exploring coachable moments · 7 the theoretical framework relating to the coachable moment 8 the...

© Christina Turner 2018 1

Exploring

Coachable Moments

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

at the QUT Business School

School of Management

Queensland University of Technology

2019

by

Christina Turner

MAppLaw (UQ) MBusCoach (UOW) GCMgt (UQ)

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=qut+logo&id=909C5D213F7A93064809C4B40BC3783572894971&FORM=IQFRBA


Abstract

Informal managerial coaching is not a mandated job duty but rather a discretionary,

contingency leadership style. Yet, despite the perceived desirability of demonstrating

leadership ability, studies have found that managers often fail to demonstrate informal coaching

behaviours. Accordingly, the motivations of managers who choose to engage, or indeed not

engage in informal coaching, are of considerable interest. However, there is little research

which has purposefully explored the processes and strategies used by managers to come to a

decision as to whether to coach or not coach when an informal coaching opportunity arises.

Applying a constructivist perspective, and using a modified grounded theory method, this

research conducted a focus group with eight managers and 31 face-to-face in-depth interviews

with 26 managers to explore their experiences of informal coaching in the workplace and

investigate the meaning they give to their experiences. This research has found managers seek

to engage with their staff through a range of conversations for many different reasons. Using

an informal coaching approach allows managers to be good organisational citizens and assist

and develop their staff. As coaching is considered to be a desirable leadership style as well as

a ‘nice’ and non-conflictual way of relating with staff, it also allows managers to create a

favourable impression with both their own leaders and their subordinate staff. Accordingly,

managers may adopt a coaching approach to ‘do good’ and to ‘look good’.

The trigger or gateway to an informal coaching opportunity is the coachable moment. This is

by nature spontaneous, initiated by either the manager or the employee, fostered by varied

situational factors, and is addressed through a range of different interventions which may

include coaching. However, the coachable moment can be considered as deficit related as it


involves giving feedback to subordinates to either contextualise the gap in performance or to

improve or change behaviour. Managers wish to avoid giving feedback that may be received

as negative. Consequently, managers adopt a risk assessment perspective to coaching in the

moment, weighing up a number of factors to consider whether doing good and looking good

outweighs the risks associated with giving negative feedback.

The findings from this study were interpreted through the lens of the competing motivations

posed by organisational citizenship behaviour, impression management, and feedback giving

avoidance theories. This theoretical framework, underpinned the generation of the categories

of constructing, contemplating, enacting, and sensemaking and explicated the process that

managers use in engaging through coaching.

This research developed theoretical propositions which, from an academic perspective, will

contribute to a richer understanding of not only how managers experience coaching but how

they construct their conversations with staff as ‘coaching’. This is important because coaching

is an organisationally desirable activity as well as a non-conflictual way of providing feedback

to staff. An important implication for management practices is that organisations need to

consider a range of cultural and organisational barriers to informal, managerial coaching when

implementing manager-as-coach training programs. Furthermore, a deeper understanding of

the nature of a coachable moment and how managers perceive the coaching leadership style, a

focus on increasing managers’ comfort in dealing with conflictual conversations, and the

development of support structures such as coach supervision will assist organisations to

increase the likelihood of managers displaying informal coaching behaviours.


Keywords

coaching

managerial coaching

coachable moment

leadership

feedback

feedback giving

conflict avoidance

organisational citizenship behaviour

impression management


Table of Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 2

Key Words ................................................................................................................................ 4

Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... 5

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... 11

Statement of Original Authorship ........................................................................................ 12

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................. 13

Publications and Conferences ............................................................................................... 15

Chapter 1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 16

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 16

1.2 Research Background ...................................................................................................... 16

1.3 The Research Problem ..................................................................................................... 18

1.4 Research Questions and Aims ......................................................................................... 19

1.5 Key Findings from this Study .......................................................................................... 19

1.6 Structure of this Thesis .................................................................................................... 20

1.7 Role of the Researcher ..................................................................................................... 23

1.8 Scope of this Study and Definition of Terms .................................................................. 24

Chapter 2 Contextual Review ............................................................................................... 27

2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 27

2.2 Contextualising the Use of Literature in this Study ........................................................ 27

2.3 Coaching .......................................................................................................................... 30

2.3.1 Defining coaching ............................................................................................... 30

2.3.2 Coaching research ............................................................................................... 31

2.3.3 Distinguishing coaching from other helping processes ...................................... 33

2.3.4 Coaching theory .................................................................................................. 34

2.4 Managerial Coaching ....................................................................................................... 35

2.4.1 Defining managerial coaching ............................................................................ 35

2.4.2 Distinguishing between formal and informal managerial coaching ................... 36

2.4.3 Distinguishing managerial coaching from other coaching practices .................. 37

2.4.4 The prevalence of managerial coaching ............................................................. 40

2.4.5 The benefits of managerial coaching .................................................................. 40

2.4.6 The antecedents of managerial coaching ............................................................ 42


2.4.7 Organisational development and support for coaching managers ...................... 44

2.5 The Coachable Moment................................................................................................... 46

2.6 Positioning the Manager-as-Coach Role as Problematic ................................................ 48

2.7 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 51

Chapter 3 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 53

3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 53

3.2 Justification of Grounded Theory Methods ..................................................................... 54

3.2.1 The epistemological perspective of the researcher ............................................. 54

3.2.2 The methodological recommendations from the coaching literature ................. 55

3.2.3 The choice of grounded theory research methods .............................................. 56

3.3 Grounded Theory ............................................................................................................. 57

3.3.1 Grounded theory background ............................................................................. 57

3.3.2 Distinguishing between the grounded theory traditions ..................................... 58

3.3.3 Grounded theory methods ................................................................................... 60

3.3.4 Grounded theory and the constructivist perspective ........................................... 62

3.4 Recruitment Procedure .................................................................................................... 63

3.4.1 The selection of the research sites ...................................................................... 63

3.5 Sampling Strategy ........................................................................................................... 65

3.6 Participant Demographics................................................................................................ 67

3.7 Data Generation Strategies and Sources .......................................................................... 69

3.7.1 In-depth interviews ............................................................................................. 70

3.7.2 The focus group interview .................................................................................. 73

3.8 Data Analysis Methods .................................................................................................... 73

3.8.1 The initial coding ................................................................................................ 74

3.8.2 Focused coding ................................................................................................... 75

3.8.3 Theoretical coding .............................................................................................. 77

3.8.4 Memos................................................................................................................. 79

3.8.5 Theoretical sensitivity ......................................................................................... 79

3.9 Ethical Considerations ..................................................................................................... 81

3.10 Evaluating Constructivist Research ............................................................................... 82

3.10.1 Credibility ......................................................................................................... 83


3.10.2 Originality ......................................................................................................... 84

3.10.3 Resonance ......................................................................................................... 84

3.10.4 Usefulness ......................................................................................................... 85

3.11 An Overview of the Categories Constructed from the Data .......................................... 85

3.12 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 87

Chapter 4 Theoretical Data................................................................................................... 89

4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 89

4.2 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 90

4.3 Organisational Citizenship Behaviour ............................................................................. 91

4.4 Impression Management Motivation ............................................................................... 93

4.5 Feedback Giving Behaviour ............................................................................................ 95

4.6 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 99

Chapter 5 Major Category One – Constructing the Coachable Moment ...................... 101

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 102

5.2 How Managers Conceptualise the Coachable Moment ................................................. 102

5.3 The Construct of the Coachable Moment ...................................................................... 105

5.3.1 Arising spontaneously and informally .............................................................. 106

5.3.2 Being conceptualised as deficit related ............................................................. 107

5.3.3 Initiated by the manager or the employee ......................................................... 108

5.3.4 Fostered by varying situational factors ............................................................. 109

5.3.5 Operationalised by varied, discretionary interventions .................................... 109

5.4 Major Category One – constructing the concept of coaching ....................................... 110

5.4.1 Aspiring to be a coaching leader ....................................................................... 111

5.4.2 Defining coaching ............................................................................................. 120

5.5 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 131

Chapter 6 Major Category Two – Contemplating Coaching .......................................... 135

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 135

6.2 Weighing up the Moment .............................................................................................. 136

6.2.1 Conscious or unconscious contemplation of the moment ................................. 137

6.2.2 Is this the right moment to coach? .................................................................... 142


6.2.3 Is this a work performance issue or a behavioural or personal issue? .............. 144

6.3 Assessing the Coachability of the Potential Coachee ................................................... 148

6.3.1 Openness to feedback, conscientiousness, and motivation to achieve ............ 149

6.3.2 Agreeableness ................................................................................................... 152

6.4 The Nature of the Relationship with the Coachee ........................................................ 153

6.4.1 Trust .................................................................................................................. 155

6.4.2 Vulnerability ..................................................................................................... 159

6.4.3 Likeability ......................................................................................................... 162

6.5 Evaluating Overall Risk ............................................................................................... 167

6.5.1 Is this risky for me?........................................................................................... 168

6.5.2 Am I confident in using my coaching skills?.................................................... 172

6.6 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 174

Chapter 7 Major Category Three – Enacting Coaching .................................................. 177

7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 177

7.2 Positioning the Conversation ........................................................................................ 178

7.2.1 Being transparent about being in coaching mode ............................................. 179

7.3 Applying Standardised Techniques ............................................................................... 190

7.3.1 Using questioning as the key coaching tool ...................................................... 190

7.3.2 Using coaching models ..................................................................................... 196

7.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 199

Chapter 8 Major Category Four – Sensemaking .............................................................. 202

8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 202

8.2 Sensemaking ................................................................................................................. 203

8.2.1 Learning ............................................................................................................ 204

8.2.2 Reflecting .......................................................................................................... 213

8.3 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 220

Chapter 9 Core Category – Engaging through Coaching ................................................ 223

9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 223

9.2 The Core Category – Engaging through Coaching ..................................................... 223

9.2.1 The concept of engaging ................................................................................... 224


9.3 The Motivations Driving Engaging through Coaching ................................................ 226

9.3.1 Doing good through informally coaching ......................................................... 227

9.3.2 Looking good through informally coaching ..................................................... 230

9.3.3 Avoiding conflict through informally coaching ............................................... 232

9.4 The Strategies of Engaging through Coaching ............................................................. 233

9.4.1 Defining coaching broadly ................................................................................ 233

9.4.2 Managing the engagement risks ........................................................................ 235

9.4.3 Controlling the conversation ............................................................................. 237

9.5 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 237

Chapter 10 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 239

10.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 239

10.2 Summarising the Research ......................................................................................... 239

10.3 Addressing the Research Questions ........................................................................... 242

10.3.1 How do managers recognise a coachable moment? ....................................... 242

10.3.2 What do managers perceive are the barrier and facilitators to operationalising

coachable moments? ...................................................................................... 243

10.3.3 How do managers operationalise the coachable moment? ............................. 244

10.4 The Contributions of the Study .................................................................................. 245

10.4.1 Theoretical Propositions ................................................................................. 245

10.4.2 Contribution to Theory .................................................................................. 246

10.5 Contribution to Practice .............................................................................................. 247

10.5.1 An understanding of the coachable moment construct ................................... 247

10.5.2 Identification of the need to provide managers with further skills in managing

conflict ............................................................................................................ 248

10.5.3 An understanding of how managers perceive coaching ................................. 248

10.5.4 The need for a process of coach supervision .................................................. 249

10.6 Researcher Reflections ............................................................................................... 250

10.7 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 251

10.8 Future Research .......................................................................................................... 253

10.9 Concluding Remarks .................................................................................................. 253

References ............................................................................................................................. 256


Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 295

A Graphical Depiction of the Categories of Engaging through Coaching ......................... 295

B Recruitment Email .......................................................................................................... 296

C Participant Information Sheet (Interview) ...................................................................... 297

D Initial Interview Schedule ............................................................................................... 299

E Participant Information Sheet (Focus Group) ................................................................. 300

F Sample Consent Form (Focus Group) ............................................................................. 302

G Coding Sample (Initial) .................................................................................................. 303

H Coding Sample (Focused) .............................................................................................. 304

I Memo Sample .................................................................................................................. 305


List of Figures

1 Reported organisational & employee benefits of managerial coaching

2 A comparison & explanation of the terms used to describe informal coaching

3 The analytical methods.

4 Demographics of the study participants

5 The categories generated from this study

6 The properties of the major category of engaging through coaching

7 The theoretical framework relating to the coachable moment

8 The core category of engaging through coaching

9 The construct of the coachable moment

10 The major category of constructing the coachable moment

11 Aspiring – the first sub-category of constructing

12 Defining – the second sub-category of constructing

13 The major category of contemplating coaching

14 Weighing up the moment – the first sub-category of contemplating coaching

15 Assessing coachability – the second sub-category of contemplating coaching

16 Considering the relationship – the third sub-category of contemplating coaching

17 Evaluating overall risk – the fourth sub-category of contemplating coaching

18 The major category of enacting coaching

19 Positioning the conversation – the first sub-category of enacting coaching

20 Applying standardised techniques – the second sub-category of enacting coaching

21 The major category of sensemaking

22 Learning – the first sub-category of sensemaking

23 Reflecting – the second sub-category of sensemaking

24 Connecting the process, motivators, and strategies of engaging through coaching

25 The motivations driving decisions to engage through coaching

26 The strategies used to engage through coaching


Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not previously been submitted to meet requirements for

any award at this or any other higher institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the

thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due

reference is made.

Christina Turner

January 2019

QUT Verified Signature


Acknowledgments

As with any major achievement, there is usually a team of people who have been instrumental

to it occurring. This is most definitely the case in terms of my PhD journey. I simply could not

have achieved what I have in this research study without the support of my family, my friends,

my clients, and my supervisors and university colleagues. Although my three year PhD journey

has been an extremely enjoyable one from a research and study perspective, it was beset with

some major personal challenges including a life threatening medical event, the interstate

relocation of my elderly mother, and the buy and sell of family properties. The support of

family and friends enabled me not only to get through these hurdles but indeed to thrive in the

last three years. So herein lies my opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks to all those

wonderful people.

Firstly, my sincere thanks to my friend, Professor Karen Becker, who encouraged me in this

journey and provided practical advice as to how I should commence such a journey. I am also

grateful to Karen for introducing me to my Principal Supervisor, Associate Professor Vicky

Browning, who has graciously and kindly mentored and guided me on this journey from the

beginning, and never wavered in her support. My heartfelt thanks go to my Associate

Supervisor, Associate Professor Carol Windsor for not only her expert guidance through the

complexities of constructivism, but also her wisdom, humour, and grammatical advice. Carol

– those Monday morning coffee discussions kept me enthused and sustained when I most

doubted myself. Deep thanks also go to my second Associate Supervisor, Professor Lisa

Bradley - thank you for your insights and most of all, making me write! I feel incredibly lucky

to have had such a talented team of women to guide me through this process.


Much gratitude also goes to my friend Paul Landy for opening the doors to operationalise the

actual research. Such generosity of spirit and actions are rare but they are inherent in who he

is. I also thank the convenors of my research sites: their willingness to participate and provide

me with the introductions and access needed is deeply appreciated.

These acknowledgments would not be complete without mention of my wonderful girlfriends

who in everything I do, nurture and support me while still making sure that I keep grounded.

There are too many to name so I have chosen to single out those that have had a specific and

direct role in this research: huge thanks to Anne-Marie Halton for those Friday night

chardonnays and willingness to debate the mysteries and challenges of being a mature aged

HDR student, also thanks to Robyn Renneberg for the many lunches and ongoing interest in

my research.

Lastly to family…. thank you to my mother, Fey Haynes, for the sacrifices she made for me in

my early life to ensure I received a good education, and for always having faith that I would

complete this journey.

And to my rock and my soulmate, my husband Adrian Turner, who simply is always there….

believing in me, supporting me, and loving me. I have been able to do what I do because of

you.


Publications and Conferences

The following conference papers were developed during this thesis:

Turner, C. (2018, 28-29 September). The Manager as coach: doing good, looking good, and

avoiding conflict. Paper accepted for the Harvard Medical School, Coaching in

Leadership and Healthcare Conference, Boston, USA.

Turner, C. (2017, 5-7 December). Coachable Moments in the Workplace – To what extent can

they be informed by teachable moments? Paper presented at the Australian and New

Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference, Brisbane, Australia.

Turner, C. (2016, 26-28 October). Coachable Moments: Identifying the factors which influence

leaders to take advantage of opportunities to coach. Paper presented at the International

Coaching Federation (ICF) Australasia Conference, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.


Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

“Begin at the beginning," the King said, very gravely, “and go on till you come to the end: then stop”

(Lewis Carroll – Alice in Wonderland)

_____________________________________________

1.1 Introduction

The objective of this research was to explore the experiences of managers who

informally coach others in the workplace as well as understanding why some managers do not

informally coach at all. Principally, I wanted to identify how and why managers make decisions

to informally coach others when that moment arises, as well as understand the nature and

impact of the coachable moment. The purpose of this introductory chapter is to describe the

research problem, present the research questions, outline the role of the researcher, and define

the scope and terms of the research.

1.2 Research Background

Organisations today are characterised by expanding global markets, rapidly increasing

reliance on digital communication, and a shift to a more volatile, uncertain, complex and

ambiguous (‘VUCA’) world (Hall & Rowland, 2016, p.942). Leadership is a key factor in how

organisations respond to the challenges faced in this increasingly complex landscape (Uhl-Bien

et al., 2007). The new leader must be able to not only survive in this environment, but to thrive.

In a globalised economy, managers are required to develop a range of new leadership styles

and make a shift from ‘the paradigm of command and control to one of knowledge and

empowerment’ (Hagen, 2012, p.20). In particular, today’s ‘Millennials’, the employees born

between 1977 and 1997, place significant importance on leaders who practice inclusiveness


and collaboration (Maier, Tavanti, Bombard, Gentile, & Bradford, 2015) and provide

meaningful work experiences and a nurturing environment (Ng, Schweitzer, & Lyons, 2010).

Coaching meets this need, as an essential leadership style (Goleman, 2000) which is linked to

increased performance through learning (Hagen, 2012) and empowerment (Everard & Selman,

2003; Barry, 1992). A coaching style of leadership develops trusting relationships with

employees and assists them to find their strengths and weaknesses (Goleman, Boyatzis, &

McKee, 2002). Coaching leaders excel at delegating, setting clear goals for employees, and

helping to develop people for the future (Goleman, 2000).

There are significant benefits to be gained from managers coaching within an

organisation. Benefits include the enhancement of the social capital of an organisation

(Ellinger, Ellinger, Bachrach, Wang, & Bas, 2011), cost savings (Rock & Donde, 2008), and

employee job satisfaction and performance (Ellinger, Ellinger, Keller, 2003). Over 70 per cent

of large companies who are members of the Corporate Leadership Council are using coaching

as a major form of leadership development (Zenger & Stinnett, 2006), and more recently, the

United Kingdom’s CIPD annual survey (2014) found that coaching by line managers in the

UK was considered to be the most effective talent management activity. Accordingly,

organisations seek to formalise this ‘critical leadership skill’ (Longenecker, 2010, p.33) as part

of the managerial/leadership role (Anderson, Rayner & Schyns, 2009).

Coaching of a subordinate by their manager (‘managerial coaching’) can occur formally

in structured pre-arranged sessions or informally when an unexpected opportunity arises

(Turner & McCarthy, 2015). Informal coaching conversations by line managers are considered

a key characteristic of a successful coaching culture (Hawkins, 2012) which many

organisations aspire to create (CIPD, 2006). It is therefore important that managers are skilled


in recognizing and capitalising on opportunities to coach subordinates – this is the ‘coachable

moment’.

1.3 The Research Problem

As outlined above, there is evidence that managerial coaching delivers a range of

benefits to an organisation (Gilley & Gilley, 2007; Hunt & Weintraub, 2011), to the employees

who are coached (Gilley, Gilley, & Kouider, 2010), and to coaching managers themselves

(Boyatzis, Smith & Blaize, 2006). Accordingly, it is common for organisations to invest

considerable resources into training line managers in coaching skills only to find that they often

fail to adopt the new skills and revert to traditional, authoritarian behaviours (Grant & Hartley,

2013). However, research has shown that generally managers do not frequently engage in

coaching and often do not demonstrate coaching skills (Gilley et al, 2010; Lombardo &

Eichinger, 2001). Green and Grant (2010) submit that informal coaching conversations are

unlikely to occur unless the managers are experienced coaches. Without understanding why

managers do not coach on an informal basis, organisations may fail to harness ‘the myriad

potential benefits’ (Gilley et al, 2010, p.55) of managerial coaching, and the significant

investment made by organisations in training managers in coaching skills may not be realised.

There is little in the coaching literature to assist in ‘understanding the hows and whys of

managerial coaching’ (Hagen, 2012, p.36). Despite the popularity of managerial coaching there

is a significant lack of empirical evidence relating to coaching in the workplace or as part of

the managerial function (Hagen, 2012; Joo, Sushko & McLean, 2012). The majority of the

coaching literature is grounded in the experiences of executive coaches or in-house coaches

with specialist training and skills, as opposed to that of managers who coach (Anderson, 2013).

There has been little empirical research into the factors which may pose barriers to managers


informally coaching (Turner & McCarthy, 2015) and there is no empirical research into the

coachable moment itself: both its construct and how it is contemplated by the coaching

manager.

1.4 Research Questions and Aims

Adopting an interpretative, constructivist research approach, this study aimed to explore

the experiences of managers coaching their subordinates, to investigate the meanings that

managers give to those experiences and to explore why they may coach or not coach when

informal opportunities present themselves. The research question which guided this study was:

How and why do managers coach when the coachable moment presents?

This study also aimed to explore the nature of the ‘coachable moment’, which is the

gateway or impetus for an informal coaching conversation, and how managers react to that

moment. To that effect, the following questions guided the data collection process:

o How do managers recognise a ‘coachable moment’?

o What do managers perceive are the barriers and facilitators to operationalising

coachable moments?

o How do managers operationalise the coachable moment?

1.5 Key Findings from this study

This study did not aim to generate a substantive theory but rather to generate theoretical

propositions which can be further explored. The theorising in this study has resulted in findings

which reveal that the coachable moment is a complex phenomenon which managers experience


in multi-faceted ways. Their experiences of the coachable moment and informal coaching is

depicted through the core category of engaging through coaching and further explicated by the

four major categories of constructing, contemplating, enacting, and sensemaking.

1.6 Structure of this Thesis

The structure of this thesis differs from the traditionally recommended model of

introduction, literature review, methodology, analysis of data and conclusions (Perry, 1998)

because this thesis utilises an exploratory design and both inductive and deductive processes

consistent with contemporary grounded theory approaches. In this thesis, the literature review

(Contextual Review) is used only to identify the initial research gap and to assist in the

development of questions, and as context to the overall subject content. However, the literature

is also used as data. Accordingly, the literature in this thesis is situated in two distinct and

separate chapters: Chapter Two provides context to the subject area of coaching and managerial

coaching and Chapter Four presents the literature which was identified through the process of

data analysis and forms the basis for the theoretical framework through which data in this study

were viewed. Literature from both chapters is woven throughout the findings chapters

(Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9) which explore and explain the generated categories.

The first chapter of this thesis sets the context for the research, contextualising the

coachable moment as a critical part of the process of informal coaching by managers in the

workplace. It also provides an overview of the research questions and aims of the research, as

well as my personal interest in, and rationale for, conducting this research. Chapter Two of this

thesis reviews the literature relating to managerial coaching, positions the coachable moment

as the gateway to informal coaching, and identifies the problematic nature of the role of

manager as coach. Most importantly, this chapter also identifies the lack of empirical literature


relating to managerial coaching and justifies the research by highlighting the absence of

substantive theory applicable to managerial coaching and coachable moments.

The third chapter of the thesis explains the rationale and methodology of the study,

including my constructivist, epistemological perspective and how this shaped and influenced

the conclusions drawn from the analysis. This chapter is also concerned with the methods used

to generate and analyse data and describes the adapted grounded theory methods approach.

Hence the chapter outlines the recruitment process and justifies the data generation and analysis

methods.

Literature is further presented and reviewed in Chapter Four but is deliberately

distinguished from the review in Chapter Two as literature engaged with during the data

analysis process to form the theoretical framework for this study.

The research findings are organised around the core category (engaging through

coaching) and four major categories (constructing, contemplating, enacting, and sensemaking).

Chapter Five presents the first major category of constructing which depicts how managers

come to conceptualise the coaching concept and process and then construct their own

understanding of the coachable moment. As context to the overall findings, this chapter also

presents the construct of the coachable moment as it was conceptualised by the study

participants and co-constructed through the interview process.

Chapter Six explores the process which managers use to determine whether they will

engage in the coachable moment. The major category of contemplating depicts this process

through four sub-categories of managers evaluating the moment, assessing coachability of the


subordinate, considering the relationship between themselves and the potential coachee, and

checking their own self-confidence to conduct a coaching conversation.

The enacting of informal coaching by the manager is presented in Chapter Seven. This

major category explores the ways in which managers attempt to control the risk in a coaching

conversation by positioning the conversation with the coachee as not a coaching conversation,

and by applying standardised techniques to attempt to control the parameters and predictability

of the conversation.

Chapter Eight addresses the last major category of sensemaking which through its sub-

categories of de-briefing and learning provides an understanding of how managers learn about

informal coaching and their need to make sense of their coaching conversations through

reflection and de-briefing with others. In this Chapter, sensemaking is positioned in the context

of the many paradoxes of the manager-as-coach role.

Chapters Nine engages with the core category of the thesis – engaging though coaching

- and explains how it brings together the major categories of constructing, contemplating,

enacting and sensemaking. The chapter also presents a review of the literature as identified

during the generation of the categories and how, as part of the constant comparative process,

the developing theoretical concepts constituted the tool to interrogate and view the outcomes

of interview data analysis. See Appendix A for a graphical depiction of the overall core

category, major categories, and sub-categories.


Chapter Ten summarises the research, and in the light of the research question, provides

the key findings. The chapter also suggests the theoretical and practical implications of the

study and considers study limitations and potential related future research.

1.7 Role of the Researcher

Social reality is ‘multiple, processual and constructed’ (Charmaz, 2014) and therefore

the past experiences, values, privileges, and social interactions of the researcher must be

considered in the construction of the reality in the research process. As part of that process, I

accept that I bring to this study a range of preconceptions that will influence my research and

analysis and that I cannot write as an impartial observer. Accordingly, I have written this thesis

in the first person to signify my awareness of this and my attempts to practice reflexivity.

A key stance of reflexivity is to recognise the influence of my professional background

on this research. I have a professional background of over 30 years as a human resources

executive, line manager, management consultant, mediator, executive coach, lecturer, trainer,

and content and process facilitator. This background has enabled me to have a first-hand

appreciation of the role of the line manager and the challenges experienced by managers in

today’s complex, corporate world. One of the common phenomena I have often observed and

indeed discussed at length over years with colleagues, is that organisations often rely on

training as the panacea to address the shortcomings in the leadership style of line managers,

and accordingly, are often surprised when those managers fail to demonstrate skills and

behaviors taught in training. In my experience, this has often been the case in terms of training

managers to adopt a coaching leadership style which is characterized by informal coaching

interactions with subordinate staff. My experience has been that many managers adopt

coaching behaviors in classroom training, as well as in pre-arranged formal coaching sessions


such as performance appraisal discussions, but these coaching behaviors don’t always occur in

informal, impromptu situations. Unfortunately, these are the times when we can best see that

coaching is embedded in the organisation and a culture of quality conversations is occurring.

As a keen believer in the efficacy of the coaching style of leadership, I undertook this research

to explore how managers approach and consider a coachable moment and identify the various

factors which may impact on their decision to informally coach when the moment presents

itself.

1.8 Scope of this study and definitions of terms

As outlined later in Chapter Two, one of the challenges of coaching research relates to

the fact that coaching is relatively new, immature and under-developed as a professional

discipline (Cox, Bachkirova & Clutterbuck, 2014, p.139; Grant, 2016). Accordingly, different

terms are often used to define a number of concepts related to different aspects of coaching.

The scope of this study was confined to exploring managerial or hierarchical coaching (Beattie,

Kim, Hagen, Egan, Ellinger, & Hamlin, 2014), that is, the coaching of a subordinate employee

by a leader, manager, or team leader. Managerial coaching is distinctly different from the term

‘executive coaching’ (Hagen, 2012) which is usually associated with the one-on-one

relationship between an external, professional coach and an executive (Joo, 2005; Kampa-

Kokesch & Anderson, 2001).

While leadership and management are not the same concept (Brooks, 2009), the term

‘manager’ (and its various derivations such as managerial, manager-as-coach) has been used

to refer to anybody who has responsibility for subordinate staff, and therefore may or not coach

them.


While the terms and concepts of coaching and managerial coaching are defined in more

detail in the literature view of this document, for clarity, the coaching interactions explored in

this study do not include discussions that occur as part of a formal performance management

or formal performance appraisal process, or any other formal or pre-planned management

activity. Accordingly, the following definitions are provided to contextualise and clarify the

scope and parameters of this research:

Manager is a person who has direct responsibility for managing the performance of

subordinate employees.

Coaching behaviours are the actions or techniques used in the coaching process such

as listening, and inquiry techniques used to facilitate learning, reflection or other

positive engagement.

Coaching leadership style is the ongoing use of a collection of coaching behaviours

to engage collaboratively with staff in preference to using behaviours such as

instructing and controlling.

Coachable Moment is a spontaneous, unplanned moment, initiated by either the

manager or the employee, which arises in response to manager’s need to address a

perceived gap in a subordinate’s performance or goals. The coachable moment is the

potential catalyst or gateway for an informal coaching intervention.


Managerial coaching refers to the use by a manager of coaching practices such as

listening, questioning, giving feedback, and setting goals to assist a subordinate

employee in improving performance, skills, or development.

