themes

Each theme emerged from the qualitative research process, identified as important in the

transfer and sustainability of learning. No weighting of categories or themes was found.

For the post doctoral study I produced briefing notes for the coach/researchers providing the

practical detail of the model to help them when implementing the model with their clients. In

addition to these notes, I also held a group briefing session for all the coach/researchers and

answered queries by email or by phone as they coached their clients using this model. These

briefing notes bring the model to life for practice purposes and are detailed in Appendix 1

using the six categories and their themes as a structure. But is the model transferable to

other coaches of leaders?

What did the post doctoral study find?

The three external coach/researchers all had their own individual philosophies of coaching

practice including NLP and neuroscience and they all had their own coaching processes and

ways of building relationships firmly established over many years of practice. Despite this

professional diversity, the post doctoral study found that:

1. the Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders model is transferable across a range of

professional coaches.

2. the Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders model enables the transfer and of

learning when implemented by a range of professional coaches.

This demonstrated that the model is flexible enough to allow for professional diversity,

enabling the coach to retain their authentic identity in their coaching of leaders practice.

However, the study was not able to find that the model enables the sustainability of learning

due to the lack of a longitudinal approach, although there was some evidence of sustainability

of learning albeit over a limited period of time.

It is the detail behind these overall findings which has identified areas of refinement for the

Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders (Cook, 2011) model. The six categories remain

in place with the study confirming the importance of the collaborative nature of the model

(with individual and shared responsibilities) as important to enable the transfer of learning.

However, the study found that five of the themes underneath these six categories could

potentially be removed without any negative impact on the transfer of learning.

Five themes for potential removal from the model

Coach Responsibilities/Client Centred Process/Physical Environment

This was questioned by one leader being coached as unimportant to enable the transfer of

learning. In the original doctoral study this was identified as a potential inhibitor of learning,

eg if the client did not feel comfortable in the physical environment in which the coaching

session takes place then transfer of learning may not take place.

Coach Responsibilities/Client Centred Process/Friendly Support

The study found that this theme could depend on the leader as some leaders might not want

any form of friendly interaction in what they perceive as a business coaching environment.

Alternatively, friendly support may be desired depending on the personal situation of the

leader being coached as in the original doctoral study.

Both Physical Environment and Friendly Support were specific examples of client centred

action in the original doctoral study. You could regard them as examples of specific client

needs and therefore a new theme of Meeting specific client needs could be added under

Coach Responsibilities/Client Centred Process.

Coach Responsibilities/Enabling/Facilitating Learning/Not Therapy

The study found that this boundary could be deemed superficial unless a client has a severe

mental health issue. It was felt that most people are incredibly robust; they might stray into

areas which are more counselling orientated but are happy for the issues to be dealt with

through the coaching process and relationship. It was also found that some leaders think

coaching is therapeutic because it clears their head and they gain clarity through the coaching

process. In the original doctoral study it was found that if the leader has a professional

background in counselling they have a clear view of the boundary between the two. It

appears to depend on the leader’s definition and experience of counselling, therapy and

coaching and should therefore be explored as part of the Contracting:starting point and not

part of Enabling/Facilitating Learning. We discussed in the study the possibility that

coaching seems to be maturing as a professional field and now we ought to challenge this

definitive boundary. Historically, coaching has borrowed theory and processes from

counselling and we need now to find our own way.

Coach and Client Responsibilities/Coaching Relationship/Comfort

Coach/researchers struggled to separate this from safety, confidentiality and trust. They also

made the point that sometimes the coach’s responsibility is not to make the leader

comfortable, both comfort and discomfort is needed in the coaching relationship to enable

transfer of learning. Whilst this was separated out by the data collected in the doctoral

research, the data from this study was indicating the removal of this theme.

Coach and Client Responsibilities/Coaching Relationship /Face-to-Face

The professional diversity of the coach/researchers included the use of coaching by telephone

and coaching by Skype. Therefore this theme needs to be removed to allow for these

different coaching approaches. We were also mindful of the growing interest and early

research in e-coaching. The study found that the model suits all these different situations for

all different types of coaching arrangements including the length of the session. Therefore,

better to remove this theme than restrict the professional diversity of a range of coaches and

imply there is one right way of coaching, ie always face-to-face. This retains the element of

the model allowing for what is right for the coach and the client, agree this in the

Contracting:start point phase, gaining agreement at this point and adjusting as necessary as

the coaching continues. Interestingly, the point was made that some leaders want to retain

their anonymity and never have face-to-face sessions for that reason.