Formal coaching is coaching which is pre-planned, structured, and scheduled either as

part of formal organisational evaluation process or a session delivered by an executive

coach or dedicated internal coach.

Informal Coaching is coaching which is unscheduled, which can occur anywhere, and

which is operational in style, aimed at addressing day to day business issues.


Chapter 2

CONTEXTUAL REVIEW

“There is a difference between an open mind and an empty head.”

(Dey, 1993, p. 63)

_____________________________________________

2.1 Introduction

Despite the popularity of the practice of coaching, the coaching of subordinate

employees by line managers, or ‘managerial coaching’, is under-researched with little known

about how it should be defined or measured. Little is also known about the practice of informal

managerial coaching, that is, coaching which is not pre-planned and which often occurs in

corridors or ‘on-the-fly’. This chapter provides a contextual review of the knowledge related

to coaching generally and managerial coaching and the concept of the coachable moment.

Explained here are the various forms of coaching and the differentiation of managerial

coaching as a unique workplace practice. The practice of all forms of coaching is situated in

this chapter as a significantly under-researched discipline but highlights, in particular, that the

intersections of the phenomenon of the coachable moment, which is the trigger for an informal

coaching opportunity, and the coaching manager are not at all well understood. This creates an

opportunity for research into not only this phenomenon but also into the factors which motivate

managers to coach.

2.2 Contextualising the use of literature in this study

The use of the literature in constructivist studies has been fiercely contested and is often

an area of confusion and misunderstanding among new students of this approach (Charmaz,

2006, p.165). The tension in this area lies with the balance required between being theoretically


sensitised to the subject area in the literature and forming preconceptions about the subject

matter (Gibson & Hartman, 2013). In the mode of traditional grounded theory, from which

constructivism ultimately developed, Glaser famously stated ‘there is a need not to review any

of the literature in the substantive area under study’ (Glaser, 1992, p.31). It is clear that his

caution related to ensuring that any preconceptions or concepts that may arise from the

literature would not contaminate the emergence of categories (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Additionally, Glaser also wanted to ensure that prior knowledge would not lead the researcher

to test hypotheses as characteristic of the positivistic approach to which he was opposed

(Suddaby, 2006). However, the later grounded theory works of Corbin and Strauss took a

different position on the subject of the literature review, clarifying the ‘tabula rasa’ position in

‘Discovery’ by acknowledging that, ‘We all bring to the inquiry a considerable background in

professional and disciplinary literature’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p.48). This position is

consistent with Charmaz’s pragmatic constructivist perspective on literature use which accepts

Glaser and Strauss’s original intention to ensure that the review of literature avoids the

imposition of preconceived ideas which would force data (Charmaz, 2006), but also

acknowledges that the practical requirements of much research requires a demonstration of

knowledge of the research area in order to receive grants and ethics approvals and to identify

gaps for research.

Hence and consistent with ‘latter day’ (Remenyi, 2014) interpretive principles, a tabula

rasa approach to the literature for this study has not been engaged. What has been undertaken

is an initial, extensive, noncommittal review (Urquhart, 2013) of the substantive literature in

order to justify the research, to theoretically sensitise (Charmaz, 2014, p.161; Corbin & Strauss,

2008, p.19; Glaser & Strauss, 1967), and to assist in the formulation of initial questions for

interviews (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p.38). Modelled on Lo’s (2016) ‘Three-Stage Model of


Literature Review’ (p.181), as categories were developed, the next stage was a ‘continual

literature review’ which allowed a sampling of relevant literature, to constantly compare

literature with data, through an abductive, deductive and inductive reasoning process.

Throughout this continual literature review process, categories became more refined and then

more abstracted allowing for the finalisation of the core category.

At this stage, a third and final ‘recursive’ (Lo, 2016, p.183) review of the literature was

then undertaken. This allowed for a more informed understanding of the findings, as well as

the application of the theories related to organisational citizenship behaviour, impression

management and feedback giving, through which the initial analytical findings were viewed.

The review has been presented separately in Chapter Three and is also integrated throughout

the five findings chapters of this study (Chapters 5 to 9) and has been tailored to fit the specific

purpose and argument contained in this thesis (Charmaz, 2014).

The purpose of the contextual review in this chapter is to present the two conceptual

areas which are directly relevant to, and identified by, the research question, that is, the

concepts of managerial coaching and the coachable moment. While managerial coaching is

aligned with leadership and management theory because it is a workplace specific

phenomenon, the practice of managerial coaching involves using coaching skills such as giving

feedback, and facilitating employee learning (Ellinger & Bostrum, 2014). A thorough review

of the literature related to managerial coaching, therefore, would not be complete without

discussion of the practice and theory of coaching generally. Accordingly, this chapter

commences with a discussion on coaching generally, then explores the two main conceptual

areas, and then concludes with an argument that the role of manager as coach is problematic.


2.3 Coaching

2.3.1 Defining coaching

Despite claims that coaching can be traced to classical times and Socratic dialogue (de

Haan, 1988), and even the Stone Age (Zeus & Skiffington, 2000), the origins of modern

business coaching has largely been linked to Timothy Gallwey’s (1974) book – The Inner

Game of Tennis and is often said to be drawn from the discipline of sports coaching. But the

meaning of the term ‘coaching’ has changed through practice over the years (Garvey, Stokes

& Megginson, 2014) and the precise nature of coaching has become increasingly difficult to

define (Ives, 2008; Stober & Grant, 2006). In their literature review, Hamlin, Ellinger and

Beattie (2008) identified 37 definitions of coaching. Common to their definitions was the

concept of help to individuals through some sort of facilitation activity or intervention. Other

writers in the coaching field have argued that coaching is a process of helping people to become

better learners (Peterson, 2006), a process of ‘optimising people’s potential and performance’

(Whitmore, 2002, p.97), and a ‘solution-focused’ activity (Stober & Grant, 2006, p.156).

Passmore and Fillery-Travis (2011, p.74) suggests that coaching is a ‘Socratic based future

focused dialogue’ referring to the Socratic belief that the coachee holds the answer within

themselves and merely needs facilitative assistance to access that knowledge.

The aims of coaching have been variously described as enabling persons to learn and

develop (Beattie, 2006), to change behaviour (Peterson, 2006), to enable improvement by

learning (Hagen, 2012), to facilitate learning and development (Bluckert, 2005), and to unlock

potential (Whitmore, 2002). While there is no single, agreed definition on what constitutes

coaching (Hawkins, 2008), it can be concluded from the various definitions that coaching is a

‘helping by talking’ activity (Boniwell, 2007, p.1) which aims to create learning and improve

performance.


Coaching exists in many forms (Grant, 2015) and there are many different

terminologies used to describe the various coaching types. Witherspoon and White (1996, in

Grant, Cavanagh, Parker, & Passmore, 2010) categorise coaching activity as being

developmental coaching, performance coaching, and skills coaching. However other categories

and typologies include, but are not limited to, workplace coaching, life coaching, executive

coaching, career coaching, business coaching, and managerial coaching. As such, it can be seen

that coaching is an ‘undefined basket of very different activities’ (Hawkins, 2012, p.16), filled

with contradictions (Coutu & Kauffman, 2009, p.26) and ‘a conceptually incoherent

smorgasbord of esoteric positions, methodologies, and ideologies’ (Grant, 2007 p.24)

2.3.2 Coaching research

Academic research on coaching is ‘still in its infancy’ (Schutte & Steyn, 2015, p.1) and

although described as an ‘academically immature yet emerging discipline (Grant et al, 2010),

it is still ‘atheoretical and underdeveloped empirically’ (Cox, Bachkirova & Clutterbuck, 2014,

p.139). Concerns about the lack of theory in coaching has prompted numerous calls over recent

years for more coaching research (Passmore & Fillery-Travis, 2011; Mosteo, Batista-Foguet,

Mckeever, Serlavós, 2016; Grant, 2015), with Grant (Green & Grant, 2003. p83) describing

much of the literature around coaching as akin to ‘pop psychology’

In 2005, Grant (2010) found that only 93 papers on coaching had been published

between 1937 and 1999, and only 131 peer-reviewed citations had been made in coach-specific

literature. In 2001, Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson conducted the first known review of the

coaching literature, and in 2011 and in reflecting on progress since then Passmore and Fillery-

Travis (2011) noted that there was still a ‘scarcity of coaching research’ (p.70). In relation to

the research that has been conducted, academics cite problems that not only include the design


and criterion measurement, but also the narrow focus on contextual issues associated with

coaching delivery rather than on outcome-based research examining the benefits and impact of

coaching (Grant et al, 2010). In relation to papers published in coach specific journals, the

research is predominately qualitative using small samples, focusing on the executive coach,

and not coach and coachee, and a limited range of methods applied (McCarthy, 2015). Grant

(2016, p.80) suggests that such studies produce ‘weak evidence’ and contribute to the

perception that coaching research does not have a sound evidence base. Despite the increased

focus on coaching and investment of resources on coaches, until the last 2-3 years, there has

also been a significant lack of empirical studies on the effectiveness of coaching. In 2003, this

lack of evidence base prompted a major Australian university to coin the term ‘evidence-based

coaching’ to distinguish coaching grounded in research data from the ‘pop psychology’ that is

prevalent within the coaching industry (Grant, 2016, p.75).

Calls have been made for further coaching research into the impact of coaching on

coaches themselves, delineating coaching from other learning interventions, the impact of

coaching cultures, the psychology underpinning behaviour change through coaching, and the

coach-client relationship (Passmore & Fillery-Travis, 2011). However, there has been some

progress in coaching research. A recent meta-analysis of workplace coaching has found that

coaching had positive effects on organisational outcomes overall (Jones, Woods & Guillame,

2015) and from his review of the literature of recent empirical studies of coaching, Grant (2013)

concludes that it is now possible to conclude that coaching can be a very effective behavioural

change methodology.


2.3.3 Distinguishing coaching from other ‘helping’ processes

Coaching has traditionally tried to define itself not by what it is, but by what it is not,

despite the commonalities it has with other helping by talking professions (Boniwell, 2007).

The key professions, or indeed processes that appear to be somewhat misunderstood, or at least

debated in terms of boundaries with coaching, are mentoring, training, and therapy (or

counselling). With respect to differences between coaching and mentoring, Passmore (2007)

submits that the boundaries are blurred. There are skills which are common to both coaching

and mentoring (McCarthy, 2014) and these include listening, goal setting, feedback, and

questioning. Both share a learning and development agenda (Garvey, 2011). The term

mentoring was first mentioned in Homer’s Odyssey and subsequent publications about

mentoring in the 17th and 18th centuries draw on experiential learning philosophy (Garvey,

2011). However, as the concept of mentoring has evolved, in the modern workplace context,

mentoring has had an emphasis on sponsorship by a more experienced person (Clutterbuck &

Lane, 2004). Clutterbuck and Lane (2004) submit that sector knowledge is a key distinction

between coaching and mentoring, with the mentor usually bringing knowledge around business

and careers, contrasting with a coach who brings an ‘independent perspective’. Passmore

(2007) rejects that distinction arguing that an understanding of sector knowledge is important

to a coach and a mentor and that, indeed, evidence shows that coachees value a coach with

experience and credibility.

In respect to training, Lawton-Smith and Cox (2007) argue that coaching is not just a

more fashionable term for training but is indeed altogether a different concept. They submit

that the true distinguishing feature between training and coaching is not that coaching is

individual and subjective, as argued by Rogers (1986), but that training most often has pre-


determined answers whereas in a coaching process, solutions are emergent dependent upon the

unique situation.

There are also significant differences between coaching and therapy (Ives, 2008). While

it has been argued that coaching is concerned with the non-clinical population in contrast to

therapy which is concerned with people with diagnosable clinical disorders (Cavanagh, 2012)

the boundaries between them have been controversial in coaching literature (Grant & Zackon,

2004). In his seminal article of in 2002, Berglas warned of the dangers of unqualified coaches

engaging in therapy, arguing that coaches should not engage in therapeutic processes as they

simply do not have the skills to do so and accordingly ‘make a bad situation worse’ (p. 87).

2.3.4 Coaching theory

There are numerous propositions about the origins of general coaching theory and many

traditions influence the coaching discipline (Cox et al, 2014). It is argued that coaching has its

core roots in education, sport psychology and psychotherapy (Garvey, 2011), sociology

(Bennett, 2006), ‘multi-dimensional executive coaching, adult transformational learning,

emotional intelligence, cognitive behaviour theory, and positive psychology’ (Gloss, 2012,

p.1), and adult learning (Cox et al, 2010; Grant, 2005; McCarthy, 2015; Lennard, 2010). In

relation to the latter, Cox et al (2010) nominate andragogy, experiential, and transformative

theories as being specifically relevant and McCarthy (2010) supports these three theories,

adding Schon’s (1983) reflective practice as a further relevant theory. There are also numerous

theory-based approaches to coaching mostly drawn from psychotherapy (Cox, et al, 2010)

including solution focused coaching, positive psychology, person centred coaching,

transactional analysis, and cognitive behavioural coaching (Cox et al, 2014). In summary,

although there has been a significant growth in coaching research over the past ten years (Grant,


2016), there is still a lack of clarity about many aspects of coaching. There is confusion around

what behaviours define coaching and this has been exacerbated by the traditional cross-

disciplinary approach to research into coaching (McCarthy, 2015). Coaching research has been

largely focused on executive or external coaching with little focus on coaching by managers in

the workplace and accordingly, managerial coaching which is addressed below has often been

regarded as a ‘cut down’ version of external coaching (Lawrence, 2017, p. 43).

2.4 Managerial Coaching

2.4.1 Defining managerial coaching

In his seminal work, The Leadership that Gets Results (2000), Goleman identifies

coaching as one of the six core leadership styles, famously describing it as an essential

leadership style. It has been defined as:

...a developmental activity in which an employee works one-on-one with his or her

direct manager to improve current job performance and enhance his or her capabilities

for future roles and/or challenges, the success of which is based on the relationship

between the employee and manager, as well as the use of objective information, such

as feedback, performance data, or assessments. (Gregory & Levy, 2010, p. 111)

Recognising that coaching is a broad leadership capability (Bass & Riggio, 2006), as

well as a key style to enable learning, organisations are seeking to incorporate learning and

development into day to day activity (Hawkins, 2012) and to require that managers perform

the role of coach as part of their managerial role (Anderson, Rayner & Schyns, 2009). This

coaching style has become known as ‘managerial coaching’ (Hagen, 2012; Beattie, et al, 2014)

and is the focus of this study. It is sometimes also referred to in the literature as workplace


coaching (Grant, 2013; Anderson, 2013) although recent work by Jones, Woods, and

Guillaume (2016) argue that this term should be used for any coaching in the workplace except

for that provided by those who have line management control over the coachee.

2.4.2 Distinguishing between formal and informal managerial coaching

Managerial coaching can occur as a formal activity or an informal activity. Similar to

executive coaching conducted by an external coach, formal coaching by a manager is usually

easily recognisable as it is ‘more structured and formalised’ (Dixey, 2015, p. 81). Formal

coaching sessions typically involve pre-planned meetings with ‘a dedicated time set aside’

(Milner, McCarthy, & Milner, 2018, p.2) and in which goals are discussed, and plans made to

achieve those goals (Grant & Hartley, 2013). These formal sessions are more likely to be an

activity prescribed by the organisation (Dixey, 2015).

In comparison, informal coaching is more difficult to recognise as it may occur on a

daily basis (McCarthy & Milner, 2013; Turner & McCarthy, 2015), without manager or

coachee planning for it to occur, and it may occur in a range of places such as a corridor (Greene

& Grant, 2003). Informal coaching is likely to be used in an operational context with ‘short

focused conversations’ (Grant, 2010) ‘addressing day to day challenges’ and is more focused

on ‘tactical’ issues than the strategic, developmental conversations that are likely to constitute

formal coaching sessions with a manager (Dixey, 2015, p.81).

Informal coaching conversations are an integral part of building a coaching culture

(Gormley & van Nieuwerburgh, 2014) ‘where coaching is the predominant style of managing

and working together’ (Clutterbuck & Megginson, 2006, p.19), and where good management

is characterised by managers who ‘embed effective coaching into the heart of their management


practice’ (Hamlin, Ellinger, & Beattie, 2006, p.326). Both formal and informal coaching

contribute to the building of the coaching culture (Hunt & Weintraub, 2011), and despite a lack

of ‘competence, confidence and appropriate behaviours’ to coach (Beattie, et al, 2014, p.185),

managers have a preference for informal coaching conversations (Dixey, 2015) and

accordingly engage in informal coaching more frequently than formal coaching (Anderson,

2013).

2.4.3 Distinguishing managerial coaching from other coaching practices

Managerial coaching is also distinct from other coaching practices (Anderson, 2013).

In their review of the ‘state of the play’ of the coaching profession, Grant, Passmore, Cavanagh,

Parker (2010) distinguish ‘manager-as-coach’ from executive and workplace coaching on the

basis that the former type of coaching is ‘the intermittent use of coaching skills’ by managers

in ‘the normal execution of their managerial duties’. It is this positioning of managerial

coaching as a ‘coaching style’ (Lawrence, 2017, p.43; Moen & Federici, 2012, p.1), or a

‘leadership practice’ (Anderson, 2013, p.261), that distinguishes managerial coaching from the

other styles of coaching as it is not a dedicated practice that is relevant for all occasions but

rather an activity or intervention that is discretionary: a manager may choose to coach when an

opportunity arises or indeed may choose to use a different intervention or style.

Just as there are different types of coaching (such as executive, life, career) there are

also different types of managerial coaching. These include hierarchical coaching, peer

coaching, team, and cross-organisational (Beattie et al. 2014). However, the scope of the

current research is limited to just hierarchical coaching which is coaching of a subordinate by

their own manager. For the purposes of this research, the term managerial coaching has been

used in lieu of hierarchical coaching and workplace coaching. In coaching literature, the person


being coached is commonly called the coachee (McCarthy & Ahrens, 2011) and this term has

been used in this research to refer to the subordinate employee of the coaching manager.

The distinction between executive coaching (or what is often just referred to as

‘coaching’) and managerial coaching is common throughout coaching literature and is often

reflected through the characterisation of managerial coaching as a specific learning and

development intervention rather than a mainstream, broader coaching activity. The numerous

definitions of managerial coaching in the literature appear to focus on the key aims of the

coaching process as the provision of learning for an employee often through the provision of

feedback and a questioning and listening process. In terms of the former, managerial coaching

has been defined as learning facilitated by a manager to enable employees to learn and develop

(Beattie, 2006), a manager helping his or her employees learn and develop through coaching

(Hunt & Weintraub, 2002) and the ‘process of giving guidance, encouragement, and support

to the learner’ (Redshaw, 2000, p.106). The giving of feedback as a key aim of the coaching

process is also reflected throughout the literature (Heslin, VandeWalle, & Latham, 2006;

Kampa, Kokesch & Anderson, 2001). This argued aim of the managerial coaching process

distinguishes managerial coaching from executive coaching quite starkly – it is not the role or

usually in the capability of an executive, life or business coach to provide feedback on an

employee’s performance, but both are clearly within the remit, capability, and indeed

responsibility of the coaching manager.

The focus on coaching being a key learning tool, as well as the recognition that coaching

is an essential leadership style (Goleman, 2000), has seen a significant shift of responsibility

for coaching from human resources functions to line managers. Fatien and Otter (2015) suggest

that the move to add coaching to managers’ responsibilities is ‘an adaptive response’ (p.2) to


three major trends: the increasing importance of the learning and development of employees,

the shift of responsibility for development of employees away from specialised HR functions,

and the desire to address the former by developing a culture of learning and leadership. This

shift has consequences which are both negative and positive (Hagen, 2012). The positive ones

include the ability to target a wide range of employees for development, systemic development,

improved quality of training, and improved performance of the manager (Gibb, 2003), with the

negative consequences including time pressures on the manager, managers being unprepared

for the training activities for which they are responsible, and damage to the employee-manager

relationship.

Despite the popularity of managerial coaching as a practice within organisations, there

is a significant lack of related empirical evidence (Hagen, 2012) and there have been numerous

calls for further research into this area (Beattie, et al, 2014; Hagen, 2012; Grant et al., 2010).

Unlike executive coaching which has been subjected to considerably more research and has

produced numerous literature reviews, the first literature review on managerial coaching was

published in 2012, with a later one by Beattie et al in 2014, and the latest to date being the

review by Lawrence in 2017. Other studies on managerial coaching have sought to explore the

efficacy of organisational or workplace coaching but much of this research has been directed

at internal coaches who have a dedicated coaching responsibility as opposed to managers who

incorporate coaching into day to day responsibilities and/or their leadership style. This has

often resulted in the manager-as-coach being excluded from analyses of the coaching

profession. This is demonstrated in Bennett’s (2006) call for more research on coaching, in

which he identified six themes which needed to be explored. Significantly, none of these six

themes included managerial coaching.


2.4.4 The prevalence of managerial coaching

Given that coaching is only now becoming an inherent and intertwined part of a

leadership role, understandably, there are few reliable demographic profiles of managers who

coach. The 2016 ICF Global Study estimates that there are 10,900 managers/leaders using

coaching skills, but they readily admit that the figure is unreliable and should be considered as

‘strictly indicative’. In terms of the coaching managers who responded to their global study

across 137 countries, key demographical information indicates that almost half are under 45

years of age and 66% are female. In terms of training and accreditation, 93% of coaching

managers reported that they had received training in coaching which is a significant increase

from the 53% reported in the EMCC’s (2009) survey. Three managers in four reported that

they received accredited or approved coach-specific training, and a quarter of coaching

managers reported receiving over 200 hours of training. This investment by organisations in

coach training is likely indicative of the significant number of organisations that seek to create

a coaching culture (CIPD, 2006) and understanding that there is a link between being trained

as a coach and an increase in observable coaching behaviours (Turner & McCarthy, 2015).

2.4.5 The benefits of managerial coaching

Despite managerial coaching being ‘the most difficult and controversial coaching role’

(Cox, et al, 2010, p.3), managerial coaching has become more and more popular over the last

two decades (McCarthy & Milner, 2013). It has been argued to be ‘the heart of managerial

effectiveness’ (Hamlin, Ellinger, & Beattie, 2006, p.1). Research by Leonard-Cross (2010) and

Mukherjee (2012) has found many benefits for managers who coach with improvement in their

interpersonal skills, listening ability, confidence level, work-life balance and visioning.

However, it should be noted that although there have been studies conducted into the benefits

of managerial coaching (Hagen, 2012; Gilly, Gilly, Kouider, 2011), these benefits have largely


been examined in respect to benefits for coachees as opposed to coaching managers. It is argued

that research should be conducted to determine the benefits for managers themselves (Beattie,

et al., 2014) or indeed the perceptions of coaching managers on the benefits of adopting

coaching behaviours (Grant, 2010).

In terms of organisational benefits of managerial coaching, there are strong correlations

between managerial coaching and business performance (Ellinger, et al 2011) and it has been

suggested that managerial coaching can be a sustainable competitive advantage for an

organisation through increased employee self-efficacy and general organisational resilience

(Pousa, 2015). Coaching by managers has also been found to encourage learning and

development throughout the organisation (Connor & Pokora, 2012), with the CIPD (2012)

survey respondents reporting that coaching by line managers was the second most effective

learning and development practice and nearly three times as effective as coaching by external

practitioners (Turner & McCarthy, 2015). In 2009, the EMCC (2009) survey found that the

five biggest benefits to employees from managerial coaching were motivation, team cohesion,

retention, improved performance, and conflict resolution.

Further benefits of managerial coaching found through empirical research are

summarised in Figure One below.


Organisational & Employee

Benefits

Author/s

Enhanced social capital Cohen & Prusak, 2001

Empowerment Everard & Selman, 2003

Barry, 1992

Cost savings Rock & Donde, 2008

On the spot feedback Frisch, 2001

Employee job satisfaction & performance Ellinger, Ellinger, Keller, 2003

Graham, Wedman, & Garvin-Kester (1994)

Ellinger, 1999

Liu & Batt, 2010

Employee increased self-efficacy Pousa & Mathieu, 2015

The enablement of learning Beattie, 2006

Hagen, 2012

Bluckert, 2005

Park, Yang, and McLean, 2008

Employee behaviour change Peterson, 2006

Organisational commitment Harris, Winskowski, Engdahl, 2007

Park, Yang & McLean, 2008

Employee commitment to service quality Elmadag, Ellinger, and Franke, 2008

Better project management outcomes Hagen, 2010

Figure One: Reported Organisational & Employee Benefits of Managerial Coaching.

2.4.6 The antecedents of managerial coaching

There has been some speculation in various areas of the literature, although mostly in

popular, anecdotal magazine articles, on the factors which may influence a manager’s decision

to coach or motivate them to adopt a coaching leadership style (Turner & McCarthy, 2015).

When considering why managers may coach, Weintraub and Hunt (2015) ask ‘whether the

business case is sufficiently compelling to motivate a manager to develop a coaching mindset?’

They suggest that managers who coach do so for four reasons: they consider coaching an

essential process to achieve business goals, they like developing people, they are genuinely

interested in finding out about employees, and they seek to establish connections. Heslin et al.

(2006) found that employee reports of a manager’s guidance, facilitation, and support are a

strong indicator of the actual engagement of a manager in coaching behaviours with their direct

reports. A recent small research study suggests that rather than coach through formal, structured

coaching sessions, managers may actually prefer to operationalise their coaching informally


and as part of their innate management style (Dixey, 2015).

The association between gender and the propensity to coach is not clear. Early studies

of managerial coaching suggested that gender may be a factor which affects a manager’s

propensity to coach (Heslin et al. 2006; Ladyshewsky, 2010). However, an extensive study of

coaching by Anderson (2013) found only a limited association between managerial coaching

and gender. A more recent global survey of 600,000 employees from 51 countries, assessing

coaching behaviour of more than 130,000 practicing managers, found that globally, female

managers practised managerial coaching on a more regular basis than their male counterparts

(Ran, Wang, Wendt, Wu, & Euwema, 2015). This latest study is consistent with social role

theory which proposes that managerial behaviour is influenced by gender (Eagly, 1987). In

addition, it also appears to support the gender stereotype perspective that women are often

engaged in helping roles (Eagly & Karau, 2002), and therefore as coaching is largely

considered as a helping activity (Boniwell, 2007; Ellinger, Elmadag, and Ellinger, 2007; Kim,

2010), women are more likely to coach than men.

Self-efficacy has been cited to be an important aspect in executive coaching (Baron &

Morin, 2009) and there may be a link between occupational self-efficacy and a manager’s

propensity to engage in coaching although this has not yet been the subject of published

research (Anderson, 2013). Coaching supervision and peer coaching has been suggested as a

way to build self-efficacy for coaching managers (Grant & Hartley, 2013), and the recent

research of Turner and McCarthy (2015) suggested that it would be useful to explore the link

between self-efficacy and a coaching manager’s confidence to take risks in initiating informal

coaching conversations. Increased self-efficacy may well increase the prevalence of managerial

coaching behaviours.


Specifically relevant to the focus of this research is consideration of the factors that

inhibit coaching by managers. There has been little research in this area even though Heslin,

VandeWalle and Latham (2006, p.1) noted that ‘the stark reality is that managers often differ

substantially in their inclination to coach their subordinates’. This was further highlighted in

2010, with Gilley, Gilley, and Kouider reporting that managers infrequently coach their

employees for a number of reasons including that they lack the skills for their job including

coaching. Other factors identified include a lack of confidence and the necessary skills to coach

(Beattie et al, 2014), a fear of losing power and control (McLean, Yang, Kuo, Tolbert, Larkin,

2005), a lack of rewards (Orth, Wilkinson, Benfari, 1990), fear of additional responsibility

(Whitmore, 2002), and a lack of time (Skiffington & Zeus, 2003; Goleman, 2000; ICF 2016).

Beattie et al (2014) concluded that managers ‘may be neither capable nor interested in the

coaching process’ (p. 184).

2.4.7 Organisational development and support for coaching managers

As noted above, the benefits to a manager of using coaching skills include job

satisfaction and commitment (Harris, et al, 2007), as well as enhanced performance (Graham

et al, 1994), and the training of managers in coaching skills increase the likelihood of them

displaying coaching behaviors (Graham, et al, 1994; Peterson & Hicks, 1996). For managers

to be successful coaches, they require numerous skills including questioning, goal setting and

active listening skills (McCarthy & Ahrens, 2011), and interviewing and feedback skills, and

observational, analytical skills (Orth, et al, 1987). McCarthy and Milner (2013) argue that

because managers need to develop coaching skills, to respond to increasing complexity in

organisations, then the coach training they receive needs to be tailored specifically for

managers-as-coaches rather than standard leadership training. However, often the training

program for coaching managers is the same training that is provided for specialist coaches


without consideration for the fact that managers apply different types of coaching in the

workplace (McCarthy & Ahrens, 2011). Fatien and Otter (2015) endorse these views and argue

for coach education rather than just coach training, which is designed to be challenging and

push beyond existing boundaries. They also suggest that the training of coaching managers

should aim to shift values and mindsets through a transformational approach, and this accords

with McCarthy and Ahren’s (2011) view that authenticity and genuineness should be the focus

of training coaching managers.

In his study of 99 coaching managers, Grant (2010) found that it may take 3-6 months

for managers to see the benefits in using the coaching skills they have gained from a training

program and that it is important that new coaching managers are realistic about how long it

takes to use their skills effectively as a coach. Continuing development, such as action learning

sets and supervision, should occur after initial training (Hawkins, 2012) and ongoing support

for managers after undergoing coaching training is required in order for them to persevere with

displaying and developing their new skills (Grant, 2010).

As can be seen from the definitions above, a strong focus and theme in managerial

coaching is the facilitation of the learning of the subordinate by the manager, as well as the

development of people for the future (Goleman, 2000). A meta-analysis by Hamlin, et al,

(2006), of various empirical studies into managerial coaching behaviour, found the common

themes associated with managerial facilitation of learning to be caring and supporting staff,

providing feedback, communicating, creating a learning environment, and providing resources

including other people. These themes are considered consistent with good leadership and the

need for managers to move from directive to supportive leadership style (Joo, et al, 2014).


In summary, in the coaching literature, managerial coaching has invariably been

described as a style (Moen & Federici, 2012; Orth, Wilkinson, & Benfari, 1987, p. 11), a

‘practice’ (Anderson, 2013, p.261), a process (Heslin, et al, 2006; Peterson & Hicks, 1996), a

discipline of its own (McCarthy & Milner, 2013), and a ‘sub-set of a single broader discipline’

(Lawrence, 2017, p.46). However, what is agreed by the coaching scholars is that research into

most aspects of managerial coaching, such as how to define or evaluate, and indeed the benefits

of it, is significantly lacking in depth and quality (Grant, et al, 2010). Of note is that while

scholars have sought in recent years to research these issues, there has been little focus on the

impetus for, or the instigation of, informal managerial coaching which is the key characteristic

of coaching cultures (Gormley & van Nieuwerburgh, 2014). This is the coachable moment

which is explored below.

2.5 The Coachable Moment

The current research is focused on informal coaching and particularly around the notion

of the ‘coachable moment’ which has been described as:

…. an informal, usually unplanned or unexpected opportunity for a manager to have a

conversation with an employee aimed at facilitating the employee to problem solve or

learn from a work experience. It is aimed at helping them to learn rather than

instructing, directing or teaching them (Turner & McCarthy, 2015, p.5).

The coaching literature uses many differing terms to describe these informal coaching

opportunities and while the term ‘coachable moments’ (Hart, 2005; Kaye, 1993; Mobley, 2001)

has been used throughout popular coaching articles in industry magazines, there is no accepted

definition of a coachable moment, no construct developed, nor any empirical research into how


coachable moments are experienced by managers in their day-to-day coaching. What is

evident, however, from the popular descriptions is that managerial coaching interactions can

come about through planned, structured and somewhat formal sessions defined as coaching

sessions, or through informal coaching opportunities arising from a coachable moment. These

moments have been described as ‘corridor coaching’ (Grant, 2010, p.62), and ‘coaching on the

fly’ (Johnson, 2011, p.739), and are usually ‘short, informal, unexpected, unscheduled, and

focused and targeted on an immediate or just occurring incident or issue’ (Turner & McCarthy,

2015, p.2).

Author Terminology Characteristics

Grant (2010)

Green & Grant

(2003)

“Corridor coaching” • “impromptu”

• “on-the-job’

• “few minutes snatched in the corridor in the midst of a

busy project”

• “on-the-run”

Bennett (2006) “Off-line coaching” • “opportunistic”

• “short and timely conversations”

Johnson (2011) “Coaching on the fly”

“On-the-job coaching”

“Ad-hoc coaching”

• “brief unexpected day-to-day conversations”

• “spontaneous ad-hoc’

Kloster and

Swires (2010)

“Anytime Coaching” • “short, targeted conversations when they are needed”

• “open and available to capture a coachable moment”

• “anytime the situation demands”

• “quick and Focused”

Hart (2005) “Informal Coaching” • “cultivating collaborative moments”

Figure Two: A comparison and explanation of terms used to describe informal coaching

(Turner & McCarthy, 2015).

The term ‘coachable moments’ appears to have some similarities to the term ‘teachable

moments’ which is referenced extensively in a number of disciplines such as health and

education literature. Teachable and coachable moments share similarities in purpose,

facilitation, occurrence and nature and although they occur in different contexts, with teachable

moments relating to a student/teacher relationship, and coachable moments relating to most

often, manager and subordinate, in researching this new concept of the coachable moment,


there may be sufficient similarities for coaching scholars to draw some key learnings from the

higher education/teaching environment by examining the teachable moment.

The coachable moment was chosen as the focus of research because if this phenomenon

can be further understood then arguably managers can be trained to not only recognise the

moment, but to construct or plan this moment as a key opportunity to engage with staff through

a coaching framework.

2.6 Positioning the manager-as-coach role as problematic

Although the coaching literature has been largely positive about managerial coaching

(Beattie, et al, 2014), it has also identified many challenges for the coaching manager (Fatien

& Otter, 2015; McCarthy & Ahrens, 2011). There are three key issues which emerge from the

literature and that position the role as inherently problematic: these are the significant contrast

between traditional management and coaching, the defining of coaching responsibilities as a

‘role’, and the power imbalance in the managerial coaching relationship.

The first challenge for the coaching manager lies in what McCarthy and Milner (2013)

describe as the ‘role-switching’ (p.773) required to move between a range of traditional and

new responsibilities such as teaching, training, mentoring or consulting. This ‘role conflict’

(Riddle & Ting, 2006, p. 13) has variously been referred to as the ‘three hats of a leader’ (Hicks

& McCracken, 2010, p.69), ‘multiple faces’ (Joo, Sushko, & McLean, 2012, p.19), and

‘multiple hats’ (Fatien & Otter, p.1). The descriptions refer to the skills required to be exercised

by a manager to coach a subordinate in the manner in which the term is traditionally

understood; these are the skills that are normally observed in an external executive coach and

which are specialised and arguably honed and expert. However, unlike executive coaches, the


manager is usually not skilled in this area, as coaching is not the predominate background or

focus of the role. While formal, pre-planned coaching may allow a manager to consider and

script a scheduled coaching conversation, informal coaching in the moment requires the

manager to be able to react to the issue arising and adopt skills in which they may not have

expertise. Yet, unlike in executive coaching, the coaching manager and the employee cannot

opt out of the relationship, so quality coaching is required if coaching conversation is to be

successful. Informal, or ‘in-the-moment’ coaching is especially unique: the moment is usually

spontaneous, and it requires a manager to have honed skills of opportunity recognition, and an

ability to assess whether the moment is right to facilitate a learning opportunity. Given that

coaching is not the main function of the manager as coach role (Ladyshewsky, 2010) then it

may be unrealistic to expect that they can do this.

The second challenging aspect of managerial coaching is the focus on coaching as a

‘role’ which gives rise to a perception that the coach role has somewhat replaced the manager

role or is in addition to the latter role. In reality, the role of the manager is still principally one

of line control which has a range of managerial functions. The contemporary emphasis on the

manager as ‘being a coach’ has evolved from a shifting of responsibility for the development

of employees from the human resources function to the manager (Fatien & Otter, 2015; Hagen,

2012; Ladyshewsky, 2010) and appears to have been interpreted by many organisations and

managers as a new or additional role rather than the adoption of a leadership style which has

an extra set of skills and behaviours to complement the current or traditional leadership and

management skills. This is reflected in the literature where coaching delivered by a line

manager is considered as a role by some authors (Lawrence, 2017), a set of behaviours

(Anderson, 2013; Bommelje, 2015), a combination of behaviours, attitudes, beliefs and skills

(McLean et al, 2005; Park, et al, 2008), and a style (Goleman, 2000). Accordingly, the literature


is somewhat divided as to whether managerial coaching can be summarized as either a discrete

and separate discipline or as a set of coaching skills (Lawrence, 2017).

The conflicted role of the coaching manager has been the subject of much comment

and debate in the literature which has attempted to address the role by defining it and categorise

the behaviours that constitute it. As noted earlier, the term managerial coaching has many

definitions with few being based on empirical evidence as to the behaviours which constitute

it (Beattie, et al, 2014). Many academic authors have suggested that managerial coaching is not

new and is in fact just traditional training ‘re-branded, re-labelled and re-packaged’ (Lawrence,

2017, p.51). Some of this confusion over the role may be due to the evolution of the coaching

role of the last few years from the traditional view emphasising the control aspect of the

relationship between the manager and employee (Bommelje, 2015) to a facilitation of learning

(Hagen, 2012) but still with a strong thread of managing performance by coaching running

throughout (Lawrence, 2017). In essence, it could be argued that coaching, for a line manager,

is less of a ‘role’ than that of a coaching style which is about practising new behaviours such

as goal setting and giving feedback, listening, and questioning (Anderson, 2013; McCarthy &

Ahrens, 2011).

Perhaps the most significant issue contributing to the problematic nature of managerial

coaching, is the issue of the power imbalance in the coaching relationship. This was arguably

first specifically addressed in Ferrar’s (2006) seminal work on the paradox of the coaching

manager in which he concluded that the role of the manager is incompatible with coaching as

the purpose of both roles are different. He argues that the ‘notion of a line manager coaching a

subordinate is flawed’ (p.75) because of the inherent ‘role-related power differential’ between

the manager and the subordinate (p.3). Ferrar argues that a manager is empowered to do things


such as imposing sanctions and disciplining that a coach is not, and that the differences in

power between manager and subordinate is not consistent with the trust, openness and honesty

synonymous with a coaching relationship. Further, it is not reasonable to expect that

confidentiality and trust can naturally occur between a manager and employee, when the

manager is also by virtue of the seniority of the role, the evaluator of the employee’s

performance (Hunt & Weintraub, 2007).

This power imbalance in the relationship between the coaching manager and

subordinate employees is also acknowledged by Ahrens and McCarthy (2016), Hunt and

Weintraub (2011), and McCarthy (2014), recognizing that the coaching manager is in a position

to exercise control over hiring and firing, rewarding, and developing coachees. Rogers (2008,

p.8) summarises these concerns concluding that a power imbalance is inconsistent with the

concept of coaching being a ‘partnership of equals’.

2.7 Summary

As explained at the outset of this chapter, the purpose of this contextual review is to

present the two conceptual areas which are directly relevant to, and identified by, the research

question, that is, the concepts of managerial coaching and the coachable moment. While

managerial coaching research is growing, it is still under-researched from an empirical

perspective (Hagen, 2012). It can be seen from the literature that there are many forms of

coaching and that managerial coaching in particular differs from other forms of coaching

largely because it is practiced by internal persons who have line control over the coachee, rather

than by externally engaged persons or persons with no line control. However, it is this line

control that problematises managerial coaching and presents challenges for a manager wishing

to make the switch from a traditional command role to that of a coaching manager.


There has also been little or no research on the concept of the coachable moment which

is unfortunate given that it is the trigger or intersection for the coaching conversations which

are critical to the formation of coaching cultures (Gormley & van Nieuwerburgh, 2014).

Without an understanding of the construct of the coachable moment, managers’ choices to

engage in that moment cannot easily be understood.

The under-researched nature of coaching generally provides a rich area for exploratory

research and a review of the literature relating to managerial coaching highlights several gaps

in knowledge relating to how and why managers informally coach when a suitable opportunity

arises. Understanding how managers experience informal coaching and the nature of the

coachable moment will have significance for organisations attempting to develop the

leadership skills of their managers and create cultures characterised by managers having

coaching conversations with their staff ‘as a natural part of meetings, reviews, and one-to-one

discussions of all kinds’ (Hardingham, Brearley, Moorhouse, & Venter, 2004, p.184). While

further review of literature is integrated throughout the findings chapters as part of the

grounded theory constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), Chapter 3 presents

further literature as the theoretical framework for this study.


Chapter 3

Methodology

“Grounded theory allows researchers to distinguish

with confidence between the noise and music in one’s data”.

(Timmermans and Tavory, 2007)

_____________________________________________

3.1 Introduction

As a constructivist approach to a research study is a both a methodology and a method

(Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 1992, 1998), this chapter justifies and describes in detail the approach

taken to the study and the methods applied in this research. The research applied a constructivist

grounded theory approach as methodology and method that allowed for inductive, deductive

and abductive analysis processes. In doing so, I have drawn from the grounded theory works

of Glaser and Strauss (1967) and the modified constructivist grounded theory of Charmaz

(2006).

The selection of grounded theory methods to explore the research questions was driven

by three core issues: the epistemological perspective of the researcher, the methodological

recommendations from the coaching literature, and the underlying assumptions of the research

methods as they relate to the type of questions to be explored. This chapter commences with a

justification for the use of a constructivist approach in this study and then provides a description

of the core issues that led to the selection of grounded theory methods. The chapter then

provides an overview of the history of grounded theory and an explanation of the constructivist

approach. The recruitment and selection of the participants, the data generation and analysis

process, as well as ethical considerations and rigour, conclude the chapter.


3.2 Constructivism and Grounded Theory Methods

The specific objective of this research was to generate theoretical propositions for

understanding the phenomenon of coachable moments and how managers experience those

moments. The context in which managers coach as part of their role is key to the development

of any theorising about why managers coach in certain ways. As outlined in Chapter Two of

this thesis, calls have been made by scholars in the managerial coaching field for a greater

understanding of the context in which managers coach. The available literature provides only

limited guidance on the context which may impact on a manager’s decision to coach in the

moment. As qualitative research methods are well suited to developing theoretical propositions

related to the role of interpretations and meanings (Ezzy, 2002) and is ‘fundamental for

developing our understanding of coaching processes’ (Grant, 2016, p.1), a qualitative approach

was chosen for this study. A qualitative approach is appropriate where there is little research

on a phenomenon that needs to be explored and better understood. (Creswell, 2014).

3.2.1 The epistemological perspective of the researcher

As the theoretical perspective of the researcher influences the methodology and

subsequently the methods used (Gray, 2004), the epistemological position of the researcher

should be the starting point for a research study (Crotty, 1998). Charmaz (2005) encourages

researchers considering using a constructivist grounded theory methodology to ‘take a reflexive

stance of modes of knowing and representing studied life’ (p.509), as the analysis in grounded

theory studies can be ‘enriched by clarifying the researcher’s epistemological premises’

(Charmaz, 1989, 1171). Accordingly, as the implement of data generation and analysis in this

proposed study, it is important that the reader understand the context and experience and

therefore the assumptions that I brought to this research (Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Mruck &

Mey, 2007). Through the adoption of a reflexive stance at the commencement of this research,


and consciously reflecting on my background and experience, I have identified that, similar to

Charmaz, I have a relativist ontology and a constructivist epistemology. Ontologically, I

understand that ‘reality consists of local and specific constructed realities’ (Annells, 1996, p.

386) and that there is no one truth or reality. From this perspective, it was important that I

develop a research design that allowed me to explore a multiplicity of perspectives. My

constructivist, interpretivist epistemological orientation recognises that meanings and research

are shaped by the perspectives of people’s lived experiences and existing theories (Willis,

2007), and that as the researcher, I create knowledge through engaging in the inquiry process

(Annells, 1996).

From a reflexive process, I understand that my professional background has

considerably influenced the choice of methods for this research and that it is not possible for

me to claim I came to this study tabula rasa; neither is it possible for me to be considered as a

passive, neutral observer in this study (Charmaz, 2014). Accordingly, given my ontological

and epistemological perspectives, I applied a constructivist framework in this research, as it

closely fits my worldview (Cresswell, 2014) and allowed me to ask, ‘what was going on here

and why?’

3.2.2 The methodological recommendations from the coaching literature

The stated aim of this research was to explore the coaching experiences of managers at

the time of the coachable moment. The contextual review chapter illustrates that little is known

about managers’ decisions to coach, and when a group has had little or no ‘systematic,

empirical scrutiny’, an exploratory methodological approach is appropriate (Stebbins, 2011).

An exploratory approach builds rich interpretations of those factors that construct or shape

managerial decision-making which may be subject to subsequent explanatory or predictive


research.

As has been argued earlier, coaching is an immature discipline which to date has drawn

on theory and practice from various disciplines (McCarthy, 2015). Many scholars argue that it

should be examined from multiple approaches to enrich its knowledge base and to allow creative

solutions to be developed (Cavanagh, Grant, & Kemp, 2005). In advocating an evidence-based

approach to coaching, Drake (2009, p.1) encourages researchers to look to evidence that is

‘contextual, dynamic, subjective, political and socially constructed’ and this is consistent with

a constructivist perspective. Bennett (2006) also recommends that coaching research move

beyond descriptive research to exploratory research and submitted that along with a number of

other approaches, theory building is an appropriate path to pursue. Passmore and Fillery-Travis

(2011) endorse this view submitting that now that the exploration and definition stage of

coaching research has been largely completed it is time to move to theory generation research.

They argue that the richness of questions around coaching interactions require qualitative

approaches such as grounded theory.

3.2.3 The choice of grounded theory research methods

Grounded theory methods provide a ‘frame for qualitative inquiry and guidelines for

conducting it’ (Charmaz, 2014, p. 14) and were considered appropriate for this research as little

was known about the phenomenon under investigation, theorising with explanatory power was

sought, and embedded in the research situation was an inherent process that could be analysed

using grounded theory methods (Birks & Mills, 2011). In addition, constructivist grounded

theory methods were considered particularly useful in researching managerial and

organisational behaviour as they have the ‘ability to capture complexity, link well to practice,

support theorising in new substantive areas, and can enliven mature theorising’ (Locke, 2001,


p.95). The methods are considered both credible and flexible (Charmaz, 2014) and despite the

controversy they often incite amongst researchers, are one of the most widely used qualitative

research tools (Higginbottom & Lauridsen, 2014, p.8).

3.3 Grounded Theory

3.3.1 Grounded Theory background

The original methods of grounded theory were set down in the 1967 seminal work of

sociologists, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. This work described grounded theory

methods as ‘the discovery of theory from data – systematically obtained and analysed in social

research’ (Glaser & Strauss 1967: 1) and offered a new research methodology as a challenge

to what they perceived was the extreme positivism that underpinned research at that time

(Suddaby, 2006). Glaser and Strauss (1967) submitted that the aim of ‘Discovery’ was to

generate theory based on data as opposed to the traditional research aim which was to verify

‘grand theory’. The authors argued that both qualitative and quantitative data were necessary

to generate and verify theories (Urquhart, 2003).

Subsequent to ‘Discovery’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), a number of different versions of

grounded theory evolved. Strauss, in partnership with Juliette Corbin (Strauss & Corbin, 1998;

Strauss & Corbin, 1990) advocated for the study of social phenomena in contrast to Glaser’s

argument that core categories and social processes should be the focus of research (Gibson &

Hartman, 2014). In 2006, in introducing a constructivist grounded theory approach, Charmaz

called for the study and conceptualisation of meaning, which was somewhat consistent with

epistemology of Corbin and Strauss (2008) but diverged from Glaser’s steadfast adherence to

classical grounded theory. Subsequently, three ‘prevailing traditions’ (Kenny and Fourie, 2015,

p.1270) of grounded theory have been termed: the Classic (based on Glaser and Strauss’s


original work in Discovery), Straussian (based on the work by Corbin and Strauss), and

Constructivist (based on the work by Charmaz) approaches. The latter is explored in further

detail below.

3.3.2 Distinguishing between the grounded theory traditions

Hence, and from the above, there are different approaches to grounded theory and it is

important that researchers be clear about the specific version being adopted (Breckenridge,

2012). There are as many similarities between the three grounded theory traditions or schools

of grounded theory as there are differences. Memo writing, theoretical sampling, constant

comparison method, and determining a distinction between substantive and formal theory, are

the ‘quintessential characteristics’ of grounded theory (Kenny & Fourie, 2015, p. 1272), with

the latter three having been referred as the ‘troublesome trinity’ but the ‘essential properties of

grounded theory’ (Hood, in Bryant & Charmaz, 2007, p. 13). All three grounded theory schools

converge on these aspects and all these grounded theory tools were applied in this research.

However, where the three grounded theory schools diverge is in the areas of coding

procedures, philosophical positions, and use of literature. Coding in the Glaserian school

consists of open and selective substantive coding and theoretical coding (Holton, 2007),

whereas Strauss and Corbin (1990) reconfigured the Glaserian approach, proposing the

meticulous and systematic coding stages of open, axial, selective, and conditional coding.

Glaser (1992) responded to Strauss and Corbin’s rigorous approach to coding data by arguing

that it was akin to ‘forcing’ the data into preconceived concepts. Charmaz (2000, p.512)

followed Glaser asserting that the Strauss and Corbin approach to coding was a ‘maze of

techniques’ and overcomplicated and rigid. By comparison, Charmaz’s constructivist approach

to coding entails two stages of initial or open coding and a refocused coding which she


describes as ‘an imaginative engagement with the data’ (2008, p.168). This two-tier approach

to coding is similar to Glaser’s coding process although it is more flexible, intuitive and more

interpretive (Kenny and Fourie, 2015), and for these reasons, this research adopted Charmaz’s

approach to the coding of data.

The second key point of divergence between the three types of grounded theory relates

to the use of the literature. Glaser argued that the researcher should adopt a ‘tabula rasa’

approach in contrast to the Straussian and constructivist approaches which engage a pragmatic

approach to the use of literature where it is acknowledged that the researcher’s background and

experience will always result in some influence on the research.

The third point of difference between the three schools relates to the underpinning

philosophical positions. Glaser’s grounded theory has been criticised for lacking a clearly

articulated epistemology and ontology (Bryant, 2002; Holton, 2007). By contrast Charmaz

(2000) has argued that Glaser’s work reflects the assumption that there is an ‘objective, external

reality’ (p.510) consistent with traditional positivism. Straussian grounded theory is said to

expound a post-positivist critical realist ontology (Kenny & Fourie, 2015) which reflects

Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) view that the ‘real nature of reality’ can be apprehended ‘only by

God’ (p.4). Charmaz has been described as owning a constructivist epistemology, a relativist

ontology, and interpretative methodology (Kenny & Fourie, 2015) reflecting the co-

construction by the researcher and participant of knowledge and meaning (Charmaz, 2000).

Although Charmaz (2014, 2016, 2017) argues that grounded theory methods should be

understood as tools to be drawn on in both interpretive and critical research, the constructivist

approach does assume a relativist epistemology and situates research in the social conditions

of its production.


As this is a study of managers and their experiences of coaching in an organisation and

recognising that managers play a significant role in interpreting events which may frame the

interpretation of events for others (Isabella, 1990) a constructivist, interpretive approach was

considered appropriate to this study. The constructivist perspective recognises that ‘neither data

nor theories are discovered’ (Charmaz, 2006, p.10) but rather are constructed through the

collection of data and as a result of field and participant interactions (Thornberg, 2012). The

foundations of constructivist grounded theory lie in the pragmatist tradition of George Herbert

Mead (1863-1931) and John Dewey (1859-1952) who, among other notable scholars at the

University of Chicago, embraced the philosophical tradition of sociological pragmatism which

in turn informed symbolic interactionism (Charmaz, 2014). This perspective assumes that

understanding reality is based on consequences not antecedents (Star, 2007) and is constructed

through the language and communication that occurs with interaction (Charmaz, 2014).

3.3.3 Grounded Theory Methods

This research study did not set out to develop a grounded theory but rather to use

elements of grounded theory methods as components of the analytical technique (Urquhart,

2013). To justify why, it is important to define what grounded theory methods are and

importantly what distinguishes them from other qualitative research methods. The

differentiating feature of the grounded theory methods approach is that it does not set out to test

a hypothesis (Glaser, 1967); it seeks to explain and interpret a phenomenon through the use of

inductive, abductive and deductive processes (Charmaz, 2014). This study used inductive

processes in the interrogation of the data and construction of categories in the comparative

analysis stages. Deductive processes were then applied to test out findings against existing

theories which combined, can be termed abductive reasoning. Abduction, a concept first

introduced by the pragmatist Charles Peirce (1839-1914) in the nineteenth century is a ‘mode


of imaginative reasoning’ (Charmaz, 2014, p.200) used to link empirical observation with

imaginative interpretation’ (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007, p. 46). Peirce (1955) argued that we

cannot understand the meaning of thought until we decide the actions that may be produced by

thought. Abductive reasoning in grounded theory is used when researchers ‘cannot account for

surprising or puzzling’ findings (Charmaz, 2014, p. 200) and need to make the ‘mental leap’

(Birks & Mills, 2015, p.11) to arrive at ‘the most plausible interpretation of the observed data’

(Bryant & Charmaz, 2007, p.603). The combined inductive, deductive and abductive analytical

processes are illustrated in Figure Three below:

Figure Three: The analytical methods.

Other key characteristics of grounded theory methods include theoretical sampling,

simultaneous data generation and analysis, comparative methods, and the analysis of actions

and processes as opposed to themes and structures (Charmaz, 2014). These aspects of

constructivist grounded theory, as they apply to the research reported upon here, are further

elaborated in this chapter.


3.3.4 Grounded theory and the constructivist perspective

Adopting Glaser and Strauss’ earlier methods such as memo writing, theoretical

sampling and coding, constructivist grounded theory emerged in the 1990s as a contemporary

version of the original Classic Glaserian theory (Charmaz, 2017). Charmaz, a former pupil of

Glaser, is synonymous with the concept of constructivist grounded theory and the essence of

her constructivist approach is that the researcher constructs as opposed to discovers theories

(Charmaz, 2006). Constructivism is about understanding multiple participant meanings, social

and historic construction, and theory generation (Cresswell, 2014). Interpretivism looks for

‘culturally derived and historically situated interpretations of life’ (Crotty, 1998, p.67). The

constructivist, interpretivist perspective posits that the concept of reality is socially constructed

and the purpose of research is to reflect a contextual understanding (Willis, 2007). It shreds

notions of a neutral observer’ (Charmaz, 2006, p.13) and acknowledges that researchers shape

and influence the data they collect.

Hence Charmaz (2006) submits that constructivist grounded theory ‘assumes emergent,

multiple realities, indeterminancy; facts and values as linked; truth as provisional; and social

life as processual’ (p. 126) and contends that ‘any theoretical rendering offers an interpretive

portrayal of the studied world, but not an exact picture of it’ (Charmaz, 2006, p.17). According

to Charmaz, (2014) ‘interpretive theory’ (p.231) aims to:

• Conceptualise the studied phenomena to understand it in abstract terms

• Articulate theoretical claims pertaining to scope, depth, power, and relevance of a given

analysis

• Acknowledge subjectivity in theorizing and hence recognise the role of experience,

standpoints, and interactions, including one’s own


• Offer an ‘imaginative theoretical interpretation that makes sense of the studied

phenomena’ (p.232).

3.4 Recruitment Procedure

3.4.1 The selection of the research sites

The key aim of this research was to explore the experiences of coaching managers when

the coachable moment presents. Accordingly, purposive sampling was used to select

participants who had responsibility for leading/managing staff currently or in the recent past.

A manager was defined for this study as ‘anybody who has responsibility for subordinate

staff1’. It was not necessary for those managers to define themselves as managers who engaged

in coaching. Two organisations (RS1, and RS2) were initially chosen as research sites for this

study because they both employed numerous managers, encouraged coaching as a leadership

behavior, and their Directors of Human Resource Management were well known to me and

happy to participate in research. A third organization (RS3) was added to the study as a research

site when it became clear that because of an organisational restructure, RS2 would have an

insufficient number of participants at that site and as such, more managers were sought.

All three organisations engaged in commercial activity, with RS1 and RS2 both owned

by superannuation funds and RS3 a professional services firm. All organisations were deemed

of a size and diversity that was likely to provide an ‘information-rich source of data’ (Birks &

Mills, 2011, p.11) and allow the opportunity for ongoing theoretical sampling (Glaser & Strauss,

1967). In summary, the three organisations were chosen for this research as they were rich

settings for exploratory research on informal coaching not because they were representative,

1 See Section 1.6 of this thesis


statistically, culturally or structurally, of all companies engaging in coaching or leadership

practices.

3.4.1.1 Recruitment at Research Site One (RS1)

In RS1, recruitment was initially confined to just one of the five divisions constituting

the organisation. This was because there was ready access to the manager of the division who

was happy to cooperate in the research as he had an active interest in leadership and coaching.

The division constituted over 400 staff engaged in project management, change management,

communications and human resource management.

In order to gain senior management support for the research project, at the

commencement of the research, a brief information session was conducted for the divisional

leadership team outlining the purpose and process, so that any concerns could be addressed.

The team approved the proposed research process. Subsequent to that session, an invitation to

an information session (see Appendix B) was emailed to staff throughout the division by the

divisional manager providing an outline of the research aims and process and interested parties

were invited to attend. Eight persons attended the information session conducted by me, and at

the conclusion of that session, I invited those staff to contact me directly if they wished to

participate in the research. All eight participants individually contacted me by email and five

of those eight respondents agreed to participate in a focus group interview. Although the

approach initially elicited only eight responses, some managers who had been interviewed

mentioned the interview experience to colleagues who then contacted me asking if they could

participate in the research. This snowball technique (Babbie, 1995) was successful and

eventually seventeen participants were recruited over a two-month timeframe. Five of the

seventeen interviewed agreed to a second interview during which I explored the developing


categories.

3.4.1.2 Recruitment at Research Site Two (RS2)

Recruitment of participants at the second research site was somewhat different to that

employed in RS1 as RS2’s willingness to participate was contingent upon the collective of

participants not being assembled together at the same time in order to minimise the disruption

to work and productivity. Accordingly, information about the research project was provided to

the initial proposed participant pool (the twelve members of the Executive Leadership Team)

by the head of human resources during a routine management team meeting using an

information pack developed by me. These ELT members were invited to participate in the

research and all indicated a willingness to the head of human resources to participate in the

research and agreed for their contact details to be provided to me. I then made direct contact

by email with each ELT member providing the Participant Information Sheet (Appendix C)

and requesting that they contact me directly if they still wished to participate. Although eight

responded positively only seven were interviewed as one respondent was deemed ineligible as

he had not had experience managing staff.

3.4.1.3 Recruitment at Research Site Three (RS3)

Recruitment of participants at RS3 involved the senior person responsible for human

resources emailing the participant information form to managers in the regional office, who

oversaw staff. Interested participants were asked to contact me directly if they wished to

participate. Three participants contacted me and two of this group were interviewed.