Exploring the remaining twenty-eight themes

The remainder of the themes were explored in the study with the following findings. Any

themes not mentioned below did not produce any change from the data collected.

Coach Responsibilities/Client Centred Process/Tailored Tools/Techniques

The importance of this theme was re-emphasised, specifically focusing on the coach selecting

tools and techniques depending on the skills needed to be developed. These tools and

techniques are not restricted to coaching process tools but any tools which help the client

develop the skills they need. This could include business tools or research conducted by the

coach on the specific area of client development. This adds to the coach’s ‘toolkit’.

During this study, tools and techniques were sometimes evolved jointly with the client,

creating together bespoke tools for them with the client driving the agenda.

Coach Responsibilities/Enabling/Facilitating Learning/Coaching Consultancy

This study confirmed the importance of the coach making suggestions but not shifting the

power to the coach as the ‘expert’. The client using the coach’s experience as a resource,

exploring suggestions made by the coach with the client evaluating the suitability and ‘fit’ for

them. It was found that just watching clients in pain when the coach knows that they have

experience which could help them, does not feel supportive as a coach. Therefore, coaching

consultancy is focused on the client needs.

Client Responsibilities/Active learning/Colleague Feedback

One participating leader did not want to do colleague feedback formally but was receiving

informal feedback from colleagues and their line manager. Agenda items may be driven by

this feedback. It is the combination of reflective learning and colleague feedback which

enables the transfer of learning

Client Responsibilities/Transfer of learning measures identified

Some participating leaders found it difficult to identify these measures; the word measure put

them off, sometimes it is less tangible than that. A suggestion was made to just ask a

question about how they will know transfer of learning has taken place. Then there is still

something to check against.

Coach and Client Responsibilities/Coaching Relationship

Even though this category has some themes to help define what is meant by relationship in

the model, it was found that the coach and client need to come to an agreed definition of

relationship in this context. Therefore needs to be dealt with at the Contracting:start point

discussing with the client how they want to work with the coach, how they can best be

supported. This needs an experienced and confident coach to contract on these issues.

Coach and Client Responsibilities/Coaching Relationship/Keeping in touch outside coaching

sessions

The nature of this action was identified as a personal thing for coaches and their individual

clients. The type and regularity of this action depends on the specific relationship with a

client, although reinforcing the need not to develop a dependent relationship between client

and coach. It is the tailoring that enables the transfer of learning and this includes very little

or no contact in between coaching sessions.

Coach and Client Responsibilities/Coaching Relationship/External coach

This context is the basis of the research, reinforcing the value of having an external coach.

Further research is needed to explore the transferability of the model to internal coaches.

Coach and Client Responsibilities/ Reflective Learning

Some reflective learning is reflection in the moment, ie during the coaching session and some

outside the session, but both are important for the transfer of learning. In the coaching

sessions clients sometimes moved from rationalisation to acknowledging their feelings and

then reflecting in action outside the session, transformational learning from the moment of

experience which could be called mindful reflection. Therefore, the coach needs to ensure

that reflective learning space is created during the sessions and the client has to ensure

reflective learning outside the session, hence the shared responsibility. By facilitating

reflective learning in the session, the coach starts the appreciation of reflective learning which

then helps the client reflectively learn when they are on their own. The reflective diary can

put people off, although it may be the word diary. This could be any type of reflective

learning tool, log, process as determined between coach and client.

Coach and Client Responsibilities/Reflective Learning/Feedback Provider Sessions

Feedback provider sessions create a different reflective space but may not always be needed.

There is a practical issue of clients finding it difficult to create the space to conduct these

reflective learning sessions. Creating reflective learning opportunities in the workplace is

difficult in organisations which do not have a reflective learning culture or where a line

manager is not committed to reflective learning. These sessions had a profound impact in the

doctoral study but were difficult to put in place in the post doctoral study which suggests they

will be difficult to implement in coaching practice. Therefore, needs to remain in the model

as this theme does enable the transfer of learning but need to discuss at the Contracting:start

point to see if it is going to be included for that client.