3.5 Sampling Strategy

In research using grounded theory methods, the sampling is both purposeful and


theoretical with the latter occurring simultaneously with analysis and determining the ongoing

direction of the research (Morse, 2007). The combination of constant comparison and

theoretical sampling means that it is often impossible at the outset to estimate the number of

interviews that need to be conducted. However, I was conscious of Charmaz’s (2014)

admonition that a small number of interviews, such as twelve, may be enough to generate

themes ‘but not command respect’ (p.107). Accordingly, I sought to conduct thirty interviews

across both organisations which is consistent with Cresswell’s (2014, p.189) recommendations

for a grounded theory study. It was also deemed that the sample size would ensure theoretical

sufficiency was reached (Charmaz, 2006, 2014; Dey, 1993; Stern, 2007).

From the pool of managers from RS1 who agreed to participate in the research, an initial

sample of ten managers was interviewed to maximise the potential for variations and concepts

in the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Following these initial interviews and consistent with

grounded theory principles, a theoretical sampling approach was used to determine what data

was generated next and from where that future data would be sourced (Birks and Mills, 2011;

Charmaz, 2014). The determinant for further sampling was asking the question: ‘What groups or

sub-groups does one turn to next……. and for what purpose?’ (Glaser & Straus,1967, p.47).

As an example of the initial theoretical sampling strategy, while the first ten managers

interviewed met the first three of Spradley’s (1979) criteria for selection, that is, experience in

the area under examination, willingness to participate, and being articulate, many appeared not

to fully meet the fourth criteria, that of being reflective about their experiences. Some of these

participants were relatively junior managers who were somewhat inexperienced in coaching

and I was concerned that the interview data elicited from them may not have been rich enough

to truly explore the key research question. To address this issue, I requested permission from


the divisional manager to access more senior, experienced managers who I expected might be

more reflective about their coaching experiences. These managers were identified through

discussions with previous interviewees and I contacted them directly through email. This

resulted in a further six managers being interviewed. The divisional manager did not play any

role in recruiting the individual participants so did not have any influence on them. While this

strategy appeared to be successful in sourcing richer data, it should be noted that as categories

developed, it became clear that the lack of reflection on their coaching by some of the initial

interviewees became a key finding which contributed to the overall understanding of coaching

behaviours. This is elaborated on further in Chapter Seven of this thesis. Theoretical sampling

continued in this study through the interviews in RS3, to further refine the development of key

categories and to identify properties and their parameters (Charmaz, 2006). As possible

emergent categories required clarification or validation, I either reviewed the interview

questions, re-interviewed participants, or sought through snowball sampling, to target

participants for the purpose of fully exploring nascent concepts.

The concept of saturation of data in grounded theory is often ‘messy’, confusing

(Suddaby, 2006) and ‘elastic’ (Charmaz, 2000). Although conscious that there will always be

new ways to analyse data, Charmaz’s (2006) concept of saturation as ‘nothing new happening’

(p.113) and Dey’s (2007) notion of ‘when the ideas run out’ (p.185) were used to determine

that the point of conclusion of data generation was 31 interviews.

3.6 Participant Demographics

As constructivists are interested in the how and sometimes why people act and construct

meanings, a constructivist approach considers the relevant situational and social contexts in

which data is generated (Charmaz, 2014). Accordingly, although demographic details relating


to age and gender of the research participants was not a focus of the research questions for this

study, I was conscious that demographic data could provide a useful ‘backdrop’ (Charmaz,

2006, p. 38) for the research.

Participant selection for the interviews was from diverse pools of people who had staff

directly reporting to them or, at some time in the immediate past, had people reporting to them.

These pools included executive and senior managers, middle managers and team leaders

(‘managers’) to allow for maximum data density (Langley, 1999). Maximising the diversity of

participants aimed to increase the probability that different and varied data would be collected

consistent with Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) espoused comparative analysis methods.

Accordingly, at each interview, notes were made of the gender of each participant as

well as approximate age. The job titles of each participant were already known through the

signature blocks on the emails with which we corresponded. As one of the initial guiding

questions for this research related to maturity of coaching culture, and a large aspect of maturity

relates to leadership and coaching training and experience, at the commencement of each

interview, participants were asked to give a brief description of their leadership history. They

were also asked during the interviews about the nature and extent of any relevant training in

leadership and coaching they may have had, even if that training was not with their current

organisation. The gathering of demographic details was not only useful to demonstrate the rich

diversity of the sample, but it also assisted in developing rapport building (Minichiello, Aroni,

Hays, 2008) in allowing participants to speak freely at the commencement of the interview on

an area they obviously know well.


Figure Four: Demographics of the Study Participants

3.7 Data Generation Strategies and Sources

3.7.1 In-depth interviews

The intensive or in-depth interview is a common data generation method used in

qualitative research (Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Charmaz, 2014) and ‘attempts to understand

the world from the subjects’ point of view, to unfold the meaning of their experiences’ (Kvale

& Brinkmann, 2009, p.1). Intensive interviews are particularly well fitted to grounded theory

methods as they focus the topic and are directed and shaped but also are emergent in nature

and allow open-ended exploration of the area of interest (Charmaz, 2014).

The key but not sole data generation strategy employed in this study was the conduct

of individual, face to face interviews with managers to address the central research question of

the study which is: How and why do managers coach when the coachable moment presents?

The interview method was chosen in preference to other data generation methods simply

because it was deemed the most effective way of obtaining the data given the unpredictability

of the coachable moment as well as the confidential nature of the coaching process. The

interview is a ‘site of connection’ between the researcher and the study participant (Charmaz,

Male 12/26

Female 14/26

Age - 18-30 1/26

Age – 31-45 17/26

Age – 46 & over 8/26

Middle Mgt/Team Leader 18/26

Senior/Exec Mgt 8/26


2014, p.82) and it was deemed the best method to address the research question while still

allowing fresh and new insights to occur (p.85). Accordingly, a ‘gently guided, one-sided

conversation’ (Charmaz, 2014, p.56) was sought with participants about their experiences as

coaches, and questions focused on perceptions, feelings, and resultant actions. The interviews

were semi-structured (Kvale, 1996), and although placing an arbitrary time limit on interviews

can stifle an interviewee’s story (Charmaz, 2006), interviews were scheduled for forty-five

minutes to one hour and most concluded within one hour.

Charmaz’s (2006) intensive interviewing approach was adopted using broad, open-

ended questions which encouraged the telling of stories (Charmaz, 2014). In addition, a critical

incident technique was used so that participants could relate actual experiences and answers

could be probed for a richer depth (Flanagan, 1954). A full interview schedule was prepared

and can be found at Appendix D. The exploratory interview has little pre-planned structure

(Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009) and thus the schedule evolved as the study progressed and

particularly as theoretical sampling commenced and categories emerged. Commencing the

interview by asking open and unstructured questions about leadership history or ‘softer

questions’ (Charmaz, 2014, p.76) allowed me to establish rapport with the participants. As I

‘followed the analytic trail’ (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p.46), the actual questions varied and

evolved considerably to avoid any perception or actuality of ‘forcing the data’ by asking

questions formed in relation to preconceived categories (Charmaz, 2014).

After interviews in RS1 had largely been completed, many interview questions were

re-modeled or removed and indeed many questions were added as part of the theoretical

sampling process. An example of the latter is that it became clear that many of the participants,

even with the use of a critical incident technique method, found it difficult to recall specific


incidents relating to coaching and hence questions were added around the extent to which

managers reflected on their informal coaching experiences and the processes in place for them

to de-brief on these experiences. This question topic was one of the key foci of the five re-

interviews that were conducted in RS1 in which participants were asked not only about their

reflective experiences on coaching in general, but also about whether they had reflected after

the first interview and if so, whether this had illuminated any coaching experiences that they

wished to add to the data collection. The questions related to coaching reflections yielded much

rich data and shed interesting light on the contemplative process used by managers before and

after coaching interactions.

Glaser (1998) expressed strong opposition to the taping of interviews, describing this

method as an ‘evidentiary invasion’ (p.107) and arguing that it generates an excess of data. Yet

Charmaz (2014) argues that taping allows the researcher to concentrate on the interview itself

without being distracted by note taking. Given the intention was to code data, it was decided

to audio-record the interviews and have them transcribed; however, notes were also made

during the interviews and immediately after most interviews, in relation to observations of the

participant and their reactions to the process. These were extremely useful when coding the

interviews in providing context and aiding memory. Examples of notes made after the

interviews are as follows:

Although prior to the interview P3 seemed very keen to participate, at interview he

appeared to be reluctant to elaborate on answers, and there were long periods of

silence. It seemed that he struggled with being reflective or perhaps he just didn’t

perceive his coaching to be such a complex issue requiring great reflection.


P8 was deeply reflective and appeared to be questioning himself and his leadership, in

a positive way as he pondered his answers.

P24 appeared completely disinterested and I wonder why he bothered to volunteer for

an interview. Didn’t seem to want to elaborate on any answers – just pretty much a

‘mmmm’. Perhaps became a little clearer when I realized that unlike the others he does

not have a corporate background at all – perhaps he finds this research and focus on

coaching to be unnecessary and a waste of time?

3.7.2 The focus group interview

Focus group interviews bring together a group of people who discuss topics of interest

(Morgan, 1998), ‘react to and build on the responses of other group members’ (Stewart &

Shamdasani, 2007, p.43), and produce both shared and different viewpoints (Kvale &

Brinkmann, 2009). The intent of the conduct of focus group interviews in this study was to

enhance theoretical sensitivity (Charmaz, 2014) around the phenomenon of coachable

moments and to provide a perspective of theoretical insight (Locke, 2001, p.89) which would

inform initial questions for the one-to-one interviews. A secondary purpose of the focus group

was to develop a shared understanding of managerial coaching and informal coaching so that

participants would be able to reflect, prior to the interviews, on their informal managerial

coaching habits, and provide richer more contextual data.

A focus group interview was conducted at RS1; no further focus group interviews were

conducted at the research sites. Research Site 2 specifically stated that they did not want

managers away from their work in any collective activity and RS3 had insufficient participants.

The intended participants in the focus group at RS1 were all the managers who contacted me


indicating a willingness to participate in the research project. However, I found that while

managers were happy to attend a one-to-one interview, the majority, including all senior

managers, were extremely reluctant to attend a focus group interview. This resulted in only

five participants at the focus group in RS1. One senior manager who had initially indicated

great enthusiasm at participating in both a one to one and focus group interview, attended at

the focus group venue, but when it became apparent to him that the other participants were

more junior to him, declined to stay stating that he would just participate in the individual

interview. Other senior managers simply did not entertain the idea of participating in a focus

group interview. All five focus group participants were provided with an information sheet

(Appendix E) and a consent form (Appendix F).

The focus group interview was audio-recorded for transcription and analysis purposes.

Open-ended questions were used to explore managers’ understandings of managerial coaching.

Despite focus group interviews being viewed as more ‘relaxed’ than a one to one interview

(Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p.149), this was not my experience. Participants appeared

reluctant to share coaching experiences, and the focus group interview was characterised by

long periods of silence. However those same participants, when attending individual

interviews, were extremely participative and appeared happy to share experiences with little

prompting.

3.8 Data Analysis Methods

Glaser (2001, p.145) famously noted that ‘all is data’ in the interpretive analytical

process. As such, the analysis of data generated in this study assimilated interview and focus

group data, my analytic memos and notes, organisational documentation, as well as relevant

literature and theory. A key feature of grounded theory methods is the simultaneous data


generation and analysis (Urquhart, 2013) with analysis of the data commencing from the first

generation of data, allowing it to be used to inform the next steps in data collection (Glaser,

1967). Constructivist grounded theory views the analytic direction as the commencement of

the co-constructed data and acknowledges the subjective nature of the data analysis process

(Charmaz, 2014, p. 236).

In line with Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) and Charmaz’s (2014) invitation to use

grounded theory strategies ‘flexibly’, this research applied a combination of Glaser’s open,

selective and theoretical coding and Charmaz’s (2014, p.113) two main ‘simple, direct and

spontaneous’ phases of coding: initially coding by line, then adopting a focused, selective phase

using the most significant codes to ‘sort, synthesize, integrate and organise’ the data. I did not

use a software program (such as NUDIST or NVivo) to manage the data, preferring to code

manually to maximise familiarity with, and immersion in, data. The decision not to use a

computerised software program to code was also because I anticipated that a focus on

mastering a new program would undermine my capacity to think freely in the analytical

process. In lieu of a software coding program, I placed the verbatim transcript of the interview

on the right-hand side of two columns and worked through the transcript placing coding and

comments on the left-hand side. The coding process was accompanied by the use of memo-

writing as a recording of the analysis process (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p.117) as well as a

reflective and sensemaking process (Locke, 2001, p.45); this process is further described

below.

The constant comparative method is a key tenet of Glaserian grounded theory and has

been described as the ‘heart of GTM’ (Urquhart, 2013, p.9). This method of comparing data

with data in the same category and thereby grounding the data, allows the researcher to get ‘to


the desired conceptual power, quickly, with ease and joy’ (Glaser, 1992, p.43). Rather than

look for differences or similarities in the data, the purpose of the constant comparative process

is to generate concepts (Glaser, 2007) and to develop theoretical properties of the category

(Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p.106). The reason the constant comparative method was used in this

study was twofold; firstly, to compare data with data throughout all stages of coding and

secondly, to compare and contrast the emerging findings and theories with the literature.

3.8.1 The initial coding

In the initial coding phase, the researcher seeks to ‘define what is happening in the data’

(Charmaz, 2014, p. 343) with the aim to develop provisional codes in order to develop initial

categories. Initial codes should be grounded in the data and should be analytic rather than just

describing the data (Urquhart, 2013). During this phase, the questions which guided the process

of data analysis in this study included Glaser’s ‘what is this data a study of?’ (Glaser, 1978:

p.57; Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and ‘what does the data suggest?’ and ‘from whose point of

view?’ (Charmaz, 2006, p.47).

Open coding commenced after completion of the focus group and the first two

interviews. Neither word-by-word nor line-by-line coding was used, as I initially preferred to

focus on staying ‘close to the data’ (Charmaz, 2014, p.120) by looking for actions in the data

rather than attempting to apply pre-existing categories to the data (Charmaz, 2006). To this

effect, I used gerunds as codes (Appendix G) wherever possible to provide a ‘strong sense of

action and sequence’ (Charmaz, 2014, p.120).

3.8.2 Focused coding

In focused coding, codes developed in the first phase were used to sift or sort through


large chunks of data with a goal to determine whether the initial codes make sense and reflect

the meaning in the data (Charmaz, 2006). In the focused coding phase, the existing codes

directed the analysis of the data (Birks & Mills, 2015). As Charmaz (2006, p.57) states, ’you

can begin focused coding to synthesise and explain larger segments of data’.

The analysis moved to focused coding after the first ten interviews had been conducted.

The decision to do this was twofold; firstly because, by this stage, a clear analytical direction

had been established and I wanted to conceptualise larger amounts of data more easily.

Secondly, given a direction was emerging, I was concerned not to jump to conclusions too

quickly and wanted to determine the conceptual robustness of the initial codes. Once this was

determined, the process of further data abstraction felt more comfortable. This process resulted

in not only better ‘focused’ codes but the identification of preliminary categories. During this

coding stage, I also concentrated on identifying relevant in vivo codes to further illustrate and

strengthen the emerging categories.

Focused coding at this stage began to identify a process by which managers approached

the coachable moment and codes began to form the basis of preliminary categories which

appeared to be significant stages of action. Properties of those preliminary categories were then

developed and recorded in memos, and the emerging categories were then used to sift and sort

data. This process was not linear and not even iterative: it appeared to be circular, evolving and

sometimes quite overwhelming as the properties changed. Some categories were raised in

abstraction, with other categories collapsing into them, and then, after more synthesis of the

data, other categories developed. Eventually, a preliminary number of major categories and

sub-categories were developed which began to represent an action-based approach to the

coachable moment (Appendix H).


3.8.3 Theoretical coding

Theoretical coding is used to decide ‘on analytic grounds where to sample from next’

(Urquhart, 2013). It is the stage where links are made between the emerging categories and

where data is theorized, moving beyond mere description (Charmaz, 2014). The theoretical

coding stage was challenging to me because of the need to be vigilant about not forcing the

relationships between the codes based on my prior knowledge.

The process of producing theoretical codes was conducted on large sheets of butcher’s

paper with the memos used as an aid to remind me of the original ideas conceptualised during

the data collection process. As major categories formed, so did sub-categories (or what

Charmaz terms as ‘minor categories’) and they were formed into a chronological process

representing when actions occurred. The properties of the sub-categories were explained and

described through what I term as ‘coach self-talk’ or short phrases, some in vivo from

participants, that represented what I imagined the typical coaching manager would be saying

at each stage of the process which was represented by a sub-category. For example, sub-

categories of ‘aspiring’ and ‘defining’ were explicated by ‘I want to be seen to be coaching’

and ‘but it might be better if I show and tell’ respectively. In this way, viewed in a chronological

linear process, each phrase came together to form the coaching manager’s imagined

‘conversation’ throughout the coaching process (these can be seen in Appendix A which is a

graphical depiction of the categories including the ‘self-talk’ descriptions at far right of the

diagram). This linear, action-based, chronological arrangement of categories soon highlighted

where gaps existed in the data and, more importantly, where further sampling was required to

clarify emerging theory. For example, as having a background in sport or teams emerged as a

possible significant influence on a propensity to coach, I conducted re-interviews where

possible to clarify this emergence, and refined interview questions to reflect this area of interest


in further interviews.

‘Every category must earn its way into the analysis’ (Hallberg, 2006, p.143), but it is

the core category that links together all other categories (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The core

category in this study was somewhat elusive prompting me to constantly ask ‘what is

happening in the data?’ (Glaser, 1978) and contrary to the previous detailed coding processes

required standing back and attempting to ‘get the big picture’ of what the cumulative analysis

meant. As tentative categories formed, a further analysis of transcripts occurred to identify data

that fitted the categories and indeed may have been missed in the early stages of coding prior

to the generation of a particular category. Developing categories were colour-coded and text

through all scripts were similarly colour-coded so that they were not only easily identifiable

for further analysis but resonated in my memory. This was particularly helpful as I am a

grapheme colour synesthete, so my perception of letters and numbers is enhanced by the

associating them with colour.

At this stage, as the categories were firming, the analysis turned to theoretical literature

as a frame for interpreting not only the emerging major and sub-categories but also the overall

process of how managers approached coaching. Gaining a deeper understanding of how and

why managers approached the coachable moment was considered important and, in reflecting

Charmaz (Charmaz, Thornberg, & Keane, 2017), required a move from the participant

interviews to an understanding of the social context relevant to the research. As such,

theoretical literature was used as data whereby the provisional findings from coding were tested

out against theory as data. The inclusion of this deductive approach was a key tool to enable

further abstraction and it formed a link between the initial induction and the final abduction

processes.


3.8.4 Memos

Grounded theory practice is a not clear, linear process; researchers reflect as they

generate data, and often a ‘flash of insight’ results in the researcher stopping and writing when

those ideas occur (Charmaz, 2014). The process of memo writing is the ‘pivotal intermediate

step’ (Charmaz, 2014, p.162) between data collection and writing. Memoing allows the

researcher to reflect, capture ideas, and analyse early in the process.

There were two types of memos written during the data analysis and generation process.

These were called ‘content memos’ and ‘process memos’ with the former recording my

analytical thinking about the data, and the latter recording my observations about my data

generation and analysis process (Appendix J). On reflection, neither type of memo at the

commencement of the data generation process was particularly analytical and at that stage did

not reach a record of ‘interpretations and incipient patterns’ (Lempert, 2007, p.247). However,

as data generation and analysis moved into a category generation phase, the memos became

more analytical and began to reflect the newly acquired skills of abstraction. Memos were

frequently referred to especially in the latter stages of data analysis when through the

theoretical sampling process, some of the original thoughts and emerging theories had been

generated over a duration of almost two years ago and risked being lost in the new directions

explored.

3.8.5 Theoretical sensitivity

Theoretical sensitivity refers to the researcher’s ability to identify meanings in data, to

make connections between data, codes, and categories (Charmaz, 2014) and to describe and

construct theory (Gibson & Hartman, 2014). Glaser (1978) suggests that this sensitivity can

be derived by approaching the research with as ‘few pre-determined ideas as possible’ (p.2)


and Charmaz (2014) suggests that a researcher acquires theoretical sensitivity by theorising:

by ‘stopping, pondering, and thinking afresh’ (p.244). Theoretical sensitivity is a ‘personal

quality’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 41), and demonstrates the researcher’s level of personal

insight, their understanding of the unique subject area they are exploring, and the background,

experiences, and insights they bring to the research (Birks & Mills, 2011). A researcher with

theoretical sensitivity is sensitive to other theories and is ‘steeped in the literature’ (Glaser,

1978) and possesses ‘analytic temperament and competence’ (Holton, 2007).

Theoretical sensitivity is vital to analytic precision when coding data (Charmaz, 2014;

Glaser, 1978) because it allows the researcher to ‘understand and define phenomena in abstract

terms and demonstrate abstract relationships between studied phenomena’ (Charmaz, 2014,

p.161). However, theoretical sensitivity is a ‘problematic concept’ (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007,

p. 17) with critics questioning how a researcher can demonstrate theoretical sensitivity without

having familiarity with the relevant literature. Glaser (1978) addresses this concern by

advocating that the researcher read the literature ‘but in a substantive field different from the

research’ (p. 31, italics in original).

In order to demonstrate theoretical sensitivity during the process of this study, as well

as reading widely on the ‘three schools’ of grounded theory: Glaser and Strauss (1967), Strauss

and Corbin (1990) and the constructivist perspective of Charmaz (2006), I also read widely on

various topics of literature which were suggested by the codes and categories as they emerged.

In addition, I practiced reflexivity in being overtly conscious of the interests, background, and

assumptions that I brought to this research including in the memoing process (Charmaz, 2014;

Glaser, 1978).


3.9 Ethical Considerations

I had a long-term relationship with RS1 both as a past executive working within the

organisation, and subsequent to that, as an external consultant providing a range of

management consultancy services. Accordingly, four of the interviewees were known on a

professional basis to me through this connection. Rather than inhibit or bias me, this previous

acquaintance with the four interviewees, enabled better rapport (Marshall & Rossman, 2011)

and allowed an ‘interconnectedness between the researcher and the participants’ and ‘more

accurate interpretations’ (p. 101).

I had had no relationship with RS2 although it should be noted that the introduction to

this organisation for the research study was effected through RS1. Similar to RS1, I had a past

commercial relationship with RS3, as an external consultant providing a range of management

consultancy services. However, this relationship has been with the broader organisation, and

neither of the two participants from this organisation were known to me.

Ethics approval was gained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of QUT prior

to any contact with research participants. Ethics application was initially gained for RS1, then

a further application was made to cover RS2, and a final application to cover the recruitment

and interviews at RS3. To ensure confidentiality, managers interested in participating in the

research project were asked to make contact with me directly to ask any questions and/or to

indicate a willingness to participate in the research. This ensured that the organisation was not

aware of who participated in the research thus safeguarding identities. Information sheets and

consent forms were directly provided to participants; as well as explaining the project and

process, these documents confirmed that participation was voluntary and confidential. None of

the interview participants requested that any information they provided be deleted from the


study. Interviews were held at an office chosen and booked by the participant.

QUT Ethics approved this research including the interview questions. Interviews were

transcribed by a professional, external transcription service who signed a confidentiality

agreement. Access to the audio-recordings of the interviews was confined to myself and the

transcriber. Typed transcripts were de-identified and interviewees were assigned an individual

code (such as P1, P2, or P3 and so on); only I had access to the master list of these codes with

the assigned interviewee names. The de-identified, coded transcripts were only made available

to my three supervisors, who had access only through a password protected electronic site.

Participant in vivo quotes in the thesis document were further de-identified by removing any

references that might identify the section in which the participants worked, or the type of work

they engage in. The master list of codes and electronic audio-recordings will be destroyed when

this research is finalised.

3.10 Evaluating Constructivist Research

While reliability and validity (Cresswell, 2014) and objectivity and generalisability

(Marshall and Rossman, 2011) are traditionally used to evaluate quantitative research,

trustworthiness, authenticity and credibility (Cresswell & Miller, 2000), as well as auditability

and fittingness (Beck, 1993) have all been suggested for qualitative research. However, in

research using grounded theory methods, because participant data determine a range of method

issues, and there is more than one version of how grounded theory methods can be implemented

(Chiovitti & Piran, 2003), how data is generated and analysed is likely to be the determinant

of whether the study is deemed to be quality (Birks & Mills, 2011). Accordingly, it is

incumbent on researchers to explain their process of inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Although

there are numerous suggestions in the literature for evaluation criteria around grounded theory


methods such as ‘researcher expertise, methodological congruence and procedural precision’

(Birks & Mills, 2015, p.33), Glaser and Strauss (1967), Strauss and Corbin (1990) and Charmaz

(2006; 2014) all propose rigorous criteria for evaluating such studies. In ‘Discovery’, Glaser

and Strauss (1967) first suggested that fit, work, relevance, and modifiability as the criteria

used to evaluate a grounded theory study, although Corbin and Strauss (2008) later endorsed

Charmaz’s (2006) four criteria of credibility, originality, resonance, and usefulness as being

the most comprehensive. Charmaz’s (2006) criteria were aligned with the constructivist

approach, were easy to understand and apply and hence the quality of this study was evaluated

against those criteria as follows:

3.10.1 Credibility

To meet this criterion, Charmaz asks the researcher to ‘consider the design of the study

as a whole’ (2006, p.18) and achieve ‘intimate familiarity with the setting or topic’ (2014,

p.337). These considerations, along with ensuring that systematic comparisons, and strong

links between data and the argument have been made, are the essence of credibility. To meet

this criterion, I used multiple data sources (focus group and one-to-one interviews, corporate

documentation, field notes and reflective memos), a diverse range of participants from three

different research sites, utilized audio-tapes and an external transcriber to ensure the accuracy

of participant data, and used in vivo quotes to evidence the coding and category development

process. A further element of credibility in this study is that while initially an inductive form

of inquiry was used, deductive methods were then drawn on to test assumptions and allow for

a more creative or abductive leap to present the final theoretical propositions (Bergdahl &

Bertero, 2015).


3.10.2 Originality

In explaining originality, Charmaz suggests that indicators of meeting this criterion

include ‘social and theoretical significance of the work’, or ‘a new conceptual rendering of the

data’ (2014, p. 337). The review of extant literature in Chapter Two has demonstrated that not

only is coaching a significantly under-researched area, but managerial coaching specifically

lacks a research in the focus of this study, that is, how managers informally coach, and what

may inhibit them in doing so. In addition, the key phenomenon under investigation – the

coachable moment – is a relatively new term with only one peer-reviewed publication having

explored it at the time of this study. A search of Google in 2014 (when this research

commenced) for the term ‘coachable moment’ resulted in four entries only for coachable

moments, none of them referring to academic journal articles. Accordingly, this research can

be said to be exploring largely an unchartered phenomenon and offering a new and original

interpretation of the informal coaching process.

3.10.3 Resonance

Resonance equates to ‘fit’ (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) which refers to the extent to which

the categories depict the ‘fulness of the studied experience’ (Charmaz, 2006, p. 182) and the

findings of the study make sense to the participants. In many qualitative studies, the latter is

evidenced by ‘member-checking’ which traditionally entails sharing data and interpretations

with participants (Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 40). However, Charmaz (2006) suggests in

lieu of this, the researcher use any return visits to elaborate on the categories developed. In this

study, resonance was largely achieved by return visits to five of the participants in RS1 as well

as the two interviews in RS3. In these seven interviews, preliminary categories were presented

to the interviewees, and they were asked to comment on the extent to which they resonated or

matched their experiences. Some of the material presented did not match all participant’s


experiences of the coachable moment phenomena or even their general informal coaching

experiences, but there was sufficient recognition for me to verify that initial categories captured

the diversity of experience.

3.10.4 Usefulness

Usefulness refers to the extent to which the analysis offers a practical purpose. This

study has resulted in findings which offer organisations attempting to introduce a coaching

leadership style, an insight into how managers experience informally coaching their

subordinates, and what affects their decision to informally coach when an opportunity arises.

Further detail on this criterion is outlined Chapter Nine in considering the practical contribution

of this research for practice.

3.11 An overview of the categories constructed from the data

Five categories were co-constructed from the research analysis: four major categories

and one core category. Collectively, the four major categories (constructing, contemplating,

enacting, and sensemaking) represent the process through which managers approach the

coachable moment and how and why they make the decision to engage in that moment. The

core category (engaging through coaching) brings the four major categories together to explain

how managers come to understand the coaching process, and how they construct their own

understanding of what coaching is, and how it can best be utilised by them.

It should be noted that although each category is explained in a separate chapter, by

nature, some categories overlap other categories. For example, while the process of

contemplating is most apparent and significant pre-coaching, it is also a process that continues

throughout the coaching process itself: managers continue throughout to assess and evaluate


risk and opportunity. The core and major categories are depicted graphically below. They are

further depicted in more detail at Appendix A.

Figure Five: The categories generated from this study.

The properties of the major categories are depicted in Figure Six below:

Category Properties

Category 1

Constructing

This category depicts the phenomenon of the coachable moment and how

managers understand it. It explains why and how managers construct most

informal conversations they have with their staff as ‘coaching

conversations’.

Category 2

Contemplating

This category explicates the process by which managers consider whether

to coach or not when a coachable moment presents. Managers consider the

situational factors in the moment, the perceived coachability of the

coachee, their relationship with the coachee, and their own confidence.

Category 3

Enacting

This category depicts the process used by managers to conduct an informal

and unexpected coaching conversation. It explains how managers

positioning the conversation and use standardised techniques to having

greater predictability of outcome and therefore greater safety for them.

Category 4

Sensemaking

This category explains how managers initially learn about coaching in a

range of ways and how they de-brief and reflect to make sense of their

coaching experiences.

Figure Six: The Properties of the Major Categories of ‘engaging through coaching’

Engaging through coaching

Constructing

Contemplating

Enacting

Sensemaking


3.12 Summary

This chapter commenced with a justification for the use of a constructivist approach

and grounded theory methods based on methodological recommendations from the coaching

literature, the underlying assumptions of the research methods as they relate to the type of

questions to be explored, and my epistemological perspective. The methodological

underpinnings of grounded theory were also presented with an explanation of the three schools

of grounded theory and how constructivism differs from the classic and Straussian grounded

theory approaches. Turning to the practical application of methods, this chapter summarised

the selection of research sites, the recruitment of participants, data generation and analysis, and

other issues relevant to grounded theory methods such as the constant comparison method,

theoretical sensitivity, and memoing. The chapter then explained the criteria used for

determining the quality of the study, and how these were applied. The chapter then concluded

with an overview of the categories that were constructed from the analysis in this study.

The purpose of this chapter was to argue and justify the theoretical premises of the

interpretive, constructivist frame that shaped the abductive analysis, followed by a detailed

explication of the grounded theory methods that serve as the tools in the research process. The

initial abductive phase in the research was informed by the interpretive constructivism of

Charmaz. This phase was characterised by an openness that gave rise to questions around the

wide and broad use by managers of the term coaching to describe and explain conversational

interactions with staff. This prompted theorising around the motives driving this

characterisation of conversations, and theoretical sampling was used through the analysis

process to develop initial categories and build theories. Through a process of constant

comparison, the data from incoming interviews was compared with the initial categories, and

concepts and categories from initial data were re-analysed to develop new, more relevant and


illuminating categories. Literature in relation to organisational citizenship, impression

management, and feedback giving was also used as data and as part of the process of abductive

reasoning. This additional source of data allowed for inferences to be drawn and the ‘mental

leap’ required to form plausible explanations about the behaviour of managers when confronted

with a coachable moment.

Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 present the findings in the form of the four major categories of

constructing, contemplating, enacting, and sensemaking, with Chapter 9 presenting the core

category of engaging through coaching. The following chapter presents the theoretical

framework used as the lens through which the developing categories were viewed.


Chapter 4

THEORETICAL DATA

“The issue is not whether to use existing knowledge, but how.”

(Dey, 1993, p. 63).

___________________________________________

4.1 Introduction

As explained in Chapter One of this thesis, I entered this study with previous knowledge

and experience in the area of coaching and managerial coaching and therefore could not claim

that I entered tabula rasa as encouraged by the seminal grounded theory researchers (Glaser,

1978; Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Accordingly and although I recognise that it has been

subsequently and broadly accepted (Charmaz, 2014; Suddaby, 2006) that all researchers bring

perspectives to research, as a novice researcher, I have minimised the influence that my

preconceptions may have on this research. I therefore contextualised the subject matter of

coaching and managerial coaching through the literature at the outset of this study and

presented it in Chapter Two but delayed any further reference to the literature until a theoretical

thread was identified through the process of data generation and analysis. This meant that the

categories that were constructed from data were not shaped by literature but rather, as Charmaz

(2006) suggests, the theoretical thread emerged during the analysis. This has been a useful

approach for this research because as preliminary categories expanded, collapsed and changed,

literature relevant to the evolving theorizing also changed. By waiting until categories firmed,

I was able to locate my analysis in the relevant literature and to identify a theoretical frame

through which to interrogate the data more effectively and to enable creative theorizing. This

chapter presents the theoretical framework used as the lens through which the developing

categories were viewed.


The choice to not present this literature and theoretical framework in the Contextual

Review but to include it separately prior to a discussion of the categories constructed in the

research was considered at length. Rather than re-write the Contextual Review to fit the

research, it was deemed appropriate to explore the literature as data and as it informed and was

informed by the analytical process. The relevant literature was both theoretical and empirical.

The use of the theoretical literature reflected the abductive and deductive phases of the analysis

whereby theory, research and interview data were assimilated. The purpose of this chapter is

to provide an overview of that literature and theoretical framework as well as a preview of the

core and major categories that emerged in the next section of this chapter. The categories will

be presented and discussed in depth in the context of the detail of the literature in the subsequent

chapters of this thesis.

4.2 Overview

This research is focused on the coachable moment and how managers experience that

moment. The stated aim of the research was to understand how managers make decisions about

taking opportunities to informally coach when the opportunity presents. This research can be

said to have a dual focus, that of examining the nature of ‘the moment’ and examining the

motivations of coaching managers in that moment. The categories constructed from this study

represent the process through which managers construct and approach the coachable moment

and importantly what motivates them to engage in that moment. Three key relevant theories

provided significant analytic power with which to view and compare data and to guide the

theoretical sampling process. The theories are Organisational Citizenship Behaviour,

Impression Management, and Feedback Giving Avoidance and they provide insight into the

motivations of the coaching manager in the coachable moment. An overview of those theories

is presented below and they are also integrated into the findings presented in subsequent


chapters.

Figure Seven: The Theoretical Framework Relating to the Coachable Moment

4.3 Organisational Citizenship Behaviour

Organisational citizenship behaviour has been defined as ‘efforts by employees to take

initiative to contribute in ways that are not formally required by the organisation’ (Grant &

Mayer, 2009, p.900). OCBs are discretionary, helping behaviours (Organ, 1988), and as such

are extra-role behaviours – they rarely occur as a result of the expectation of reward or

recognition (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). There are many different forms

of OCB and they can include helping others to problem solve and improve performance,

peacemaking and cheerleading, being organizationally loyal (Podsakoff, et al, 2000), as well

as expressing personal interest in the work of other employees (Ellinger, Elmadag & Ellinger,

2007). OCBs can be considered as two distinct categories: affiliative citizenship behaviours

which support existing organisational processes, and challenging citizenship behaviours which

seek to also support the organisational but do so through challenging and questioning the status

the coachable moment

Feedback Giving

Avoidance Theory

Impression Management

Theory

Organisational Citizenship Behaviour


quo (Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995). OCB is important for organisational

effectiveness (Lemmon & Wayne, 2015), as OCBs can result in higher quality organisational

performance, and individuals who demonstrate OCBs can be evaluated more highly and receive

more promotions (Grant & Mayer, 2009). But there is also a ‘dark side’ to OCBs (Koopman,

Lanaj, & Scott, 2016, p.414): OCB can consume resources (Gailliot, 2010) and accordingly

can increase emotional exhaustion and interfere with perceptions of progress against goal

achievement (Koopman, et al, 2016).

Employees practicing OCBs have been described as ‘good soldiers’ (Bateman & Organ,

1983, p.587), although the motives for being good soldiers is not always agreed upon in the

literature. Batson (1991) suggests that such prosocial behaviour can be caused by altruistic and

egoistic motives, with the former being stimulated by empathy and a need to help another and

the latter being based on self-serving behaviour driven by a sense of guilt when seeing another

person in need or a need to be either rewarded or not in debt to another. Prosocial organisational

behaviour is a related construct to OCB and it has often been assumed that OCBs occur as a

result of prosocial motives, that is, that employees that exhibit OCBs do so because they seek

to positively assist the organisation and their colleagues (Grant & Mayer, 2009). However,

Bolino (1999) has suggested that OCB is not motivated by prosocial behaviour alone, and that

people may demonstrate OCBs because they want to create a good impression. Further studies

have evolved this contention arguing that other-serving and self-serving motivations should be

understood as being at other ends of a continuum depicting some employees engaging in

citizenship behaviours to help others and the organisation, and other employees being

motivated by self-serving interests such as the desire to manage impressions that others have

of them (Rioux and Penner, (2001). Other scholars have suggested that impression

management and prosocial motivations are not mutually exclusive and indeed may coexist


(Grant & Mayer, 2009). While it has been suggested that there is a relationship between

impression management and OCB they are two very different constructs (Guadagno &

Cialdini, 2007): although both are voluntary behaviours, OCBs occur with an intention to

benefit the organisation whereas impression management behaviours are aimed at benefiting

the individual. Employees with prosocial motives are likely to demonstrate higher OCBs when

they also hold impression management motives (Grant & Mayer, 2009).

The informal behaviours that constitute managerial coaching are helping behaviours or

a form of organisational support (Ellinger, Elmadag, and Ellinger, 2007; Kim, 2010), are often

perceived by subordinates as ‘goodwill’ (Kim & Kuo, 2015), and are rarely recognised and

rewarded by organisations (Ellinger & Bostrum, 2014). As such informal managerial coaching

can be considered to be an extra-role behaviour: it is exercised on a discretionary basis

(Anderson, 2013, p.253), it is a helping activity, and accordingly, it can be viewed as an

example of an affiliative, organisational citizenship behaviour. However, while informal

managerial coaching is an OCB, the motivations for this citizenship behaviour are not always

solely altruistic but in fact are contingency related: they may occur because of a desire to assist

others to improve performance but they also may occur from a desire to manage impressions.

4.4 Impression Management Motivation

People want to be viewed favourably by others particularly in organisational settings

(Bolino, Long & Turnley, 2016) and accordingly, they employ a range of tactics to create and

manage favorable impressions (Bolino, 2008). Jones and Pittman (1982) identified these tactics

as including an attempt to ingratiate oneself into favour with management, self-promotion,

intimidation, and exemplification. These tactics can be conscious or unconsciously applied,

and authentic or deceptive (Bolino, Long & Turnley, 2016) but the motivation for their


employment is driven by a desire to close the gap between the impression the individual wants

to create and the current impression (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). The individual may wish to be

liked by colleagues or superiors, may wish to appear to be highly skilled, or may wish to appear

to be organisationally loyal and compliant. The motivation or goal for the behaviour will

change according to the audience and the context (Guadagno & Cialdini, 2007). The targets to

impress are typically those to whom an individual reports as well as co-workers (Bolino, Long

& Turnley, 2016).

The conceptualisation of impression management theory is credited to Goffman (1963)

who posited that when interacting with others, individuals manage their interactions such as

their verbal language and body language, to create an impression that is favourable to others.

Using the analogy of actors in a theatre, Goffman likened these interactions to performances

and suggested that these took place in the front region of the theatre or the back region of the

theatre illustrating that different behaviours are presented in different scenarios. Goffman

argues that front region performances are somewhat formal in nature and back region

performances are relaxed and informal, and that there are three stimuli that shape the

impression management behaviour of the actor. These stimuli, that include the environmental

setting, the organisational culture, and the type of work being performed, are moderated by

personality traits such as the need for social approval, levels of anxiety, and even

‘Machiavellianism’ (Gardner & Martinko, 1988, p.322).

While it has been suggested that there is a relationship between impression management

and OCB they are two very different constructs (Guadagno & Cialdini, 2007). Although both

are voluntary behaviours, OCBs occur with an intention to benefit the organisation whereas

impression management behaviours are aimed at benefiting the individual.


4.5 Feedback Giving Behaviour

In response to expectations that the coaching of subordinates is a key leadership

behaviour (Goleman, 2000), the role of the managerial coach has evolved from being

remedially focused on deficits in a subordinate’s performance through to enabling a

subordinate to ‘learn and develop’ (Ellinger at al., 2010, p. 438). One of the key ways in which

employees informally learn in the workplace is through feedback (Tannenbaum, Beard,

McNall, & Salas, 2010) and giving feedback has become a key behaviour of many seminal

definitions of managerial coaching (Dahling, Taylor, Chau, & Dwight, 2016; Heslin, et al,

2006; Gregory & Levy, 2010; Redshaw, 2000). Consequently, the linking of feedback and

coaching is becoming an emerging area of interest in coaching research (Gregory & Levy,

2012). The provision of feedback is a ‘critical element of coaching’ (Gregory & Levy, 2012,

p.86) and Dahling et al. (2016) suggest that delivering feedback is one of the three key elements

of managerial coaching (with the other two being role modelling and goal setting). However,

studies show that managers find giving negative feedback difficult (Harms & Roebuck, 2010;

Moss & Sanchez, 2004; Wheeler, 2011), and even ‘unpleasant’ (Larson, 1986, p.392) and that

one of the most difficult things about managerial coaching is giving feedback as part of the

coaching process (Misiukonis, 2011).

Feedback has been defined as ‘actions taken by an external agent to provide information

regarding some aspect of one’s task performance’ (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996, p.255). Yet, it is

often equated with the giving of negative information and individuals are reluctant to

communicate negative information to others (Benedict & Levine, 1988; Bond & Anderson,

1987). Accordingly, people are more reluctant to provide face-to-face feedback than feedback

that is delivered in another form, such as anonymously or in writing (Jeffries & Hornsy, 2012).

Rosen and Tesser (1972) suggest that there may be two reasons why people might wish to


withhold giving negative feedback: to protect themselves from the social consequences of

being the bearer of bad news, and to protect the recipient of the feedback from hurt feelings.

In a workplace context, managers also do not like giving negative feedback (Brown, et

al, 2016). They find it one of the most stressful and difficult tasks they undertake (Geddes &

Baron, 1995). However, to understand why managers do not like to give feedback, it is

important first to consider that feedback giving occurs in a dyadic interaction and

understanding the reaction of employees to feedback provides some initial clarity on managers’

behaviours and motivations in providing feedback. Workplace feedback is ‘the process of

evaluating and discussing the performance of both employees and managers’ (Harms &

Roebuck, 2010, p.413). Feedback is a key communication process to employees about their

performance, it can be used to motivate, reward or strengthen employee behaviour, and can

direct goal achievement. Employees seek feedback to improve their performance, to call

attention to their successes, when they want to have their self-perceptions validated, and when

there is little risk to doing so (Moss, Sanchez, Brumbaugh, & Borkowski, 2009). However,

they actively seek to avoid receiving negative feedback from their manager for reasons

including threats to their self-esteem, a desire to preserve ego and maintain the appearance of

consistency, and fear of a negative evaluation (Moss, Sanchez, & Heisler, 2004). Although

negative feedback has been shown to be more beneficial than positive feedback (Vich & Kim,

2016) it can be challenging in terms of the defensiveness and hostility of recipients (Gibb,

1973). Employees can react to negative feedback in anger, through spreading rumours, and

even in physical attacks (Baron, 1988; Geddes & Baron, 1997; Tata, 2002).

There are many factors which affect the manager’s decision to give feedback or avoid

giving feedback. These include how a manager assesses a subordinate’s performance (Fisher,


1979), whether the manager perceives the subordinate to be likeable (Larson, 1984), and the

type of response that the feedback may trigger (Baron, 1990; Tata, 2002). Firstly, managers

believe that low performing employees will receive feedback less pleasantly than high

performing subordinates, and indeed will like their managers less for providing the negative

feedback (Fisher, 1979). Hence there is an obvious reluctance by managers to deal with poor

performers (Hutchinson & Purcell, 2003). Secondly, a manager is less likely to provide

feedback to an employee whom they like and trust on the basis that the manager does not think

that it is required (Larson, 1984). Adams (2005) found that because of the good existing

relationship with liked employees, managers assume that those employees will ask for feedback

when it is required and they can be reluctant to provide specific feedback for fear of damaging

the existing good relationship. Lastly, managers also fear negative reactions to feedback such

as perceptions of unfairness, anger, and aggression (Baron, 1990; Tata, 2002). Accordingly,

managers assess the risk of the consequences of giving feedback and weigh that up against the

effectiveness of the feedback to the recipient (Lizzio, Wilson, & MacKay, 2008). If managers

anticipate that there may be negative or unpleasant consequences to providing negative

feedback, then they are more likely to look to avoid giving that feedback (Baron, 1993; London,

1997).

Feedback giving avoidance theory suggests that a range of tactics are used by managers

in relation to communicating negative feedback (Brown, et al, 2016). In selecting a tactic to

deliver negative feedback, managers might act on their beliefs about what is the best practice

way to deliver feedback, consistent with implicit theory, or they may choose to fit the tactic to

the characteristics of the employee, consistent with contingency theory (Brown, et al, 2016).

These tactics can include using a ‘sandwich’ approach to providing feedback, attempting to

lessen the impact of the negative providing positive feedback at the beginning and end (Lizzio,


et al. 2008), using ‘bundle tactics’ where managers include a range of information or topics in

the feedback conversation so as to effectively dilute the impact of the feedback (Dorfman,

Stephan, & Loveland, 1986) and to avoid providing direct and identifiable feedback (Brown,

et al, 2016). Managers may also modify the feedback to make it less negative (Jeffries &

Hornsey, 2012) and ‘often delay, dilute, or avoid its delivery, or do so with anxiety or

annoyance’ (Lizzio, et al., 2008, p.919). Brown, et al (2016) identified five different tactics

used by managers to provide negative feedback in a performance appraisal process suggesting

that they chose from those tactics based on a ‘best fit’ or contingency approach. They refer to

one of these tactics as the ‘communication tactic’ (p.974) and suggest that this tactic involves

encouraging the employee to discuss their perceptions of their performance as well as possible

causes through conversation and ‘probing questions’. This tactic is curiously similar to the

traditional coaching conversation taught to managers in coach training and it would be

reasonable to assume that if recognised as such by a coachee, would increase their angst and

cynicism about the coaching conversation and its underlying purpose. Schonbach (1980;1990)

suggests that there are four main ways that a manager positions negative feedback: by

conceding (or apologising for giving the feedback), making excuses (for example, blaming the

need to give feedback on pressure from their superior to do so), justifying (suggesting how the

feedback will benefit the recipient employee), or refusal (not providing a reason for the

feedback being provided). All of these tactics or measures are variously used by coaching

managers to initiate coaching conversations and to position feedback.

Research has identified a range of strategies for how feedback can be given in a more

effective manner including being considerate in tone, timely in delivery, specific in identifying

the performance gap, and conducive to response by the recipient (Lizzio et al., 2008). Engaging

in empathy and active listening are effective strategies for communicating feedback (Moss &


Sanchez, 2004). The more interactive the feedback giving process, such as in a coaching

conversation, the more likely it is that the manager will perceive it to be challenging (Gervasio

& Crawford, 1989). Yet research demonstrates that the more interactive the feedback process

is, the more effective it is, and the less risky it is to the manager (Lizzio et, al., 2008). Therefore,

a coaching approach to giving negative feedback is likely to be considered by the coaching

manager to be a safer option because coaching is by nature, through questioning and listening,

a process of interaction that allows the recipient of the feedback to have a ‘voice’.

4.6 Summary

As noted in Chapter Two, although coaching behaviours are often considered to be

indicative of leadership ability, studies have found that managers often fail to demonstrate

informal coaching behaviours. Accordingly, the motivations of managers who choose to

engage, or indeed not engage, in informal coaching are of considerable interest. In the context

of organisational citizenship behaviour theory, informal managerial coaching can be

considered a discretionary, helping activity which managers may or not engage in when the

coachable moment presents. Managers may coach because they are seeking to be good

organisational citizens, or they may represent themselves as coaching in order to enhance their

image and reputation, or may do both in an effort to ‘do good’ and to ‘look good’ (Mayer &

Grant, 2009, p. 900). However, the informal coaching process involves giving feedback to

either contextualise the gap in performance or to improve or change behaviour, and it is evident

from the literature that managers find feedback giving a risky activity especially if the feedback

is perceived to be negative.

In considering how managers approach the coachable moment and why managers coach

or not coach, the developing categories in this research were viewed through the lens of the


competing motivations posed by organisational citizenship behaviour, impression

management, and feedback giving avoidance theories. Using these theories as the theoretical

framework, the categories of constructing the coachable moment, contemplating coaching,

enacting coaching, and sensemaking have emerged from the data. These categories are

presented in Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 of this thesis, with Chapter 9 bringing together the

categories and findings to present the core category: engaging through coaching. The next

chapter explores the methodological premises of the research and provides a detailed overview

of the research methods.


Chapter 5

CONSTRUCTING THE

COACHABLE MOMENT

‘Coaching is an invented word; right? It is totally invented’ (laughs)

Participant 27

_____________________________________________

5.1 Introduction

This study was designed to explore the experiences of managers informally coaching

their subordinate staff and to address the question of how and why managers informally coach

when the coachable moment presents. The findings and discussion in this chapter and the

following four chapters address these areas as well as the following three guiding questions

(outlined in Chapter 1):

• How do managers recognise a ‘coachable moment’?

• What do managers perceive are the barriers and facilitators to operationalising

coachable moments?

• How do managers operationalise the coachable moment?

However, rather than addressing the research questions at this point, as research using

constructivist grounded theory methods is often ‘messy and nonlinear’ (Suddaby, 2006), this

chapter first gives context to the core and major categories by providing an understanding of

the phenomenon of the coachable moment as it has been constructed from data. This chapter,

and the following three Chapters (6, 7, 8), address the four major categories iteratively and

progressively reveal the process whereby managers negotiate the dilemmas associated with a


coachable moment. These findings chapters examine the dimensions of the research focus and

each addresses one of the four major categories of constructing the coachable moment,

contemplating coaching, enacting coaching, and sense making. Chapter Nine then introduces

the overall core category of engaging through coaching which ‘pulls other categories together

to form an explanatory whole’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p.146). The research questions are

addressed throughout the findings chapters and specifically and directly in Chapter Ten. The

overall categories are illustrated below:

Figure Eight: The Core Category of Engaging through Coaching

5.2 How Managers Conceptualise the Coachable Moment

While the process of engaging through coaching is the overarching outcome from this

research, it holds little meaning without an understanding of the nature of the coachable

moment itself. As was noted in the contextual review, the concept of the coachable moment,

while explored minimally in popular coaching literature, has been subject to little or no

empirical research. Understanding the coachable moment as a theoretical concept is critical to

an understanding of the core category: how managers choose to engage the coachable moment

to coach their subordinates is driven by how they conceptualise the coachable moment. The


Constructing

Contemplating

Enacting

Sensemaking


first major category constructing the coachable moment provides insight into how and why

managers define and conceptualise the process of coaching and the coachable moment.

The term ‘coachable moment’ was relatively new to study participants and yet the

elements or characteristics of the term resonated soundly with participants who perceived the

concept as a way to raise the consciousness of managers about coaching in the moment:

I like the term "coachable moment". I think it's good. I think if people could learn more

about how to identify that actual coachable moment, or, "What are some actual

triggers?"… (P1)

The coachable moment was also described as a ‘light bulb’ moment to facilitate

managers to think about entering into a coaching dialogue with a subordinate. The concept of

a ‘light bulb’ moment was synonymous with an opportunity that was often unplanned or

unexpected. This notion is evident throughout the limited coaching literature addressing

coachable moments which variously describes coachable moments as opportunistic (Bennett,

2003), spontaneous and ad-hoc (Johnson, 2011), and impromptu (Grant, 2010).

…. like, that little light bulb moment, where you think, "This is a good opportunity to

coach someone (P5)

Consistent with the spontaneous nature of the coachable moment, the stimuli for such

a moment is largely unexpected but may be initiated by a manager observing a behaviour or

incident or may originate from an employee approaching a manager to seek advice or direction,

to discuss an incident that arose, or to elicit feedback. But a coachable moment appears to rarely


have its roots in a scenario where there is no need to provide commentary on a gap in an

employee’s performance or behaviour. Even a coachable moment arising from an observed

pleasing incident by its very nature will identify a personal development gap or performance

improvement opportunity which needs to be addressed. This is the nature and purpose of all

variants of coaching (Hamlin, et al, 2008; Heslin, et al, 2006). Despite the calls by coaching

scholars that coaching in the business setting should not be remedially focussed or seen as

corrective (Ladyshewsky, 2010; Grant, 2016), a focus on the gap and the giving of feedback

as part of the coaching process, situates a coachable moment as the gateway or the trigger for

a deficit management model or a remedial process. Viewing the coachable moment in that light

allows for an understanding that the coachable moment, far from being a positive opportunity

for both manager and employee, can be viewed by both as an informal and somewhat disguised

part of the performance management process. This conceptualisation is examined throughout

this study and contextualises much of the data presented. Yet not all participants in this study

recognised or valued the use of the specialised term ‘coachable moment’:

….just the extent to which you need to identify it and the need to label it, or will that

ruin it, if you say, "Oh, here's a coachable moment. Here we go" (laughs). (P19)

Nevertheless, although the moment for coaching may not be recognised by all through

the term ‘coachable moment’, for coaching conversations to occur, there is a need for certain

facilitating conditions. The coachable moment as a concept or phenomenon is an important

catalyst to facilitate the informal coaching conversation and therefore is key to the social

process of engaging in informal managerial coaching behaviour.


5.3 The Construct of the Coachable Moment

Through the exploration of how managers come to engage in the coachable moment

and what process of coaching results, the analytical outcomes developed in this research

enabled an understanding of the phenomenon of the coachable moment and further, the

development of a construct of that moment. From the analysis of the co-constructed data the

coachable moment is perceived as both an entity, that is having a distinct and independent

existence, as well as part of the overall coaching process if it is capitalised on by the coaching

manager. The coachable moment is an opportunity, an intersection, or even a gateway for a

manager to engage in a conversation with a subordinate about performance improvement. It is

also an opportunity for a manager to cultivate and manage a favourable impression as a

practicing coach as well as demonstrate behaviours associated with being a good organisational

citizen.

The construct of the coachable moment was constructed as five conceptual elements:

being spontaneous and informal, being deficit related, being initiated by the manager or the

employee, being fostered by varying situational factors, and having varied, discretionary

interventions. The five concepts of the construct are depicted graphically in Figure Nine and

explained further below:


Figure Nine: The construct of the coachable moment

5.3.1 Arising spontaneously and informally

The coachable moment is spontaneous and ad-hoc (Johnson, 2011) and opportunistic

by nature (Bennett, 2003). It is not a planned event where, for example, a manager may observe

performance over time and decide to diarise a meeting for discussion of performance. It is, by

its very nature and terminology, an opportunity that arises with little notice or planning and is

usually completely unexpected. The word ‘moment’ in the phrase implies that the opportunity

arises in a short period of time, even in a split second.

Oh, it is just the moment where you think, "Okay, I can do coaching," like, that little

light bulb moment, where you think, "This is a good opportunity to coach someone".

(P5)

Unlike the concept of a teachable moment to which it has been compared (Turner &

McCarthy, 2015), it does not sit on a continuum of predictability or of being calculated on one

coachable moment

spontaneous and informal

deficit related

initiated by manager or employee

varied, discretional

interventions

varied situational

factors


end and unforeseen on another. For a coachable moment to be planned and foreseeable, it

would represent formal managerial coaching which is usually associated with ‘sit-down

sessions’ (Anderson, 2013, p. 253; Grant, 2010) rather than informal ‘on-the-run’ coaching

conversations (Grant, 2010, p.3). The coachable moment is often described by the coaching

manager using the analogy of a ‘light bulb’ depicting that the realisation of a coachable moment

being present switches on quickly. Interestingly, the learning that an operationalised coachable

moment may trigger in the coachee, is also often described by the manager as a ‘light bulb’.

And because of its unplanned nature, the coachable moment may occur in any place and not

necessarily in the office environment or the other work environment in which the principal

work is engaged. It may occur as ‘a chance meeting in the hallway, a telephone session or a

coaching interaction that comes about unexpectedly during a casual lunch!” (Macmillan, 2011,

p.5). The coachable moment is considered the pivotal entry point to the coaching conversation

and is the trigger for a conversation about the incident or issue that has just occurred. It

therefore relies on the manager recognising that an opportunity for coaching is occurring and

being ready for a coaching conversation.

5.3.2 Being conceptualised as deficit related

Coaching is often referenced in the context of improving performance and in Hamlin,

Ellinger and Beattie’s (2008) collation of 37 definitions of coaching, all made reference to the

aim of performance improvement. Managerial coaching, whether facilitative or directive by

delivery, is often further depicted by scholars as a ‘means of managing performance’

(Lawrence, 2017, p. 51) where the ‘focus tends to be mainly on improving the skills,

competence, and performance’ (Beattie et al, 2014, p.186). Accordingly, the coachable

moment, which is the opportunity to informally coach, is by nature related to a need to improve

a deficit or gap in performance. This gap may arise through an incident where skills or


behaviour are not sufficient for the task, through a noticed or admitted developmental need,

discussions around career aspirations, or through de-briefing. The coachable moment is the

trigger for the conversation between manager and coachee about causes, feelings, and what

needs to be put in place to fill the gap between the current situation and the desired situation.

This ‘gap’ in performance is further emphasised by the focus of the coaching manager on

facilitating learning and providing feedback as described further in this chapter. It is this focus

on a performance gap which naturally gives rise to the perception of coaching managers and

employees, that coaching is a remedial activity and that the coachable moment is the

opportunity to provide feedback to bridge the gap.

5.3.3 Initiated by the manager or the employee

Although it is usually the manager who is focused on subordinate performance and

initiates a coaching conversation, a coachable moment can also be initiated by the subordinate.

There may be several explanations for this phenomenon. Research indicates that employees do

not always passively wait for annual feedback but in fact initiate feedback from their managers

as part of their daily interactions with them (Van der Rijt, van de Wiel, van den Bossche,

Segers, & Gijselaers, 2012). In addition, seeking feedback can also be a deliberate strategy by

employees to actively promote themselves and highlight their achievements (Bolino, Long, &

Turnley, 2016).

I guess I just think of it when somebody comes, and they have got a problem that they

are trying to solve; and they ask - you know, that is the easiest thing. They ask for some

help (FG participant)


5.3.4 Fostered by varying situational factors

Informal managerial coaching is not a mandated and observed activity but rather a part

of a set of management behaviours that managers may draw upon in different situations

(Anderson, 2013). Using a coaching approach is therefore a discretionary activity which, unlike

executive coaching or even formal managerial coaching is not an organized coaching process

which is easily identifiable by a third party or even recognised by the coaching manager. As

has been presented in previous chapters, there are various situational factors which are

considered by the coaching manager before deciding to engage with a coachable moment.