Additional points about the model

In addition to the data collected on the categories and themes, there were also some

suggestions for the development of the model as outlined below.

Coach Self Awareness

Whilst the importance of coach self awareness is implied through the Reflective Learning and

Coaching Supervision themes in the model, it could be more explicit. All coaches have bias

and it is the process of not allowing your bias to influence your coaching which requires an

understanding of self. In order to suspend judgement, particularly in the moment in

coaching, this understanding of bias and self is critical.

Contracting

A suggestion to use the diagram of the model at the contracting stage with the client. By

showing the model to the leaders when contracting at the beginning helps to being the

transfer of learning journey.

Model is too static

A suggestion to redesign the model to get across the change and development elements. The

model is about being and doing for the coach and the client, and the transfer of learning

element needs to come across more actively in the model, ie the process of embedding a habit

and the habit becoming sustainable. Also, the model needs to reflect how the dialogue

between coach and client changes over time. Perhaps the model needs a flow process

included to show how things change over time, ie not static. For example: 1) explore/deepen

awareness (understand issues in the client’s reality), 2) experiment with new ways (client

tries out things discussed/explored in the coaching session), 3) change for client (determine

which habits are helping and persist with these)

Model is for experienced coaches

The coach/researchers were consistent in their feedback that the model is most suitable for

experienced coaches. Whilst it was acknowledged that a less experienced coach could

understand the concept of collaboration with individual and shared responsibilities, there

were concerns that the implementation of the themes will require training and practice to

develop and embed. This raised an issue about the seeming complexity of the model and

raised the question about how to ensure both depth and simplicity in coaching practice in

order to embrace a wider range of professional coaches.

Additional data from the study – general points and ideas

The Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders (Cook, 2011) model is a:

Workable, practical and ethical model

Reminder of the complexity of coaching, a model for the more experienced coach

which allows for the power of the presence of the coach

Collaborative dialogic process in which the coach and the leader are being and doing,

have energetic engagement and learn together through a combination of individual

and shared responsibilities

Model which encourages the coach and the client to keep focused on the transfer and

sustainability of learning, a model which encourages realistic and authentic practice

by the leader outside the coaching sessions

Model which encourages the leader to develop as an independent learner and self

coach

The strength of the reflection element of the model makes this model different to

others

Good measure of adding value as a coach

New ideas for the model:

Include in the contracting how you want the coach to support you – this will help

check the match suitability

Add in enabling/facilitating self coaching

Importance of coach assessment of the leader by the coach – ‘assessment in action’

Coaching methodology/method rather than coaching process

Model needs to include a thinking/analytical approach

Next steps

During the data collection process, various ideas for next steps were discussed:

Need to identify and describe the necessary behaviours, skills and mindset to

implement the model with the creation of core competences and other non-core

competences

Better able to assess transferability to other coaches if skills, behaviours and mindset

are clearly identified

Need to identify which skills, behaviours and mindset are needed to enable transfer

and sustainability of learning, for both the coach and the client

Having identified these skills and behaviours, explore how they map across the

EMCC competences

Is this a valuable model in the internal coaching situation? Map their model of

internal coaching against this model.

Is this a suitable model for line managers who are using coaching skills?

Contribution to professional field of coaching

The findings from this post doctoral study are showing some interesting results for both

external coaches and commissioners of coaching in organisations as this study provides some

evidence about how they can both begin to ensure a return on investment through the transfer

of learning from the coaching session to outside the session. Importantly, this model allows

for the diversity of the professional field of coaching, the model is flexible enough to allow

the authenticity of the coach to develop and flourish.

Further work needs to be completed on redesigning the model and the model briefing notes

including any existing theoretical base, and the participating coach/researchers have

expressed an interest in helping with this redesign. Alongside this redesign is the need to

develop continuous professional development opportunities for external coaches including

the development of some core competences (skills, knowledge, behaviour and attitude) as a

basis for this development. Finally, practitioner research needs to continue to keep exploring

the applicability, usefulness and transferability of this model. Cook’s (2011) Collaborative

Action Coaching for Leaders model could also be useful to line managers using coaching in

their role as well as internal coaches – both areas of interest for further research.

References

Allan, P. (2007), The benefits and impacts of a coaching and mentoring programme for teaching staff in secondary school, International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 5(2):12-21.

Baldwin, T.T., Ford, J.K. (1988), Transfer of Training: A Review and Directions for Future Research, Personnel Psychology, 41:63-105.

Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006), Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3:77-101.

Carr, W., Kemmis, S. (1986), Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research, Victoria, Australia:Deakin University Press.

Cook, J. (2010), Collaborative action research: the ethical challenges, International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, Special Issue No 4:141-150

Cook, J.A. (2011). The effect of coaching on the transfer and sustainability of learning: coaching for leaders, a collaborative action research study. DCM Thesis, Oxford Brookes University.

Cox, E. (2013). Coaching Understood: A pragmatic enquiry into the coaching process, London:Sage.

Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method Approaches. London:Sage.

Daloz, L. A. (1999), Mentor: guiding the journey of adult learners, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

De Rijdt, C., Stes, A., van der Vleuten, C., Dochy, F. (2013), Influencing variables and moderators of transfer of learning to the workplace within the area of staff development in higher education: Research review, Educational Research Review, Review 8:48-74.

Garvey, B., Stokes, P., Megginson, D. (2009), Coaching and mentoring:theory and practice, London:Sage.

Hall, D.T., Otazo, K.L., Hollenbeck, G.P. (1999), Behind Closed Doors: What Really Happens in Executive Coaching, Organizational Dynamics, Winter:39-53.

Holton, E.F., Bates, R.A., Ruona, W.E.A. (2000), Development of a Generalized Learning Transfer System Inventory, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7:5-21

Law, H., Ireland, S., Hussain, K. (2007), The Psychology of Coaching, Mentoring and Learning, Chichester, England:John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

McNiff, J., Whitehead, J. (2006), All You Need to Know About Action Research, London:Sage.

Natale, S.M., Diamante, T. (2005), The Five Stages of Executive Coaching: Better Process Makes Better Practice, Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4):361-374.

Olivero, G., Bane, K.D., Kopelman, R.E. (1997), Executive Coaching as a Transfer of Training Tool: Effects on Productivity in a Public Agency, Public Personnel Management, 26(4):461-470.

Ruona, W.E.A., Leimbach, M., Holton III, E.F., Bates, R. (2002). The relationship between learner utility reactions and predicted learning transfer among trainees. International Journal of Training and Development, 6(4),218-228.

Spencer, L. (2011), Coaching and training transfer: A phenomenological inquiry into combined training-coaching programmes, International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, Special Issue No.5:1-18.

Stern, L.R. (2004), Executive Coaching: A Working Definition, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(3):154-162.

Stewart, L.J., Palmer, S., Wilkin, H., Kerrin, M. (2008), Towards a model of coaching transfer, Operationalising coaching success and the facilitators and barriers to transfer, International Coaching Psychology Review, 3(2):87-109.

Styhre, A., Josephson, P.E. (2007), Coaching the site manager: effects on learning and managerial practice, Construction Management & Economics, Routledge, 25(12):1295-1304.

Weisweiler, S., Nikitopoulos, A., Netzel, J. Frey, D. (2013), Gaining insight to transfer of training through the lens of social psychology, Educational Research Review, Review 8:14-27

APPENDIX 1

BRIEFING NOTES FOR THE POST DOCTORAL STUDY COACH/RESEARCHERS

COLLABORATIVE ACTION COACHING FOR LEADERS MODEL

COACH RESPONSIBILITIES

Client Centred Process

Coach in Charge of the Process:

Coach has responsibility to ensure appropriate processes are in place, as opposed to the

content – see Client’s Responsibilities below.

Tailored Tools/Techniques:

Coach has responsibility to tailor the tools and techniques used during the sessions to the

learning needs of the client, ie not linked to one theory or model.

Challenge/Support:

Coach has responsibility to both challenge the client beyond their comfort zones as well as

support the client both emotionally and intellectually (relevant theory: Daloz, 1999).

Client Context:

Coach has responsibility to take into account the client’s context, eg their organisational

context, personal context.

Physical Environment:

Coach has responsibility to ensure that the physical environment is conducive to learning, eg

can hear each other.

Setting Goals:

Coach is responsible for ensuring that learning needs are identified by the client.

Sounding Board:

Coach is responsible for being a sounding board for the client’s ideas for learning.