Some of these factors, such as the relationship with the coachee, the perceived openness of the

coachee to feedback, and the manager’s confidence in their coaching skills, foster the

likelihood of the manager conducting a coaching conversation in the moment. Other factors

which are considered to be high risk factors such as the level of risk that may be inherent in a

coaching conversation, may likely dissuade the manager from operationalising the coaching

moment. Accordingly, the coachable moment can be said to be always potentially coachable

and perhaps to some managers, actually coachable, but that consideration varies according to

the individuality of the manager and the situation in which the coachable moment presents.

5.3.5 Operationalised by varied, discretionary interventions

Contrary to what the name implies, a coachable moment may not always be

operationalised by a coaching intervention. Managers may engage with the coachable moment

through such non-coaching interventions as directing, training, or correcting. They may even

choose to ignore the coachable moment and do nothing. This may be because they are

unfamiliar with or unskilled in coaching techniques, because they are aware that their technique

or process is not perceived as coaching by the coachee or indeed the organisation, or because

they simply prefer to take an instructive approach given the specifics of the issue arising.


5.4 Major Category One – constructing the concept of coaching

The major category of constructing is the first of four activities in the engaging through

coaching process. It has two sub-categories of aspiring and defining which are addressed detail

in this chapter. The sub-category of aspiring comprises two dimensions: wanting to be nice

and realising benefits. The latter sub-category of defining reflects two dimensions of

instructing and correcting and enabling and transforming.

Figure Ten: The major category of constructing the coachable moment

The label ‘constructing’ has been used to reflect how managers who aspire to be seen

as coaches construct their own understanding of what constitutes coaching and may broaden

their definition of coaching so as to better demonstrate that they are coaching managers. It is

consistent with a constructivist paradigm which recognises that ‘people construct the realities

in which they participate’ (Charmaz, 2014, p. 342) and that his or her actions cannot be viewed

separately from the structures, relationships, and situations in which they find themselves

(Charmaz, 2014). Managers in this study were aware that their organisation was participating

in this research because it valued understanding more about coaching behaviours and so it was


ConstructingAspiring

Defining

Contemplating

Enacting

Sensemaking


not unexpected that when describing their conversational interactions with staff at interview,

managers did so wanting to be seen as a coaching manager. This is not to say that managers

were untruthful or exaggerated their experiences. On the contrary, they genuinely want to coach

but are motivated by a number of reasons including wanting to be seen to conforming to

organisational expectations and culture. These dual motivations are consistent with

organisational citizenship theory which posits that employees may engage in organisational

citizenship behaviours for reasons other than the call of duty. They may also be motivated by

a desire to cultivate a positive impression (Batson, 1991). This reflects my epistemological

perspective that interviews are emergent interactions and data is co-constructed within a social

world including the structures and power relationships of the workplace.

5.4.1 Aspiring to be a Coaching Leader

The Influence of the Organisational Culture

Coaching has become a popular term in organisations throughout the world and

organisations are increasingly investing in coaching training and coaching culture programs

(Grant & Hartley, 2013). Coaching is said to be central to leadership (Grant, 2007), as

evidenced in Bass and Avolio’s (2000) transformational leadership model in which the

individual consideration dimension corresponds with coaching, Hersey’s (1984) situational

leadership model in which coaching is a behaviour type, and Goleman’s (2000) emotional

intelligence leadership in which he suggests that coaching is one of the six essential leadership

styles. The organisations participating in this study placed great emphasis on coaching as an

essential leadership style although they were at different stages of sophistication in terms of

the programs in place to develop coaching as a key part of leading their people. Nevertheless,

all managers interviewed had attended at least one leadership program with some managers

attending many leadership programs both in their current organisations and in previous


employment. RS1 had a significant in-house leadership program in which coaching was a

central focus. Their coaching program included training in coaching, executive coaching, and

they utilised the term ‘coach’ in many of their organisational job titles and job descriptions.

Coaching was a central part of its leadership values; it explicitly and consistently espoused

these values and expected behavioural standards through numerous corporate artefacts such as

training programs, documentation, and leader presentations.

RS2, while less advanced, perhaps because it is a relatively newly structured

organisation, is less explicit about coaching as a key leadership strategy and yet, in its recently

implemented leadership development program, coaching was included as one of the desirable

behaviours of effective leaders. The organisation had an interest in creating a ‘coaching

culture’. RS3 was also less advanced than RS1 in its development of a coaching culture but

had invested significantly in leadership programs of which coaching is a module.

The use of the term ‘coach’, the inclusion of coaching in leadership development

programs, and the internally publicised interest in creating a ‘coaching culture’, is a clear

message to ambitious managers that engaging in coaching practices and being seen to do so

will enhance their status as a leader and be advantageous in terms of career progression.

Managers care about how they are perceived (Bolino, et al, 2016) and those who want to project

the right image will likely want to conform. Managers who do not conform to organisational

expectations not only fail to get promoted and to gain financial rewards but are less appreciated

and accordingly are ranked lower socially in an organisation or become socially isolated

(Nielsen & Norreklit, 2009).It was through managers’ accounts of this organisational

expectation, along with unique organisational cultural characteristics explained further below,

that the sub-category of aspiring to be a coaching leader developed.


Figure Eleven: Aspiring – the first sub-category of constructing

I want to be seen to be ‘nice’

A characteristic shared by the research organisations was a reluctance to openly engage

in ‘hard conversations’ that is conversations about employee performance especially if those

conversations relate to a perceived deficit in an employee’s performance. RS1 operated in a

heavily compliant environment and was seen by participants to be risk averse both in its

operations and in its management of staff.

Culturally we are a bit risk averse and that could get in the way sometimes because

people are a bit scared (P6)

If someone asks me, I'm not shy of making a decision. I just do it. But a lot of people

are very risk averse. And why is that? Have they been slapped on the fingers for that or

I'm not sure why that is. So it is still a very risk averse organisation, I think. (P12)

This risk averseness is perceived to have resulted in a culture of ‘niceness’:

We don't always want to have a hard conversation. We are incredibly nice. We mean

well and we are incredibly nice (laughs); which sometimes means we don't want to - so

aspiring

I want to be seen to be nice

there are some benefits in this


we don't want to have the hard conversations with people, so we take the easy way out

or we take what we think will be the easy way out (P4)

I think we are doing it for niceness and we want to have nice relationships and we think

that makes our days easier. (P7)

…trying to keep everyone happy; not upsetting anyone (P12)

The organisational preference toward ‘niceness’ is not a new concept. Human beings

have a ‘need for frequent, affectively pleasant interactions’ as well as a motivation to belong

(Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p.497). People do not like to provide negative feedback to others

and will avoid it where necessary (Jeffries & Hornsey, 2012) particularly in an environment

where giving negative feedback is perceived as not being nice (London, 1995). One of the

concerns about giving feedback is that the recipient will judge them badly and this will affect

their relationship (Machin & Jeffries, 2017). Cunningham (2001) identified a ‘culture of

niceness’ in the UK not-for-profit sector in relation to management’s reluctance to engage with

a new performance management process, and accordingly tackle difficult performance

conversations with staff. Whilst RS1 was not operating in this sector, it is a member-based

organisation which originated from the public sector and it could be argued that it shares similar

characteristics in that regard with a not-for-profit organisation.

RS2 also operated in a compliance environment and yet their managers’ reluctance to

conduct hard conversations with staff is not perceived to be a product of the organisation as

risk averse but rather a lack of training and human resource systems to support managers in

difficult conversations. For these managers, hard conversations were also to be avoided, and


yet they are conscious that there is an expectation that they will engage with their staff about

performance issues and will adopt a coaching approach to these conversations. The managers

were concerned that where conversations with subordinates about performance are not

successful and result in terminations or resignations they would be perceived to be unsuccessful

leaders. One manager described how, although a relatively experienced coaching manager, she

had significant problems dealing with a poor performer resulting in her moving rather quickly

from coaching conversations to informal then formal disciplinary conversations and eventually

terminating the employee. However, rather than her adherence to a disciplinary process to

manage a dysfunctional employee being valued, she was perceived to be unsuccessful at

managing people because she could not manage the performance issue within the framework

of a coaching approach.

….I tried really hard. I tried, everything in my toolbox, I tried ….because (he) was such

a disaster …… I don't think that did my reputation very much good at all. (P26)

Accordingly, managers extol the virtues of coaching, are quick to volunteer that they

frequently engage in coaching and are also concerned to exhibit the management behaviours

associated with it. Coaching is associated with good leadership (Boyatzis, et al, 2006; Goleman,

2000; Passmore & Jastrzebska, 2011) and organisations encourage managers to be good

leaders. Coaching is ‘nice’ and is seen as ‘a helping by talking’ (Boniwell, 2007, p.1) activity.

Managers therefore seek to conform to expectations of being nice and be seen to be coaching.

This is consistent with organisational citizenship behaviour theory as well as impression

management theory which suggests that conforming enhances status and popularity in the

organisation (Bernheim, 1994) and it is a key tactic to manage impressions (Bolino, et al, 2016).


If you are a good coach, I think it makes you a good leader (P2)

I feel like it is my default leadership style. (P4)

Coaching is a “delivery channel” (for leadership) (P6)

Accordingly, it appears that there are a number of imperatives for the managers wanting

to coach or at least be seen to be coaching. Firstly, there is a desire to conform to the

organisation’s agenda that managers adopt a coaching leadership style of engagement with staff

and secondly, to have a safe, organisationally and employee acceptable term to use to describe

performance conversations as well as a process to use to attempt to avoid the conflict and angst

which often accompanies hard conversations.

There are some benefits in this

Although it can take up to six months before the perceived benefits outweigh the

perceived costs of coaching (Grant, 2010), managers do recognise a genuine range of benefits

that come from coaching others. A key benefit is ‘feel good’ by ‘doing good’ outcomes for the

manager from a process which is mutually perceived to be beneficial as it is a relatively pleasant

non-combative conversation, which is not threatening to either party. It is consistent with

Bolino’s (1999) theorising that managers are not just motivated by doing the right thing by the

organisation or its employees but also by creating a benefit for themselves, that is, creating a

good impression. Participants described ‘feel good’ outcomes as:

Because I want to sleep at night (P15)


I just enjoy it. It gives me a good feeling. I like to help, you know (P12)

I went to his engagement party and his parents thanked me in the speech. You know,

so that's what I like. Like, I make a difference (P5)

I think I get the pleasure of working with more engaged people. In other words, I

come to work and I am a bit happier because the people I work with are hopefully a

bit happier (P8)

So you are there to - it's all about them and seeing them being successful and achieve

their potential. I love that. It's primarily why I get out of bed in the morning (P27)

Consistent with the outcome of Mukherjee’s (2012) small study of coaching managers,

managers may also experience some developmental benefits for themselves through coaching

such as improvement in interpersonal skills, listening capacity and self-confidence:

You know, thinking about managing the managers and I often learn a lot from him, just

the way he deals with his team and things like that. I think actually I don’t think I have

all the answers and don’t have all the right ways to look at things so by actually having

those conversations you are getting another viewpoint to what you might have had

(P16)

Managers also suggest that organisational or performance outcomes are a direct,

tangible outcome of coaching conversations and practices:


the more that I can help them to learn, the more capable they are; the better they are

to do their job (P6)

For me if I can teach them how to do it and help them learn how to do it well then it

means they are going to do it better next time which makes my job easier (P18)

ultimately, if you are going down the crudeness of it all, if your employees are happier

and they are getting what they want, and they are feeling developed, then you get more

out of them----- (P7)

Your team succeeds. They get more empowered; they do more. You can focus on some

of those bigger picture things. (Focus Group Participant)

For some managers while coaching has intrinsic personal rewards for them within their

organisational unit, many do not experience the extrinsic rewards that are implied in an

organisational program which messages that it values a leader with coaching behaviours. For

many managers it is not that the organisation does not value coaching, it is just that systems or

processes are not always in place as an extension of the coaching programs to monitor and

recognise where coaching is occurring. Accordingly, tangible extrinsic rewards, such as written

recognition in appraisal processes and/or pay increases, do not necessarily follow increased

coaching behaviours. But, interestingly, this lack of formal reward and recognition for coaching

does not appear to dissatisfy managers in the same way as not being rewarded for overall

performance such as business outcomes measured through key performance indicators.

Managers often do not feel rewarded but this sense of not being recognised did not appear to

impact on the level of coaching that managers say they undertake: they are satisfied that


coaching conversations provide them with a way of engaging with their staff which brings

other benefits that make their people management more pleasant.

So why do you do it then; what's in it for you? (Question from interviewer)

(Laughs). Ah, if it is people who report to or work within my team, there is a long-term

pay off in their performance, retention, their job satisfaction. There's a raft of things

that benefits me in some ways; because it makes my job easier. There is definitely a

feel-good factor, too, seeing people grow/progress or are happy in the workplace as

well. (P10)

Ryan and Deci’s Self-Determination Theory (2000) provides a useful explanation in

relation to the apparent anomaly that managers want to be rewarded and recognised for a range

of business outcomes they engineer and yet appear to be extremely self-motivated to practice

coaching behaviours in the absence of extrinsic reward from, and informal recognition by, their

managers. In informal coaching, as part of everyday leadership, managers exercise choice as

to whether to coach, to utilise their coaching skills, and as part of the social process of coaching

interact with their staff in their community or organisational unit. As a general rule, which will

be expanded upon in later findings chapters, managers find the process of coaching, to be

inherently satisfying. This is because coaching allows them to engage in a process of interaction

with subordinates which is usually positive and devoid of the conflict associated with more

formal conversation processes. As such, the prospect or expectation of extrinsic rewards is not

the key motivating factor for managers to informally coach. As well as engaging with their

staff in a non-conflictual manner (thereby avoiding conflict), managers can derive the benefits

of assisting staff in development and improvement (thereby ‘doing good’), and at the same


time, conform to organisational expectations that leaders engage in coaching behaviours

(thereby ‘looking good’).

5.4.2 Defining Coaching

The second sub-category of conceptualising coaching is defining coaching which

initially formed in the analysis of the RS1 focus group interview data. This sub-category has

three dimensions of let me give you some feedback, and it’s like show and tell and planting

little seeds which are indicative of the fact that in addition to wanting to label performance

conversations as ‘coaching’, managers also have different understandings of what activities

constitute coaching and have different approaches to coaching.

Figure Twelve: Defining – the second sub-category of constructing

As outlined earlier, definitions of a ‘coachable moment’ or even ‘coaching’ were

deliberately not provided to study participants as I did not want to influence their understanding

of managerial coaching and informal coaching through the focus group interview. It became

evident early on in the process that not all managers have the same understanding of coaching

or what activities constitute coaching and in particular, the parameters of managerial coaching

are not well-defined. Some managers raised the purpose of coaching in their organisation and

questioned whether other managers understood what constituted coaching and others suggested

that it did not matter whether managers were coaching, knew they were coaching, or indeed

Defining

Let me give you some feedback

It's show & tell time

... like planting little seeds


were using another process altogether. In respect of the latter, these managers were impatient

and even somewhat defensive on being asked to define their conversations with staff as

‘coaching’. Consistent with the sub-category of aspiring, these managers wanted to be seen as

having coaching conversations but were perhaps aware that not all of these conversations

would technically constitute ‘coaching’ as it is understood in the organisation or indeed

communicated throughout training sessions.

Do you actually know what a coaching conversation is? Do you know why you are

doing it? Do you know what you want to get out of it?", I don't think that's understood

either (P7)

I don't know whether it matters if they know they are coaching or not. (P19)

When asked to describe what coaching means to them, one of the most common

responses was the facilitation of learning for a subordinate in an interactive session:

I try and make sure there is an outcome as a learning interaction (P17)

When we talk about the term "coaching", what does that look like? (Question from

interviewer)

I describe it as any time that I am learning something from someone. (P18)

Learning or change. There needs to be an outcome (P6)

And participants commented that learning was a mutual process:


You have got to be able to open and you should be learning from the people you are

coaching at the same time that’s helping you. (P16)

But sometimes we can learn something from people as well, which really improves your

own coaching as well (P12)

Let me give you some feedback

Despite an emphasis on coaching as a learning facilitation process, how managers

described their definition of coaching was often very different from examples of their coaching

they provided during interviews. The examples could be classified into the three dimensions

which can be equated with providing negative feedback, instructing and training, and

empowering and enabling. Central to the sub-category of defining was the process of ‘giving

feedback’ which was the trigger for a conversation called a coaching conversation or

deliberately used to commence, what they described as a coaching conversation.

But as mentioned above, the notion of the purpose of giving feedback also differed

among participants. Some managers use the provision of feedback in a deficit model of

conversation, that is, where the feedback relates to deficiencies in performance and opens the

door to a conversation about correcting performance or is aimed at initiating a potential

performance management process. Calling a conversation which entails giving feedback,

whether it be positive or negative, a coaching conversation allows them to establish a safe or

nice purpose for initiating the conversation. Other managers viewed negative feedback as

inconsistent with a coaching process and that such feedback could be construed as performance

managing by the employee. There is almost a sense of inevitability about this:


…. and the conversation is known, isn't it? So when you are giving feedback, the

conversation is known. "I have got some dot points that I need to talk to you about"

(P7)

…. people think if they have provided feedback, that is coaching, so - which is

sometimes an instance of it and it is part of our conversation, but it is actually not a

feedback conversation; it is a performance discussion. (P7)

As noted above, and consistent with the tenet of the core category constructing the

coachable moment, managers often attempt to use a coaching process to initially address

performance issues or use the term coaching to describe a performance management or

disciplinary process. For managers who are uncomfortable having a direct conversation with a

subordinate about performance shortcomings, positioning a performance conversation as a

coaching conversation allows them to report that they have raised the issues of concern with

the employee, before pursuing disciplinary action.

You start by coaching; and if coaching doesn't achieve the outcomes, then you move

towards more formal process. (P6)

That would be my honest and immediate response to it. "Well, what is one trying to say

here? I have some shortcomings?" (P24)

I think a lot of times coaching is done for the sake of, "You have done something bad

and I am going to tell you how to do it right, right now. And this is kind of the only way

to do it". (P1)


This does not appear to be a conscious attempt to deceive but rather a genuine attempt

to correct performance before a more formal process is necessary and, an attempt to soften the

impact of a conversation that could be labelled ‘performance management’ which would be

more threatening to an employee. As such, there is often no attempt by a manager to flag to an

employee that the informal conversation may well be considered as part of the disciplinary

process or may lead to that process. To the manager, it is simply easier to consider the

conversation as a coaching conversation and hope that the continued conversations will lead to

performance improvement despite the fact that they may be noting these conversations as

precursors to disciplinary processes. In an example of this, a manager recounted a series of

what she termed ‘coaching conversations’ with an employee that occurred over a period of

time and used the expression ‘a mountain of evidence’ to describe the issues they discussed

around the employee’s performance. This term clearly indicated that the conversation, to the

manager, was in fact a disciplinary conversation, but her surprise at his ‘surprised’ reaction

when he was eventually terminated, indicates a lack of awareness by both parties of the nature

of the conversations that had been occurring:

In the end, when I ended his employment, I had many, many, many emails, records of

discussions, like, I have got a mountain of evidence; and I ended his employment. He

said to me, "I am shocked. I really love this job and I am just so surprised." I'm like,

"How could you be surprised?" (P26)

Let me give you some feedback is an expression frequently used by managers to position

a conversation about performance deficiencies in a more positive light than a traditional

performance conversation. The notion of ‘giving feedback’ is intended by the manager to

represent that they are seeking to provide helpful assistance to an employee, and it is anticipated


by the manager that employees will accept the observations of the manager and change their

behaviour to meet the standards outlined. Presenting the giving of feedback as a coaching

intervention or process when it is in fact a one-way provision of information which may be

preliminary to a disciplinary or performance management process, misrepresents the coaching

process but allows the manager to avoid the potential confrontation or even conflict that might

ensue with a more negatively positioned conversation. This is consistent with feedback giving

avoidance theory which suggests that giving negative feedback is difficult (Harms & Roebuck,

2010), and in an effort to protect themselves from the social consequences of badly received

feedback, as well as to protect the recipient from hurt feelings (Rosen & Tesser, 1972), people

may often modify feedback, represent it as something different, or avoid giving it altogether

(Machin, 2016).

Might be better if I show and tell

The research site organisations were hierarchically structured with RS1 and RS2 having

a strong emphasis on role and title. Participants from both organisations made reference to the

chain of command way of operating and indeed many of the accounts they relayed about their

own interactions with staff were indicative of command and control styles of leadership. This

is emphasised by the fact that their compensation systems are still oriented to rewarding for

progress against operational key performance indicators as opposed to recognition of people

management practices and indeed there are no formal KPIs for demonstrating coaching

behaviours.

For managers, the coaching process can be one-to-one training of a subordinate and if

they have technical expertise might be content to describe that activity as coaching and to

confine their activities to that type of coaching. This especially appeared to be the case where


the manager had been promoted through the ranks in a technical area and was either still quite

junior, inexperienced as a people manager, or had not accessed leadership/coaching training or

the services of an executive coach. The managers rarely coached in the area of what was

invariably described as ‘behavioural’ coaching for fear that this was outside their expertise and

where the encounter may be unpleasant or unsuccessful. The reluctance to coach in the

behavioural area is examined in more detail in Chapter Six as part of the consideration of

factors that managers evaluate when determining whether they are to capitalise on a coachable

moment.

To me I didn’t have anything left in the basket with her. I had tried so many things over

a number of months (P18)

it was about their behaviour in the workplace, which is a hard thing. That's always the

hard one, behavioural ones (comment from interviewer) (Laughs). Yeah, exactly. You

can sort of fix the technical ones. (P10)

When asked to provide examples of managerial coaching, interviewees provided

examples of identifying a deficiency in a subordinate’s technical knowledge or skill and

providing the subordinate instructions on how to improve that technical task. Managers

provided examples of their coaching where they sat ‘side by side’ with staff and walked them

through technology, where they assisted them in developing a PowerPoint presentation,

conducted site inspections, observed staff in the Contact Centre to be a ‘a point of call’, and

conducted ‘classroom training’:


we have got a lot of people working on technology that they haven't used before. So I

need to introduce them to the tools; introduce them to the processes; talk about

standards and guidelines and ways of developing, you know (P3)

So even early, like, within the first month, I actually sat down and did a whole dot point

discussion of areas for improvement. I set up a task list; "so each day, these are things"

(P26)

Managers appeared to be comfortable managing in organisational units where their own

technical backgrounds and skills were directly relevant to the work in which staff are engaged.

They appeared to not only ‘coach’ by instructing technically but indeed preferred to do so, as

if this is their comfort zone:

…more like a ride-along, sitting side by side; and more of a chaperone kind of thing

(P1)

I think the technical stuff is easier because it is more tangible (P6)

Often I think the coaching comes from two aspects: technical experience in passing that

down, but more importantly I try and teach it as I want them to take my job and I try

and teach them what they need to do what I do. (P17)

Guess my life is full of what you might define as "coachable moments", precisely

because I have that subject matter expert thing. (P14)


The notion of needing technical expertise to have credibility as a coach was prevalent

among participants from RS1 which perhaps reflects the highly technical and detailed nature

of the work of the majority of junior staff they manage. Some managers felt uncomfortable

managing work units in which they did not have technical expertise and felt that they would

not have credibility with their subordinates if they could not provide instruction in the technical

work undertaken. For some managers this meant that they felt that the only way they could add

value was to coach staff in behavioural areas or in what they described as non-technical aspects

of work such as delegation, team relationships, and customer management. Some managers

found that this was a challenge and that it forced them to further develop their coaching skills:

……..not being a technical expert in what she's a technical expert in, I can't answer

all those questions for her; so I can't give her the answers like I could for A and C. I

actually have to coach her, to find them (P4)

So when that becomes really hard then I am in this difficult position with coaching

that individual apart from coaching them about how I would like them to be in the

workplace I can’t actually give them any technical coaching (P18)

I can't coach them on the technical stuff; but I can help with how they engage with

their peers or how they provide feedback or what we might want to cover off in a

report. (P11)

Planting little seeds

Coaching can also be a process of enabling employees to learn new skills, new ways of

thinking, and even to transform themselves in terms of their personal development. While some


managers do not distinguish between coaching and correcting/instructing, others defined the

difference as the level at which the coaching manager provided information or used a

questioning technique to encourage the coachee to think for themselves.

I think it’s helping someone think for themselves as opposed to telling them (Focus

Group participant)

……it's more of a dialogue. So it is not sort of a one-way flow of me saying how I would

do it; but maybe more of a discussion, but encouraging them to think about different

options (P2)

Showing them what to do I wouldn’t see as coaching. It would be about developing

them, so that they can do it. (P19)

Managers saw this as a sustainable business proposition and analogies of ‘teaching a

man to fish’ and ‘planting seeds’ were used to illustrate this:

…. planting little seeds that make them think (P5)

… you know, "teach a man to fish"… (P6)

It is like “teach a man to fish and they can feed themselves”. (P19)

… empowering a lot of people to be able to make their own decisions (P16)


Other managers had even more ambitious definitions for their coaching seeking for the

process to make fundamental, transformational change in their employees:

I think it is also helping people meet their potential. So getting people to continue to

grow and step out of their comfort zone, so to speak (Focus Group participant)

If you are coaching someone, then you are hoping to help them enhance something.

(P6)

Coaching is enabling people to come to the answer on their own and supporting their

choices. (P5)

So real coaching for me is like: being there, being a guide and just help them on the

way to enlightenment. That sounds cheesie, sorry. (P13)

But not all managers see coaching as a panacea for all. Managers might appreciate

coaching as a process but also retain some cynicism about it:

When I think about coaching I think about people getting up and doing their hour of

power motivational stuff …….(I) would rather everybody just holds hands and sings

"Kumbaya", but it is not how life really is, is it? (P14)

Sometimes getting people involved for the conversation is generally a very good thing.

Sometimes it is not. ……..(coaching) Got negative connotations to it. …….You know,

when the outcome is clear and the direction is a strategic one, sometimes there are just


decisions that need to be made. And they are not always bad ones, they are not always

difficult ones, but some of them just don't require a discussion. (P24)

"Coaching" is an invented word; right? It is totally invented (laughs) (P27).

5.5 Summary

‘There is no one right way to coach’ (Whitmore, 2003, p.171) and not all coaches work

in the same way (Frisch, et al, 2001). Managerial coaching has been defined in numerous

different ways being constituted by many differing behaviours, with different purposes

(Lawrence, 2017). There is still no agreed definition on what constitutes managerial coaching,

so it is not surprising that managers in organisations construct their own understandings and

definitions of managerial coaching. Given contemporary research into managerial coaching

practices has found that managers infrequently engage in informal coaching behaviours

(Gilley, et al, 2010; Green & Grant, 2010; Heslin, et al, 2006; Lombardo & Eichinger, 2001),

it was an unexpected and significant outcome from this study that managers submit that they

frequently coach their subordinates and provide numerous examples of their informal coaching

activities in the workplace.

To understand this apparent anomaly, consideration needs to be given to how managers

define coaching and what may motivate them to describe so many of their interactions and

general engagement with staff as coaching. It is apparent that managers have constructed a

concept of coaching which is very broad and is perhaps used quite differently from how the

term ‘coaching’ is traditionally defined in the coaching industry. While the use of the term

coaching is prevalent in the organisations, it appears to be not well defined through their

training. It has therefore been interpreted by managers to include not just the traditional


‘helping by talking’ behaviours characteristic of previous literature definitions of coaching but

also most conversational interactions they have with their subordinates. These interactions

include providing feedback, instructing and training, enabling and transforming performance,

and correcting and disciplining.

Managers are unlikely to enact behaviours without having an appreciation of the

benefits those behaviours may bring (Latham, 2001), and there appears to be significant

benefits associated with being considered as a coaching manager. Being seen to be a coaching

manager is characteristic of being a leader and is consistent with the organisational culture of

being ‘nice’. This provides a motivation for managers to create the impression, both to their

own superiors and their subordinate staff, that they are good organisational citizens through

adopting coaching behaviours which are perceived to be consistent with a positive, helping

leadership style. This is consistent with impression management theory which suggests that

managers may adopt a range of tactics to create a favourable impression (Bolino, 2008) by

closing the gap between the desired impression and the current impression (Leary & Kowalski,

1999). Coaching therefore allows a manager to ‘look good’.

In addition, being a coaching manager is also seen to enhance employee capability

which is not only advantageous to the manager in terms of increased productivity and

upskilling, but it also has a ‘feel good’ factor about it. Coaching managers genuinely like to

create positive relationships with staff and adopting a coaching leadership style allows them to

be collaborative including staff in decisions about their own development. This allows to the

coaching manager to perceive that they are good organisational citizens ‘doing good’ through

their coaching.


There are also other more subtle benefits: labelling performance management

conversations as coaching conversations allows a manager to give negative feedback in a

disguised manner thereby preserving good will between the parties. It is feedback given as a

‘helping’ action rather than a threatening action. The lack of extrinsic rewards or formal

acknowledgement of the practise of coaching behaviours does not appear to be a detractor for

managers to coach or profess to coach, but it allows them an opportunity to avoid the conflict

that may arise with more directive leadership behaviours.

In conclusion, this chapter has positioned the coachable moment as both an independent

entity from the coaching process and part of the coaching process: it remains an entity

independent of the coaching process unless or until a manager decides to capitalise on the

moment. If the manager does not decide to operationalise the coachable moment it remains a

gateway of potential only. In presenting a construct of the coachable moment, this chapter has

argued that the coachable moment can be the trigger for the coaching conversation, and is

characterised by being spontaneous, deficit in nature, initiated by either the manager or the

employee, is fostered by varied situational factors, and can be addressed by the manager using

varying approaches or interventions.

The first major category of constructing coaching describes the motivation for

managers to construct their own broad understanding of what constitutes coaching practice.

Viewed through the lens of organisational citizenship behaviour, impression management and

feedback giving avoidance theories, adopting coaching behaviours, or appearing to adopt

coaching behaviours, can be interpreted as the coaching manager being able to do good, look

good, and avoid conflict. Chapter Six will outline the process managers use to negotiate the


complexities and risks associated with the coachable moment and describes the factors that

they contemplate before deciding to engage the coaching moment when it presents itself.


Chapter 6

CONTEMPLATING COACHING

“If you misjudge it and they weren’t open to it, it can backfire pretty quickly”

Participant 6

_____________________________________________

6.1 Introduction

This chapter depicts the second major category - contemplating coaching - which

reflects the process of assessment made by a manager on whether coaching is the best approach

in the circumstances where a coachable moment arises. The chapter also addresses the

significance of interpersonal factors in a potential coaching relationship. The four sub-

categories of contemplating coaching are weighing up the moment, assessing coachability,

considering the relationship, and evaluating self-confidence; all are further explored in this

chapter and are depicted in Figure Thirteen (below).

Figure Thirteen: The major category of contemplating coaching


Constructing

Contemplating

weighing up the moment

assessing coachability

considering the relationship

evaluating overall risk

Enacting

Sensemaking


This chapter proposes that before managers engage in an informal coaching

conversation, when a coachable moment arises, there is a stage of contemplation where a

process of weighing up the moment is undertaken to determine whether the opportunity is

‘right’ for a coaching approach. This is not always a conscious, deliberate process. On the

contrary, not all managers are aware at the time a coachable moment presents that they are

evaluating situational or interpersonal factors. Other managers, perhaps more experienced in

coaching, are often aware of consciously weighing up the pros and cons of coaching ‘in the

moment’ and do so with some deliberation.

The second, third and fourth sub-categories depict how managers, in addition to

weighing up the potential coaching moment, also assess relevant interpersonal factors such as

the coachability of the subordinate employee, the relationship they may have with the coachee,

and their perceptions of their own ability to engage with the coachee.

6.2 Weighing Up the Moment

How managers recognise a coachable moment and assess the likely success of a

coaching intervention is key to answering the research question of how managers make

decisions whether to take the opportunity to informally coach when the moment presents.

Research undertaken by Anderson (2013), Hagen (2012), and Turner and McCarthy (2015)

suggest a number of factors that might affect managerial coaching implementation. Broadly,

these may be categorised into personal and organisational factors (Hagen, 2012) with Turner

and McCarthy (2015) concluding that taking advantage of a coachable moment is ‘largely

situational’ (p.9). This research suggests that while situational factors impact on decisions to

coach, there are other factors related to the coaching manager and the coachee that impact this

decision.


Figure Fourteen – Weighing Up the Moment - the first sub-category of contemplating coaching

6.2.1 Conscious or unconscious contemplation of the moment

Inherent to the second guiding research question “what do managers perceive are the

barriers and facilitators to operationalising coachable moments?” is the assumption that the

aspiring coaching manager’s assessment as to whether to take advantage of a coachable

moment presenting itself is a conscious one. While some managers do weigh up situational

factors, it appears that this may not always be done consciously at the time the coaching

opportunity presents.

So I think it's about weighing up…… and it is weighing up you know (P1)

Are you conscious of weighing that up? Yes. That's what happens when you work

with a lot of females. What do you weigh up? Whether they are, in fact, open to it;

whether, if you take the opportunity, it will be taken in the right context. (P6)

Okay, I can make a decision here. I can tell them what to do. We can get to an outcome

really quickly. Or I can take that risk that they will get there themselves. (P4)

Managers more experienced in coaching, and particularly those from RS1, did not

appear to consciously assess the situational factors at the time they commenced an informal

weighing up the

moment

is this the right moment to coach?


coaching intervention and appeared to rely on ‘intuition’ when confronted with an opportunity

for a coaching moment. Intuition has been described as a ‘non-sequential information

processing mode which comprises both cognitive and affective elements and results in direct

knowing without any use of conscious reasoning’ (Sinclair & Ashkanasy, 2005, p.357). The

use of intuition was not downplayed and nor was there an attempt to rationalise it as is common

among managers using intuition in decision-making (Elbanna & Fadol, 2016). On the contrary,

intuition appeared to be an important factor in deciding whether coaching was the right

intervention as characteristic of experienced coaching and confident managers.

I don't think about it when I am doing it. It just kind of happens. (P3)

I am not conscious of thinking ……. like that, no. (P2)

I think, ideally, it happens; like you see a moment, but not consciously. There's

something in you reacts, and I think it's just like intuition ……. (P13)

But despite relying on intuition to make a decision to coach, experienced managers may

be consciously aware when the coaching intervention is not going well. Experience means not

only having the ability to reflect but also to take corrective action in the moment. This

‘knowing-in-practice’ is a characteristic of ‘the art of management’ where managers combine

intuition and a ‘feeling for phenomena and action’ (Schon, 1991, p. 241).

……sometimes you are in the middle of it, when you think, "Okay, that's not going to

go right". (P5)


I find during that discussion, if it's not going in the direction that I anticipated, I am

very aware of that. Do you try to correct while you are in the middle of that

discussion? Ah, I do but perhaps part of the reason those instances are often at the

forefront of your mind, during and after, is that I find it a very hard thing to do. If the

responses you are getting are not – you can never fully anticipate how people are going

to respond, but if they are really off-the-wall and not at all in the direction you expected,

that’s a very hard place to recover from. Actually, I can recall one episode where I

actually decided to sort of stop and reconvene, just because I really didn’t think we

were going in a productive direction at all. (P10)

By contrast, less experienced managers may consciously and actively evaluate whether

the situation is optimal for informal coaching even to the extent that the spontaneity associated

with a coachable moment is lost and an element of a conscious, planned and even somewhat

delayed approach is adopted.

I think there probably needs a situation where, as a leader, you are not too attached to

what the outcome needs to be or how it needs to be done. So those things where you

feel like, "I don't mind. You could do it three/four ways," and help the person work out

their own way. Otherwise, if you have got a sense "they need to learn on this answer,"

then that's where the coaching doesn't help or you become impatient because you are

looking for one outcome. (FG)

There may be an element of trial and error with it. I do try to anticipate how people

may react, certainly. And there's certainly an element of planning that goes into it,

yeah. And then with probably two/three options of thoughts of how the person may


respond, and the conversation evolves. Most of the time, I will go into things that way.

(P10)

Yes. I work through it. I try to make the best possible decision about that but, you know,

someone else might think that I am doing that too often. But I make a conscious decision

when I do it… (P23)

It is not unusual for professionals in the workplace to rely on intuition where there are

no clear guidelines to follow and a significant proportion of managers use intuition to make

decisions about people related issues (Burke & Miller, 1999), or interpersonal issues (Matzler,

Bailom, & Mooradian, 2007). The decisions managers make are choices from a range of

options and those options can be explicitly known and considered by the manager or can be

patterns or concepts gained by experience and stored over the years (Klein, 2015). The latter

are largely the contributors to intuition which results in a manager knowing without appearing

to undergo any rational or conscious reasoning process (Sinclair & Ashkanasy, 2005). These

patterns and concepts are not confined to actual experience but can include feelings and

emotions, knowledge and skills gained through training, and values (Burke & Miller, 1999).

The ‘gut instinct’ can be a verbal recognition of those patterns and concepts. In the case of

coaching managers, these patterns (Klein, 2015) appear to relate to a range of factors such as

the right timing, the right environment, the right relationship, and the right person which are

explored further in this chapter. And although managers may not be conscious at the time about

how they make these decisions, when asked to reflect on their coaching experiences,

experienced coaching managers are able to identify what factors have created the good

coaching experiences and what factors have not. This is not to say that only experienced

managers rely on intuition because of experience. Inexperienced managers may also rely on


intuition in making coaching decisions because they do not have prior knowledge upon which

to draw (Sinclair & Ashkanasy, 2005) and therefore have not experienced prior difficulties in

coaching that may influence their current coaching decisions.

The ability to reflect, not only on past coaching experiences, but also in the moment of

coaching and before coaching, is illustrative of Schon’s Theory of Reflection-in-Action (1983;

1987). Drawing on John Dewey’s (1938) concept of ‘indeterminate situations’ (p.105), Schon

described the notion of ‘indeterminate zones of practice’ (1987, p.36) as being situations

characterised by uncertainty, disorder, and indeterminancy’ (1983, pp.15-16). In these zones

in the workplace, the ability of managers to be able to asynchronously analyse a surprise

situation and critically reflect on what actions immediately led to the situation is referred to as

reflection-in-action. This ability to reflect-in-action requires an element of surprise so that the

manager does not revert to what Schon describes as ‘knowing-in-action’ which is a

spontaneous reaction to a situation requiring no reflection, but which draws on previous

experience and tacit knowledge. Reflection-in-action is essentially ‘thinking on your feet’

(Moon, 1999, p.5).

Thus the nature of the spontaneity of a coachable moment is similar to Schon’s

indeterminate zone of practice: the coaching manager is not usually prepared for the situation

or opportunity that has arisen, and each situation is unique with few criteria or guidelines on

whether coaching will be suitable or effective. In a potential coaching situation, an experienced

coaching manager, drawing on intuition guided by experience, demonstrates the concept of

knowing-in-action and decides to coach without any conscious reference to decision-making

criteria. However, drawing on experience as an essential characteristic of intuition, the

coaching manager may consciously reflect-in-action when the coaching conversation appears


difficult and may critically reflect on how this occurred and be able to take corrective action.

Failing to do so, the ability to reflect at a later stage and create learning from the situation is

characteristic of Schon’s reflection-on-action which will be explored in more detail in Chapter

Eight.

6.2.2 Is this the right moment to coach?

A key guiding question for this study was “how do managers recognise a coachable

moment?” Inherent to this question is the assumption that the coachable moment has

characteristics that are recognised by managers. A coachable moment (Hart, 2005; Kaye, 1993;

Mobley, 2001; Turner & McCarthy, 2015) has been referred to as an opportunity for just-in-

time feedback (Lindbom, 2007) and a moment for a manager to address a problem as it arises

(Schacter, 2008) ‘anytime, anyplace’, ‘during a casual meeting in the hallway or lounge, in an

elevator, or on the golf course’ (Hart, 2005, p.8). Managers can coach in structured,

prearranged formal sessions or informally in day-to-day management activity such as ‘a chance

meeting in the hallway, a telephone session or a coaching interaction that comes about

unexpectedly during a casual lunch!' (Macmillan, 2011, p.5). Opportunities for informal

coaching can occur anywhere and anytime.

Sometimes it could be an opportunity that just presents itself on-the-go and sometimes

it happens in corridors …….I think it’s that “red Porsche” kind of stuff. When you think

you want a red Porsche, you see them everywhere. (P6)

Oh, it is just the moment where you think, "Okay, I can do coaching," like, that little

light bulb moment, where you think, "This is a good opportunity to coach someone".

(P5)


The likelihood of a manager identifying a coachable moment can be driven by the

coachees themselves, rather than the manager, recognising and initiating the moment:

A good coachable moment for me is when somebody has said, "Hey, I have tried really

hard to do this. But I want to be better." (P1)

So, it's when they come to you, that's a very good opportunity, when they come to you.

(P12)

The challenge for capitalising on a coachable moment appears to be its spontaneity.

The moment is usually not anticipated and therefore managers who are conscious that a

coachable moment is presenting, perceive timing as crucial and immediacy as important (Hunt

& Weintraub, 2007).

….. I think probably the majority of the time, people go, "Oh, I see that person needs

some coaching. I will get back to it; or I will pick it up later on," and then the moment

passes. (P1)

If you wait until it’s finished and then go, “Okay, let’s do a debrief on how this went”,

I think you lose that opportunity to just genuinely teach people and explain to people

what you are trying to achieve (P18)

I can always find five minutes for someone to help them on their way (P17)


Let’s just do it right now”, because I am in it, I am already dedicating whatever minute

window I am dedicating to looking at it, so if we do it together then it’s a learning thing

and it saves me writing him an email, it saves me trying explain what I am doing. Like,

we can talk about it as I am doing it so I will take those moments nearly every time

(P18)

Sometimes you have just got to grab that moment (P14)

Yet the timing and the venue is not always right for the coaching moment and managers

may need to postpone the coaching opportunity for when they have time or when they can

create a venue or environment in which they feel coaching will be more conducive for both

parties:

Sometimes, they are at the pointy-end where you have to deliver, so you have to leave

it for later. So you have to be conscious of the timing as well. (P12)

"Let's go for a walk." Like, some people like to go for a walk; some people - let's go

outside of the office". Because office/room, is always like "serious". (P13)

I think the thing that gets in the way is probably distance and workload. I am really,

really busy. (P26)

6.2.3 Is this a work performance issue or a behavioural or personal issue?

The immediacy of capitalising on informal coaching opportunities is often considered

more carefully when the potential coaching intervention relates to a coachee’s behavioural


issue. Managers can be reluctant to adopt a coaching approach to issues of poor or

dysfunctional personal behaviour fearing that a conversation about personal issues may result

in conflict. Similarly, managers are also reluctant to coach in areas related to personal issues

such as family or partner problems fearing that the conversations may become emotional. They

may feel ill-equipped to deal with such issues and prefer to coach in areas related to tangible

performance and job demands. They perceive that attempting to coach in the area of personal

issues and behaviour is intrusive and not within their role and skills even if the personal

behaviour is affecting work performance.

I think when it is behaviour, people are more sensitive because it is their

character/personality that is criticised. (P13)

It is not my job to address issues that are occurring personally and having an impact

in a work environment. (P11)

Accordingly, a safer option, particularly for those inexperienced as coaching managers

or from a technical background, is to refer issues deemed to be about ‘behaviour’ to the human

resources function or the organisation’s employee assistance program, or to avoid the issue

altogether:

The moment is not always the moment for coaching? Oh, yeah, definitely not;

especially when we are talking about behavioural things, you have to be very respectful

of the timing for people. (P1)

The EAP, the Employee Assistance Program, I am a huge advocate for that (P11)


…let's assume that they wouldn't accept that feedback; right? Presumably, that's why

there's a behavioural problem; they wouldn't presumably accept that that is true. Then

I would be - oh, I don't know. I probably wouldn't be adequately prepared to deal with

the pushback of, "No, no, that's not" - you know. So then I would unfortunately, and this

is maybe not a great response, I would be forced to run off to some superior source for

information; whether that be the HR people or my boss. (P8)

It is really hard because you get an emotional response. And I think there’s an element

of us trying to avoid that (P4)

Do you pick up those coachable moment opportunities, if it's behavioural? Yeah, I

would like to say I always do. I would like to be - sometimes I'm probably not as

courageous enough. (P1)

An ideal coachable moment for managers is one where there is a clearly defined work

problem preferably where they have technical expertise relevant to resolving the work problem:

Where you have that opportunity to engage with a person around a problem. Rather

than providing the solution, actually start to talk them through how they might - you

know, to define the problem and to actually develop possible solutions” (P26)

I guess I just think of it when somebody comes, and they have got a problem that they

are trying to solve; and they ask - you know, that is the easiest thing. (FG Participant)


It is also important for managers to determine whether a potential coachee is seeking

assistance or just looking to ‘vent’ and not actively seeking advice or learning:

Sometimes you are talking to people and they might be having a little bit of a vent.

Depending on where they are in the point of the vent, it may or may not be a coach - if

it is just got to get out, then they are not really asking you for any kind of help/solution

at that point, except an ear to listen to. So at that point, you kind of know that they are

not necessarily open to it. (P6)

So if someone is shitty and they are in a room and they are having a bit of a spack, then

you probably wouldn't coach them then. (P5)

A reluctance to engage in workplace conversations which are likely to become

emotional is consistent with the preference for emotions in organisations to be invisible or

marginalised (Gerardi, 1995). The traditional perception has been that emotions in an

organisational setting interfere with rational thinking and therefore are harmful to decision-

making processes (Cox & Bachkirova, 2007). Difficult emotions, such as where subordinates

are ‘having a vent’ or ‘having a bit of a spack’ as described above, are considered undesirable

and require management to reduce unpredictability (Speedy, 2005). Accordingly it is not

surprising that, for a manager who is not a skilled coach, engaging in a coaching conversation

in which an emotional or personal issue may arise is a key factor affecting managers’ decisions

to coach. They seek to avoid these coaching situations feeling most comfortable where they

are coaching in content-based areas aligned with their technical knowledge and expertise,

where there is unlikely to be an unpredictable reaction.


6.3 Assessing the coachability of the potential coachee

Where managers decide to coach there are also personal factors about the coachee that

are assessed by them prior to coaching in the moment. These factors relate to a perception of

whether the employee is ‘coachable’: ‘coachability’ includes whether the coachee appears to

be receptive to feedback and even whether the manager likes the potential coachee. Similar to

situational issues, these factors are not always consciously evaluated; some managers are aware

at the time that they are assessing these aspects, but others only consider them in retrospect.

The latter may be because they are experienced managers and feel confident regardless of the

interpersonal factors. It may also be because managers do consider that as a responsible

coaching manager they do not have the luxury or mandate to consider personality related issues.

Figure Fifteen: Assessing Coachability - the second sub-category of contemplating coaching

The notion of coachability has received little attention in business or coaching specific

literature however the athletic coachability construct has been well considered in the sports

coaching literature (Shannahan, Shannahan & Bush, 2013; Theeboom, Beersma, & van

Vianen, 2014) ). While the manifestations of managerial coachability are not identical to those

of athletic coachability, as there are obvious differences in the contexts in which the

interactions between coach and coachee take place, there are sufficient similarities between the

two coaching contexts (Krazmien & Berger, 1997) for it to be a useful comparison for this

study. For example, both types of coaching occur within a power dynamic and both types are


is this person coachable?


aimed at personal or performance improvement. The sports coachability construct is argued to

be an amalgam of three factors, a motivation to achieve, agreeableness, and conscientiousness

(Giaccobbi, 2000) and is observable through behaviours such as being open to learning and

feedback (Shannahan, et l, 2013). This is similar to the criteria used by managers (openness,

receptiveness, wanting to grow) for their assessment of coachability. The coach’s leadership

style is one of the key factors that can enable or inhibit a coachee’s ‘coachability’ (Giacobbi,

2000). Coachability in the context of managerial coaching has similar dimensions and is

explored further below.

6.3.1 Openness to feedback, conscientiousness and motivation to achieve

Coaching managers hold similar views on the type of employee who is coachable and

the key determinant of the extent to which a coachee is open to the coaching intervention

including their openness to person and work behaviour change.

There are probably people on topics that are not coachable; but it comes back to being

open. There are people who are not open to change in certain spaces (P6)

People have to be open to the idea of improving (P10).

So I think people need to be open to being coached. (P11)

Openness to feedback, as outlined earlier, is also considered by managers as a factor

indicating coachability. The term feedback is often used by managers to describe coaching

conversations and is also largely associated by the manager with a deficiency in the employee’s

performance. In the context that managers do not like to give negative feedback, and often


avoid it where they can (Brown, Kulik, & Lim, 2015), it is not surprising that managers find

employees who are open to feedback more coachable because the likelihood of an adverse

reaction from the employee will be lessened.

People have to be really open to feedback and, also, are looking for those areas, you

know, times for coaching (P1)

I had a leader back at (company) who I found very, very easy to coach. He was a very

smart guy, anyway. ….. I found he would come over regularly; we would talk about a

situation. I wouldn't feel like I was telling him. He was more bouncing ideas off me. So

we had more that sort of relationship; where he was thinking for himself but he was

wanting to grow, so wanting to sort of talk to someone about this approach and get

some feedback/input. So I found him very easy to coach. (P2)

I have only got so much time in a day; and life is pretty short. Time is special. And I

want to get home to my family; spend time with my kids and my wife. So if I was to

coach everybody, I wouldn't be able to do those things (laughs). So I have to be

selective; not because I necessarily want to be. So generally the people I will coach will

be the ones that I see the most potential in. That's not to say they are doing an awesome

job now. It is to say, they are the ones that are really hungry for it; really want to

improvable and be better. (P28)

Also of significance is the extent to which a subordinate employee is motivated and

wants to grow. This is illustrated in the comments below which are consistent with a motivation


to achieve and conscientiousness, two of the dimensions of Giacobbi’s (2000) sports

coachability construct.

But it's the people who want to get out of that routine and are happy to spread their

wings, go on their own a little bit; they can go a bit further (P3)

I think a good coachee is someone who wants to - you know, someone who isn't happy

with where - you know, remaining where they are. They want to continue to grow. They

want to learn new things (P1)

That it is easier to coach an employee who is receptive to feedback is consistent with

the findings of Gregory and Levy’s (2012) study of 479 employees which concluded that

coaching is more effective where the feedback orientation of the coachee is strong. Orientation

to feedback is crucial to the coaching process (London & Smither, 2002; Steelman & Wolfeld,

2016) as employee openness to feedback and goal orientation are indicators of likely

responsiveness to coaching (Gregory & Levy, 2012; Joo, 2005; London & Smither, 2002;

Steelman & Wolfeld, 2016). Managers who have a high feedback orientation are likely to be

perceived by coachees as better coaches (Steelman & Wolfeld, 2016) and in turn, this affects

the likelihood of a manager coaching (Gregory & Levy, 2012; Steelman & Wolfeld, 2016).

People who are considered to be not coachable, or at least more difficult to coach, are

those who are perceived to not be open to feedback. Personal characteristics or traits such as

being ‘narrow minded’, ‘very unself-aware’, and ‘headstrong’ are used to identify such people:


Sometimes you have a person in your team that's not very receptive to feedback. Those

are the hard ones to manage. (P12)

he's difficult to coach because he really just doesn't - I don't think he feels like he needs

it. …… He's almost - he's very unself-aware. (P2)

But he's a real coaching challenge because he has no, I guess you would call it

"personal insight". He really just doesn't see his own weakness at all. (P14)

I certainly had one staff member at another organisation where they lacked an

awareness of their blind spots; and it was exceptionally difficult to communicate those

to them. (P10)

6.3.2 Agreeableness

Agreeableness, the third of Giacobbi’s (2000) three manifestations of athletic

coachability, is associated with a person’s tendency to cooperate and a dislike of disagreement

or conflict (Barcelo, 2016). The term ‘easy’ was used by study participants to illustrate their

perception of somebody being agreeable which denotes the concept of the subordinate as easy-

going, uncomplicated, and undemanding:

So what makes somebody coachable, from your perspective? I and C are so easy to

coach. I think it is just - they are both very - in particular, C, she's a very good listener.

She listens much more than she speaks, C, which will hold her in really good stead in

her role. (P4)


I think some people are just incredibly coachable; just very, very easy and natural.

(FG)

he's very inquisitive, engaged, receptive, sponge, whatever - all those sort of words.

He's, uhm - I guess when you are going to get to this "coaching moments" part - he's

the one that I naturally find very easy to talk with. (P8)

6.4 The nature of the relationship with the potential coachee

Perhaps one of the most commented upon coaching issues is the nature of the

relationship between a manager and a coachee. Coaching scholars argue that the nature and

quality of the dyadic relationship is crucial to effective coaching (Everard & Selman, 1989;

Gregory & Levy, 2010; Gyllensten & Palmer, 2007; Hunt & Weintraub, 2011; Steelman &

Wolfeld, 2016) with a successful relationship between coach and coachee being one ‘of

partnership, of trust, of safety and of minimal pressure’ (Whitmore, 1992, p.22), ‘warmth’

(Graham, et al, 1993, p.91), ‘good chemistry’ (Hunt & Wentraub, 2002, p.10), and perceived

similarity (Hunt & Weintraub, 2002, p.119). Yet, the majority of these studies are focused on

the relationship between an external coach and coachee, rather than on the relationship between

a coaching manager and their subordinate employee. Managerial coaching is unique in the

coaching discipline where subordinates rarely get to choose their coaching manager (Gregory

& Levy, 2012). Furthermore, while managers usually have some control of recruitment and

selection processes, they do not always get to choose their subordinates and often inherit staff

who they have not chosen to work with. The managerial coaching relationship can be

complicated by the power relationship between the parties which in turn, can introduce

impediments related to trust and confidentiality (Ferrar, 2006). Accordingly and although

research has not demonstrated a clear link between the quality of a coaching relationship and


managerial coaching behaviours (Gregory & Levy, 2012), the relationship between manager

and potential coachee in this study appeared to be a critical issue in decisions on whether

managers would attempt to coach or not.

Figure Sixteen – Considering the Relationship - the third sub-category of contemplating coaching

Managers characterise a good coaching relationship with an employee in many different

ways such as where the manager has a similar technical or skills background to the employee,

where the relationship has been built over some time so reactions to coaching are predictive

and where the coachee frequently seeks out feedback.

It's about who you are comfortable with and what happens. (P7)

Maybe there's issues around an individual's ability to maybe be open with their direct

manager about some things. But, again, that comes back to the relationship that they

will have, in the first place (P6)

If you are naturally getting along with the person better and those harder conversations

with those harder stakeholders who aren't really coming on board and wouldn't

understand the implications and things like that, they are harder to have. (P7)

considering the

relationship

is this a good enough relationship

to coach ?


In summary, three issues were generated as key influences on decisions for managers

around the coaching relationship, the trust between the parties, the likeability of the coachee,

and the concept of the ‘vulnerability’ between the parties. These three dimensions of the

coaching relationship are explored below.

6.4.1 Trust

Trust has long been considered a critical factor in the success of a coaching relationship

(Ladyshewsky, 2010; O’Broin & Palmer, 2010; McCarthy & Milner, 2012; Ting & Riddle,

2006). However, the concept of trust in the coaching literature has largely been researched from

the perspective of the employee (Brower, Lester, Korsgaard, & Dineen, 2009; Knoll & Gill,

2011), that is the antecedents, impact, and nature of the trust that an employee has in the

executive coach, rather than from the perspective of the trust that a coaching manager may seek

in a subordinate. However, examining trust in a managerial coaching context requires an

understanding that a supervisor-subordinate relationship exists and that this relationship is

vastly different from the somewhat commercial client centred relationship applicable to an

executive coaching relationship. Coaching in the workplace requires considerable trust on both

sides of the relationship as neither party can easily walk away from the workplace relationship

that exists between subordinate and supervisor once trust has broken down. So it was not

surprising in this study that the importance of trust in the coaching relationship was

emphasised.

Trust was raised by managers from the perspective of wanting the coachee to trust in

them and also from the perspective of needing to trust in the coachee. A manager’s own

experiences of being coached by a supervisor may have shaped their experiences of coaching


and formed their understanding that trust is an important part of the dyadic coaching

relationship.

I think for a coaching sort of culture, you need that trust. (FG)

If there's trust, people can have more freedom. (FG)

If I trust my leader, then I can show my vulnerability (FG)

People have to believe that you trust them. (P2)

Being trusted by their employees is also important for managers:

I have just got this feedback from this 360 that I have just done and one of the measures

is "instilling trust". My team's feedback with "instilling trust" was brilliant. I couldn't

have asked for a better kind of response (P11)

think that is part of it as well is from a coachee, you need to be able to trust your

leaders. (P16)

But having trust in a subordinate employee appears to be a key determinant of whether

managers seek to engage them in coaching. The trust that managers seek in a potential coachee

appears to be twofold. First is trust that the coachee will genuinely engage in the coaching

process:


I think there are people that are more difficult to coach. And they are usually people

that are a bit precious, that are game players, so they are really difficult to coach

because you have to be double-guessing. Coaching requires a level of trust and that

trust is damaged by people who have other agendas (P26)

Second, trust in the ability of the coachee to actually learn from the coaching and apply

that to improving their performance or executing the task at hand is also important. To return

to a previously noted example, P26 recounted how shortly after she employed a new

subordinate manager, she realised that he had significant performance deficiencies and lost

trust in his ability to perform the role. She related that she initially attempted to coach this

employee, but very soon after resorted to being ‘directive’ as she no longer trusted that he

would deliver on what was required. Being directive with an employee where there is a lack of

trust appears to be a fall-back position for managers. When trust in ability is lost, rather than

see it as an opportunity to improve the performance by coaching, managers resort fairly quickly

to directive or instructive leadership styles so as to leave no margin for error or

misinterpretation about what they may require of the employee. This may be a symptom of

cost/benefit thinking where the manager only has so much time to invest in coaching before

needing to move on, or it may simply be a risk reduction tactic.

What if there was completely no trust between you and the other person?----- If that

was the case, you would be more likely to be directive. (FG)

And then there's those things that are more important, where I think I probably wouldn't

release that trust and I would want to say, "This is how I want it done". (P2)


Where good coaching relationships with subordinate employees are formed there is

more regular engagement. This factor appears to contribute to a cycle of regular feedback and

coaching, which flows naturally often without the two parties recognising it as coaching. In

turn and sometimes because of, this encourages the coachee to confide in the manager about

personal or family issues, which can lead to an intimacy and a higher level of coaching such as

personally developmental or even transformative coaching. As P11 pointed out, she likes her

staff and has a number of ‘wonderful’ conversations with staff in which they confide in her

about a range of personal issues. P11 argues that she has one of the highest employee

engagement scores for a manager and in the surveys, her staff consistently describe her

communication style as inclusive.

I have a lovely team; and they share stuff with me, whether that stuff is going on inside

or outside the workplace (P11)

I like to have a good sort of social relationship with the people who report to me. (P2)

Where managers trust their subordinates, they are more willing to take risks (Mayer,

Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), are likely to have higher job satisfaction (Knoll & Gill, 2011),

and experience less stress (Mooradian, Renzl, & Matzler, 2006). Their subordinates are more

likely to experience higher feelings of self-esteem (Pierce & Gardiner, 2004), be more

empowered (Spreitzer & Quinn, 2001), and engage in mutual knowledge sharing (Mooradian,

et al, 2006). Accordingly, given that managerial coaching is a unique coaching relationship

between a manager and subordinates, trust is a crucial factor in developing a coaching

relationship in the workplace.