Friendly Support:

Whilst the coach has to ensure appropriate professional boundaries (ie not taking on the role

of a friend), there is a place for appropriate friendly support on personal issues provided

they do not dominate.

Enabling/Facilitating Learning

Encourage Practice Back in The Workplace:

Coach is responsible for facilitating the client to practice learning from the sessions back in

the workplace, a risk assessment discussion needs to form part of this facilitation.

Share Experience To Facilitate Learning:

Coach to share relevant experience with a focus on facilitating client learning, ensuring that

the client learns from this sharing of experience and the coach is not trying to persuade the

client that there is one right way for anything.

Suspend Judgement:

Coach to ensure that judgement of the client is suspended throughout every session.

Not Therapy:

Coach to ensure that coaching is the focus and that the boundary between coaching and

counselling is strongly held.

Lasting Impact of Coaching:

Coach to have a lasting impact on the client outside the coaching sessions, ie “Janice in my

head”.

Coaching Consultancy:

Coach to provide suggestions/options to the client which help them make up their own minds,

ie it is not advice.

CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES

Session Content

Contracting: Start Point:

Client to identify their learning needs actively at the start of the coaching relationship/

Client Bringing Content:

Client is responsible for bringing areas for learning and development to the coaching

sessions.

Active Learning

Colleague Feedback:

Client to obtain feedback from colleagues when they practice their learning back in the

workplace.

Transfer of Learning Measures Identified:

Client to identify how they will know that learning has transferred back to the workplace, eg

x will happen instead of y.

Being Open to Learning:

Client to be open to learning throughout coaching sessions as well as back in the workplace.

Client Takes Responsibility For Their Learning:

Client takes responsibility for their own learning as opposed to trying to pass that

responsibility to somebody or something else.

Reflective Practitioner:

Client to develop as a reflective practitioner when practising their learning from the

coaching sessions in the workplace (relevant theory: Schön, 1991).

COACH AND CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES

Coaching Relationship

Comfort:

Both coach and client need to ensure that a comfortable coaching relationship develops, ie it

is not just the responsibility of the coach.

Safety/Confidentiality/Trust:

Both coach and client need to ensure that safety, confidentiality and trust develops in the

coaching relationship, ie it is not just the responsibility of the coach.

Coach and Client Match:

Both coach and client need to be clear that the coach is the right coach for the client, ie the

matching process has been successful.

Face-To-Face:

Coach and client need to make time for the sessions to be face-to-face as a contributory

factor to an effective coaching relationship.

External Coach:

Coach needs to be independent from the client’s organisation and personal life, both coach

and client need to check that this independence exists.

Honest Dialogue:

Both coach and client need to have honest dialogue during coaching sessions.

Primary Role As Coach:

Coach and client need to ensure that the primary role of the coach is as a coach, ie not a

friend, a counsellor, a therapist, a consultant, etc.

Keeping In Touch Outside Coaching Sessions:

Coach and client keep in touch as appropriate outside the coaching sessions, this could be as

simple as checking the date/time of the next session or communicating about some learning

or difficulty at work. This is brief communication and not extensive, an opportunity for the

coach to remind the client of learning already discussed in the coaching sessions, not for

introducing new points of learning. Need to keep developing a non-dependent relationship.

Reflective Learning

Reflective Diaries:

Both coach and client keep reflective diaries of the learning from the coaching sessions from

their own perspectives with the coach developing as a coach and the client developing in the

areas of learning discussed during the coaching sessions.

Feedback Provider Sessions:

Coach and client discuss feedback provider sessions for the client in their workplace. The

feedback providers can be the client’s line manager, a peer, a direct report, a colleague, or a

customer, or all of them. The client can choose whether or not to have the coach present at

the feedback provider sessions (except in collaborative action research projects when the

coach attends as a researcher). The client facilitates these sessions with the coach coaching

them for this role. Coach to assess potential risk with the client to ensure that no

harm/damage comes to the client as a result of these feedback provider sessions.

Record-Keeping:

Both coach and client keep notes of topics covered in the coaching sessions for future

reference.

Coaching Supervision:

Coach has regular and professional coaching supervision to challenge and support them in

their coaching role. Client may identify areas for coaching supervision when coach requests

feedback either during and/or at the end of each session or after a few sessions (there is a

Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders Feedback/Reflection Form.).