6.4.2 Vulnerability

There is a strong link between trust and vulnerability (Cox, 2012) and relationships

between leaders and followers are enhanced by leaders sharing vulnerability (Ito & Bligh,

2017). In considering trust in their coaching relationships, managers in this study spoke

frequently about ‘vulnerability’ and its importance in displaying and seeking trust. Managers

considered being vulnerable both as a coaching manager and a coachee as being a necessary

part of an effective coaching relationship and that a coachable moment was likely to occur

when both parties demonstrated a level of vulnerability to each other:

When is a coachable moment likely to occur for you? I think when you are both open;

when you are both vulnerable; when you are both listening. (P5)

If they are vulnerable enough to ask for help, that is the opportunity (P9)

A coachee appearing to be vulnerable is largely perceived by managers as the employee

signalling that they are open to a coaching conversation by acknowledging that they require

help in some way.

Vulnerable", what do you mean by that? That means that you are open to being wrong.

You are open to admitting a mistake. You are open to admitting that something isn't

going right (P5)

So I would say that willingness to be vulnerable can help with coachable moments as

well. (P4)


But managers also recognise that there needs to be mutuality in vulnerability for the

coaching relationship to work effectively and whether it is a conscious, even calculated, attempt

to increase the subordinate’s trust in them or an innate personality trait, there are a range of

different ways that managers demonstrate their own vulnerability to make the coachee feel

more trust in them.

I speak as vulnerably about my own - particularly my styles and foibles and my

preferences for communication….. again, I share my perspective; I tend to be

vulnerable about certain things where I might even struggle or be difficult ….But it is

probably that can make yourself a little bit vulnerable, if you are having trouble with

the person (P9).

I don't mind being vulnerable. I don't mind sharing my fears and concerns and

vulnerabilities. I think as a result, my team share theirs with me; and that gives me an

opening (P11)

I am probably prepared to be a little bit more vulnerable with him than I am with

probably the others. So being coachable, there's a level of vulnerability; because you

are admitting you can't do something….., (P4)

Mayer, et al.’s (1995) seminal definition of trust is ‘the willingness of a party to be

vulnerable to the actions of another party’ (p.712). The implication of being vulnerable is that

by trusting someone, there is a potential for something to be lost or damaged, so accordingly

there is risk in being willing to trust another. In their integrative model of organisational trust,


Mayer et al (1995) argue that there are three antecedents of trustworthiness: ability,

benevolence, and integrity, which may be viewed independently, or as related, with ability

being the most important antecedent of trust (Knoll & Gill, 2011; Wells & Kipnis, 2001). Their

model has been used to examine trust in the coaching relationship (Markovic, McAtavey, &

Fischweicher, 2014) but only in the context of trust in an executive coaching relationship and

also from the perspective of the trust that a coachee may place in that executive coach. But

Mayer’s model can also be used as a lens through which to look at trust and risk from the

perspective of managerial coaching. All three of Mayer’s factors are considered important by

the managers participating in this study. Ability is of particular relevance: coaching managers

who do not have trust in the ability of the potential coachee, either in their performance or their

ability to improve their performance, may choose not to coach them but rather to minimise any

risks arising from performance deficiency by adopting a directing or instructing approach.

Although Mayer et al’s (1995) model does not assume that trust is reciprocal in dyadic

relationships, it seems reasonable to assume that in a coaching relationship, employees who

are managed by leaders who do not have technical knowledge of the area they lead, are less

likely to trust that coaching manager, and thus less likely to cooperatively engage in other

coaching opportunities that may arise and are which are not domain specific. This in turn may

result in a perception by the manager that it is risky for them to initiate further coaching

conversations. As trust leads to risk taking in relationships (Markovic, et al., 2014) if a manager

trusts a coachee, then they will be more likely to take risks in initiating coaching conversations.

Social exchange theory can also provide some clarity around the question of trust in a

coaching relationship. Blau’s (1964) social exchange theory has been described as ‘the

voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by the returns they are expected to bring

and typically do in fact bring from others’ (pp.91-92). Essentially, the theory is predicated on


a continuing expectation by both parties for the exchange of long-term, uncertain favours both

extrinsic and intrinsic. Kim and Kuo (2015) argue that, in a coaching relationship, the

manager’s provision of clear goals and paths, feedback, and enabling of development can be

perceived by coachees as goodwill, and that coachees may reciprocate by improving

performance and attitude. In this context, the level to which a coachee trusts a manager is a key

component of the coaching relationship and accordingly the exchange relationship. If trust is

lost in the relationship, particularly by a subordinate employee, then it is conceivable that the

coaching relationship will breakdown and further coaching may not occur or may become

dysfunctional. Risk, vulnerability, and safety are linked to trust and are the cornerstones of the

managerial coaching relationship, and whether consciously or unconsciously, managers’

decisions about coaching relate to these concepts.

6.4.3 Likeability

Likeability of a subordinate by the coaching manager was the third key issue which

appears to influence whether a coaching relationship is established. Similar to the construct of

agreeableness, although agreeableness may only be a dimension of likeability, likeability is an

important influence on interactions between individuals, especially those interactions in

business or the workplace. It is considered a key ingredient for building business relationships

(Pulles & Hartman, 2017). Studies have found that the extent to which a supervisor likes a

subordinate can increase the quality of the relationship (Lankau, Riordan, & Thomas, 2005).

Personal traits such as attractiveness, friendliness, and politeness have been associated with

perceptions of likeability, and people who are likeable are often perceived as pleasant to be

around (Pulles & Hartman, 2017). Specific to coaching, studies have shown that a high level

of interpersonal attraction between the coaching manager and the coachee is likely to contribute

to the coachee’s trust in a coach and is critical to a good coaching outcome (Bozer & Jones,


2018). Managers referred to the influence of interpersonal attraction and that the personal traits

of employees may influence how much they like the employee which, in turn, may shape the

likelihood of coaching an employee.

So maybe, yeah, it is personality and relational (P7)

Success or otherwise is defined a little bit by the personality or initiative of the people

involved (P10).

Leader-member exchange theory posits that the quality of the dyadic relationship is

based on mutual trust and respect (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). As high levels of interpersonal

attraction, or mutual likeability, may accelerate the trust a coachee has in a coach (Bozer &

Jones, 2018), it is likely that how much a coaching manager likes a subordinate employee will

increase the quality of the relationship, and accordingly influence their willingness to engage

in coaching conversations with them. This circle of mutual liking, trust and respect is supported

by research demonstrating that coaching by line managers is associated with high-quality

leader-member exchanges (Kuzmycz, 2011) and those exchanges in turn, can positively impact

performance and affective outcomes (Gerstner & Day, 1997).

Interestingly, the issue of likeability of an employee appeared to be of more concern to

the female managers participating in this study than the male managers. Descriptions of

coachees/employees by female managers were concerned with perceptions of personal and

interpersonal traits than were those of male managers and these descriptions were offered in

the context of explaining why they found some people to be more coachable than others.


…..she’s really good and she’s lovely (P4)

She's coachable because she listens. She reflects; so you understand that she's

hearing you. When you reflect back to her, she asks questions that make you realise

that she understands your feedback as well. She has emotional intelligence. (P26)

he had considerable self-esteem issues (P11)

I have more trouble doing it with somebody that is more introverted. I think it's because

they are introverted; their learning style is more a processing style (P6)

Why did you pick that particular person? Was there a choice for you? Could it

have been somebody else that you took under your wing like that? ……. He's smart,

he's keen; he's enthusiastic; he really puts it in. I just felt it was the right thing to be

doing, to help bring him along with the decision-making. (P24)

Female managers were also more likely to volunteer comments about the gender and

culturally related aspects of their potential coachees, particularly to explain why they enjoyed

their coaching relationships with them.

You know, like, she is a young mum, has a young daughter; and she's (religion) as well;

so she's got cultural and family ties and stuff; and quite a different upbringing and

cultural understanding than me (P4 – female)


S (name), she's wonderful. She's this young woman. She's (nationality) but grew up in

(country); and she's married to this - I think he's a (nationality) refugee----- (P11 -

female)

Why female coaching managers may appear to be more interested in the personal

backgrounds of their potential coachees is not obviously apparent. An explanation may be that

similarity and ‘shared experiences’ (Allen, Day, & Lenz, 2005, p.157) increases the

‘interpersonal comfort’ between them and their subordinate and accordingly creates a better

environment and opportunity for a coaching relationship. The more a person perceives another

to be like them, the more that person is liked (Byrne, 1971) and while similarity is not the same

construct as likeability (Pulles & Hartman, 2017), a high perceived similarity may improve the

quality of the coaching relationship between manager and employee (Gregory, 2010; McGuire,

1999). Additionally, as women respond more favourably to work and developmental

relationships than men (Van Velsor & Hughes, 1990) and the female leadership style is one of

consideration and interpersonal orientation (Sahin, Gurbuz, & Sesen, 2017), then it is

reasonable to assume that their interest in a coaching relationship will include an interest in all

aspects of the person especially distinguishing aspects such as gender and culture.

We have to deal with the whole person. (P11 – female)

However, most research in the area of coaching ‘similarity-attraction’ is in the

executive coaching and mentoring domains and therefore it is difficult to draw definitive

conclusions about why female managers may see coachee’s personal issues as being relevant

to coachability. Allen, et al.’s (2005) study into mentoring relationships found that there is a

positive relationship between interpersonal comfort and gender similarity in mentoring


relationships and that mentoring behaviours are influenced by gender similarity more easily as

mentees are more at ease with their mentors. This comfort within the same gender mentoring

relationship is a significant reason why same-gender mentoring derives greater benefits than

cross-gender mentorships. Lankau et al.’s (2005) study of mentoring relationships found that

demographic similarity was important in the mentoring relationship especially for the mentor,

and that the mentor may anticipate that gender or cultural differences may create interpersonal

barriers. And while mentoring is not the same as coaching (Clutterbuck & Lane, 2004), both

share sufficient similarities (McCarthy, 2014) for these findings to be useful in considering a

coaching manager’s tendency to be more inclined to coach employees of the same gender: the

coaching manager anticipates less interpersonal barriers, the coaching itself is more beneficial,

and thus a more comfortable relationship is established.

The influence of perceived coachability, the existing relationship, likeability and trust

on the coaching moment may also be explained by leader-member exchange theory which

posits that the quality of the relationships between leaders and their subordinates develop over

time based on the interactions between the two parties, and the extent to which their

expectations of their interactions are met (Uhl-Bien, Graen, & Scandura, 2000). Consistent

honouring of expectations by the parties is likely to build better trust and a higher quality

relationship which in turn is likely to lead to better career enhancement, promotions,

development, and knowledge sharing (Sue-Chan, Chen, & Lam, 2011). In the context of a

workplace coaching relationship, where there is a higher quality leader-member exchange

relationship, it is likely that the subordinate employee will have experienced previous

developmental actions from the manager and therefore coaching behaviours would not be new.

They would be trusted as an extension of the existing developmental relationship. The coaching


overtures would therefore be welcomed and, in turn, the manager would respond to the

openness of the subordinate, with an increased willingness to coach them.

6.5 Evaluating Overall Risk

The coachability of an employee and the relationship they have with the employee can

almost be considered as being akin to the purpose of Herzberg’s (1966) hygiene factors – they

are necessary factors that need to be in place and recognised by the manager before the manager

can consider other factors that may inhibit or enable a coaching intervention. In addition to and

because of these factors, a coaching manager will also evaluate their level of confidence in

using their coaching skills in the unplanned coaching moment. This confidence is inextricably

tied to the perceived risk and safety for them in the situation and accordingly, their sense of

vulnerability. The spontaneous or unplanned nature of the coachable moment means that

assessment of risk by the manager about how to approach that moment, does not usually afford

the manager the opportunity to plan the conversation thereby increasing the risk of the

conversation being unsuccessful and the manager’s likelihood of failing to take up the

opportunity of engaging in the coaching opportunity. Accordingly, these factors prompt

managers to question ‘is this risky for me’ and ‘am I confident in my coaching skills’ which is

consistent with the findings of Baker-Finch’s (2011) small study of managers which found that

while managers are comfortable conducting planned and prepared coaching sessions with their

staff, they are less confident in using their coaching skills in day to day coaching conversations

where they have not had the opportunity to plan.


Figure Seventeen: Evaluating Overall Risk – the fourth sub-category of contemplating coaching

6.5.1 Is this risky for me?

Managers not only weigh up the informal coaching opportunity in the context of the

likely efficacy of the coaching intervention, they also assess it, either consciously or intuitively,

in the context of the risk that it may pose to themselves.

If you misjudge it and they weren’t open to it, it can backfire pretty quickly….That

somebody thinks that you are having a go at them about something, particularly if it

was - if you are trying to coach them around something that hasn't gone well (P6)

You know, you have to assess the risk; right? If you think something isn't right but the

impact would be not that great, if they messed up, then you might let them; and they

learn from that. (P5)

(I) do have a natural avoidance with difficult conversations, which has been in place

for quite some time; even despite my - particularly where there is personal risk. (P9)

evaluating overall risk

is this risky for me?


I feel they would get upset more easily and would struggle to have a conversation that

helped us, uhm - yeah, I guess the conversation could almost become emotional, rather

than rational; in the sense, you ask someone to do something; that they feel

uncomfortable about that, triggers emotions rather than - that might trigger emotions

that would be challenging (P8)

The potential risks perceived by managers when approaching coaching appear

numerous. There is the risk that the coachee may become emotional and the manager may be

confronted with a personal issue for which they are not equipped to discuss and the risk of

letting go and trusting the coachee to take responsibility for a problem for which there is no

resolution (Mayer, et al, 1995). There may also be the risk of damage to the relationship with

the coachee who may interpret the conversation as indicating that they are, in some way,

deficient in performance. The latter is a particularly acute risk for managers as employees can

become defensive when receiving feedback and deny the feedback (London, 1997) and judge

the manager to be biased or insensitive (Argyris, 1991). This situation, in turn, might result in

the manager avoiding, delaying or distorting negative feedback (Benedict & Levine, 1988).

For a manager in an organisation such as RS1, the risks can be considered potentially

reputational (Mayer, et al., 1995) and career inhibiting because the organisation values

coaching highly and a good leader is expected to demonstrate an effective coaching style. In

addition, where ‘nice’ conversations are valued and a coaching conversation results in emotion,

anger, or conflict, the coaching manager may be considered to have failed in the soft skills

required of a coaching leader. Thus it is not surprising that less experienced managers may

consciously carefully assess a number of situational factors before deciding to take up an

informal coaching opportunity.


Given that intuitive decisions made by managers are often affected by how

psychologically safe they feel (Roberto, 2002), it is useful to understand the concept of a

coaching manager at risk through the lens of psychological safety theory. This theory defines

psychological safety as being ‘able to show and employ one’s self without fear of negative

consequences to self-image, status or career’ (Kahn, 1990, p.708). Feeling psychologically

safe in the workplace can encourage learning, collaboration, and a willingness to speak up or

be more honest (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). Although psychological risk in the workplace has

largely been examined in the context of interpersonal safety for employees’ feedback seeking

behaviours (Carmeli, 2008; Turner & McCarthy, 2015), people who provide feedback, such as

coaching managers, have been found to be more likely to do so if they also consider themselves

to be in a safe environment (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). For coaching managers who need to

provide coaching to employees who are emotional or aggressive, the environment would not

always be perceived to be ‘safe’.

There are also more risks for managers in dealing with poor performers than dealing

with good performers (Jordan & Audia, 2012). Geddes and Baron (1995) found that when

addressing negative feedback with a subordinate, managers were principally concerned with

two factors: the effectiveness of the feedback and the negative reactions by the employee.

Ensuring that their feedback was helping rather than hurting the employee was of more concern

than whether the employee may be defensive or upset by the feedback. Nevertheless, managers

who experienced retaliatory actions from employees upset by feedback, reported feeling

‘frustrated’, ‘angered’, ‘surprised’, and ‘nervous’ (p.444). It is not surprising therefore that

where a coaching conversation is about providing negative feedback or focusing on

deficiencies in performance, managers will weigh up the risk of the conversation.


I think about what their reaction is going to be like and whether the outcome will be

counter-productive or not. That would be my first thought. That would be the easiest

thing to think about. (P23)

The result of this assessment may be a consideration of communication tactics carefully

using a ‘best fit’ approach (Brown, et al, 2015) which, consistent with feedback giving

avoidance theory (Machin & Jeffries, 2016) might include avoiding the conversation

altogether.

The fear of emotion being displayed toward them is not the only ‘risk’ that managers

assess. P28 noted that, when considering a spontaneous coaching conversation with a

subordinate, he was conscious of how onlookers might view an emotional discussion between

a male manager and a female subordinate. He stated that when he realised that she was stressed

– ‘I realised pretty quickly that it was a coaching moment’ - but that he scheduled to speak

with her at another time off premises, ‘just because people take things the wrong way’:

I needed to think. I needed to process the best way. I didn't suggest - I don't believe - I

don't remember but I don't think - I said, "Let's catch up. I will set up a time on our

calendars." And I decided in the office is not the best thing because she's quite

worked-up. If she's quite worked-up, being in an environment like (company), it is

probably not the best place; "let's keep it informal". Also, decided to keep it in a public

setting, so that the male/female thing never became a problem; so there were a couple

of things in my head that I needed to think through. (P28)


6.5.2 Am I confident in my coaching skills?

Anderson’s (2013) research suggests that there may be a link between occupational

self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) and a manager’s propensity to engage in coaching, although there

is little further guidance in the literature relating to the level of confidence that managers may

have in their ability to coach others, and how this may affect their propensity to coach. A

surprising finding in this study was the high level of confidence that managers expressed about

their coaching skills. Many participants from both organisations appeared extremely confident

in their ability to coach even though many had not had specific training in coaching that was

more than around three days duration.

Are you confident in your leadership and your coaching style? Ah, yeah, very happy.

I have been doing it for a few years. Like I said, it all seems quite natural. I don't have

to forcibly behave in a certain way. (P3)

I am confident with what I know, that I can talk to people, yeah. Because in (work area),

I am conversations all the time; you know, helping people, just coaching. "Did you

know about this, that and that? And that is the reason why." And then also asking

questions as well, "Oh, why did you do it like this/that?" So, yeah, I am confident. (P12)

It was more important, for coaching managers, to gain credibility with employees by

having technical knowledge of the areas they were coaching in.

if you are coaching someone and you have no credibility, they might be thinking, "Why

am I listening to you?" (P1)

This credibility, in turn, gives managers confidence in the coaching conversation.


……you are starting from a position of strength. "I know this material. I am able to

explain this material. (P8)

Although many of the managers claimed great confidence in their coaching skills, the

coaching behaviours and practices they described at interview did not always accord with the

contemporary view of what constitutes coaching. For managers, coaching was more the

traditional instructing, training, and directing behaviours that have been described in Chapter

Five of this study, rather than transformational or developmental coaching. Their comfort and

preference to engage conversationally with their staff in areas of mutual technical background

and skills and their tendency to describe this as ‘coaching’ may well in part account for their

claims of confidence in coaching.

However, it is somewhat of a paradox that managers expressed great confidence in their

coaching ability and yet say that they weigh carefully their decisions on whether they will

coach someone according to their own criteria and if the situation is ‘safe’ or low risk. These

managers appeared to be confident in their generic coaching skills but not necessarily confident

that the situation or the relationship with the coachee will allow them to utilise those coaching

skills effectively.

The literature indicates that managers may infrequently coach their employees because

they lack the skills to coach as well as the confidence to coach (Beattie et al, 2014; Gilley, et

al, 2010) and the training of line managers in coaching skills will increase the likelihood of

them displaying coaching behaviors (Graham, et al, 1994; Peterson & Hicks, 1996). In the case

of participants from RS1, all had been exposed to some level of leadership training and most

had undergone some specific coach training, albeit of a short duration. It was these managers


(from RS1) who appeared to express more confidence in their coaching skills and claim to

coach more frequently.

6.6 Summary

Characteristics of a coachable moment are spontaneity, an opportunity to create a

learning, and informality. The ideal coachable moment for most managers is one where there

is a clearly defined problem that fits within the manager’s skill and knowledge set, and for

which they can adopt more of a teaching or instructing approach rather than a traditional

coaching approach of asking questions and facilitating the coachee to find the answer.

Recent literature has suggested that numerous situational and contextual factors affect

the manager’s decision to coach (Anderson, 2013; Hagen, 2012; Turner & McCarthy, 2015) as

confirmed by this study. What is interesting in the current study is the level to which managers

evaluate the situational and contextual factors that they perceived to exist in the coachable

moment presenting. Some managers did so quite consciously and others used their intuition to

guide their instincts on whether a coaching intervention is right for the moment. There are

many factors that managers take into account, and predictably, given the busy nature of a

contemporary manager’s day, timing and venue are two of these factors. And while timing,

venue and other logistical issues can be impediments to coaching, the real impediments relate

to the interpersonal and personal factors that are present, and the perception by the manager as

to the risk these may pose to them if they capitalise on the coaching moment. Managers are

keen to avoid giving negative feedback and may be reluctant to engage in coaching

conversations which may centre on behavioural issues and become emotional or adversarial.

Such conversations pose both a reputational and a relationship risk for the manager who is keen

to demonstrate ongoing coaching behaviours, which are characteristically ‘nice’. The risks


associated with not being seen to coach and therefore not being considered a coaching leader

are outweighed in the manager’s mind by the potential risks of a resistant employee, an

emotional response from the coachee, or an angry confrontation. All of these factors have

potential to impact negatively on the impression that the coaching manager is trying to create,

that is, an impression of being a competent coaching manager conducting pleasant, or ‘nice’

coaching conversations with employees for the purpose of performance improvement.

The knowledge the manager has of the potential coachee and the extent to which they

gauge them to be coachable is a key input into their decision-making about coaching. The

manager’s propensity to engage in a coaching moment will rely on perceptions of coachee

receptiveness, the relationship they have with the coachee and the perceived level of trust in

that relationship, as well as the level to which a manager actually likes the coachee. Likeability

can centre on similarity with managers preferring to coach those staff who are similar to them

in personality, gender, or culture. But the managerial and subordinate relationship is a dyadic

one in which the interpersonal dynamics and actions of both parties will have unique and

separate effects on the overall relationship, and likely will affect the perceptions they have of

each other including the willingness to enter into a coaching conversation. So any consideration

of issues such as coachability, vulnerability, trust and likeability need to be viewed in the

context of the manager’s perceptions of the coachee and also in the context of the interactions

of the dyad and the perceptions of the coachee. All these factors will potentially impact on the

likelihood and quantum of conflict or emotion that may emerge from the coaching

conversation. Using the theoretical frame of OCB, impression management and feedback

giving avoidance theory, it can be suggested that while the coaching manager may be keen to

genuinely engage in the coaching process to demonstrate good organisational citizenship and

to create a positive impression, the risk of the consequences of the conversation is carefully


assessed (Lizzio et al, 2008) potentially resulting in the manager choosing to avoid the

conversation (Brown, et al, 2016).

Clearly, contemplating the coaching opportunity is undertaken by assessing the

coaching moment itself as well as the personal and interpersonal factors at play and is a crucial

step in engaging through coaching. The next category of enacting coaching and its sub-

categories of positioning the conversation and applying standardised techniques are explained

in the following chapter.


Chapter 7

ENACTING COACHING

“I tried not to feed the answer through the questions”

Participant 6

_____________________________________________

7.1 Introduction

Chapter Seven is the third findings chapter. The previous findings chapters (5&6)

presented the processes that occur prior to actual coaching taking place, that is, the pre-

coaching or contemplative processes. It was argued that managers generally want to coach and

want to be seen to be coaching but will weigh up their desire to assist employees and their

desire to demonstrate coaching leadership behaviours against the risks that may be present in

a coachable moment that presents itself.

This chapter explores the coaching process in which the manager engages once a

decision has been made to operationalise a presenting coaching moment. This process is

referred to as enacting coaching. Enacting coaching has two sub-categories of positioning the

conversation and applying standardised techniques, and directly addresses the research

question of ‘how do managers coach their subordinates in unexpected coaching moments?’

The process of enacting coaching is depicted in Figure Eighteen (below):


Figure Eighteen: The major category of enacting coaching

The chapter focuses on how and why managers enact their understanding or their

construction of the coaching process, how they position the nature of the conversation, and

how they use coaching models to contain the conversation in a safe framework. The purpose

is not to describe in detail the micro-skills which managers may employ in order to effect a

coaching intervention but rather to explore the key overall techniques employed to control and

standardise the coaching conversation.

7.2 Positioning the conversation

Managerial coaching can be enacted through two different styles (Dixey, 2015), formal

and informal coaching. There are obvious differences between these coaching styles. Formal

coaching usually consists of ‘sit down designated coaching sessions’ (Grant, 2016, p.2) and

informal coaching is unplanned and usually unstructured (Grant & Hartley, 2013). The latter

is most often unplanned because it is responding to an observed ‘coachable moment’, that is,


Constructing

Contemplating

Enacting

positioning the conversation

applying standardised techniques

Sensemaking


an unforeseen opportunity to facilitate a conversation about a behaviour, performance or

development issue. As noted, the characteristically spontaneous nature of the coachable

moment can mean that there is a lack of opportunity for the coaching manager to think through

a structured process of engagement to address the coaching issue presenting before engaging

in the conversation. Accordingly, the coaching conversation may just spontaneously occur and

not be prefaced with any introduction which flags the conversation to the employee as being

anything different from a normal, day-to-day interaction with the manager (Dixey, 2015).

Figure Nineteen: Positioning the Conversation – the first sub-category of enacting coaching

7.2.1 Being transparent about being in coaching mode

Managerial coaching has a number of interesting paradoxes. One paradox is that while

managers want to be seen to be coaching their subordinates because the organisation actively

and openly encourages coaching and they wish to be seen as compliant organisational citizens,

they appear to be reluctant to declare to their subordinates that they are coaching them or indeed

to label the conversation in the moment as coaching:

We don't kind of explicitly say, "We are going to do some informal coaching", or

anything like this but it could be more about, "T, can you help C? Can you show her a

couple of things that you do, to make this better?" So it's kind of identified within our

positioning the

conversation

let's not actually call it coaching


group that "people need assistance or people need to - are here and want to be up

here". (P1)

I don't think it's necessary to say, "Hey, for the next five minutes, we are going to have

a coaching moment". It's like, "What? Why don't we just - why don't you just tell me

what you - why don't just do it, rather than identify it as such? (P8)

Despite wanting to project a good impression by declaring they are coaching, it is

possible that managers might not label a conversation as a coaching conversation because they

do not recognise it as such at the time. One such example is a manager declaring that it was

immaterial whether the coachee was aware that they were being coached, but then declaring

that she would not ‘sign post’ a coaching conversation, preferring to disguise the conversation

as interest in the employee’s career development:

I think that because the majority of what we are doing is on-the-job coaching to a

particular end, which is to do with their role, then I don't know whether it matters if

they know they are coaching or not. It is a matter of how you achieve an outcome that

you have to achieve. ……..I probably don't signpost the coaching conversation. I would

signpost upfront to say, "What is your career development? Where are we going with

that? In order to get there, these are some of things that we need to focus on and work

on (P19)

This failure to surface or explicitly label certain conversations as coaching, despite

wanting to be seen as a good organisational citizen and modelling coaching behaviours, may

be because coaching still suffers from a perception that it is a remedial activity (Bennett, 2003;


McComb, 2009). This is illustrated by P24 (below) who noted that coaching as ‘got negative

connotations to it’ and explained that he was reluctant to label his ongoing conversations with

a young employee as ‘coaching’ because he believed that the coachee may perceive him as

being condescending:

I didn't say, "Mate, we are going through a coaching moment here." I don't do that.

………..Oh, it sounds a bit, I don't know, condescending. I'm not comfortable saying

that sort of stuff. (P24)

The perception that employees relate coaching conversations to a performance

deficiency was also illustrated by P8 who used an example during the interview of trying to

teach his young daughter how to vacuum the house. He explained that he did not believe that

prefacing the conversation with her by explicit reference to the process of him teaching her to

vacuum would be useful:

So what you are saying is: some of these, the effect or art of it, is doing it, so that they

don't know? (Researcher)

I would prefer to do it - I would feel more - well, you don't have to make them feel like

they need coaching.

Yes, okay. People don't want to know that they need it. They want to do it because they

want it.

Yes, okay. I don't want people to feel like they are deficient in some way when they

..(P8)


As noted earlier, coaching has often been equated with remedial action or a process to

bridge a deficit in performance (Fournies, 1987; Grant, 2016; Passmore, 2007) and managers

are aware that coaching is often perceived by subordinates as a process to address shortcomings

(Heslin, et al, 2006; Somers, 2007). The reluctance by managers to attach the term coaching to

the discussions with subordinates resonates with recent research that found that managers did

not label their informal coaching as coaching because they feared that employees may feel

uncomfortable about being coached and therefore not engage in the coaching conversation

(Lawrence, 2017). This also accords feedback giving avoidance theory which argues that

managers often seek to avoid being perceived to give negative feedback (Brown, et al, 2016)

or indeed to engage in any conversations which might become emotional or conflictual.

Accordingly, they adopt a range of tactics to avoid negative feedback giving (Baron, 1973;

London, 1997).

There are also other reasons that account for why managers do not always use the

coaching label to their subordinates to describe their conversations. Managers are aware that

their interactions are not always consistent with how the organisation would describe coaching

or how they may have been trained to coach. They are concerned that a savvy coachee may

draw attention to that point. Indeed, if a manager is unsure about their coaching skills and how

they should apply them, they may be reluctant to label their interactions as coaching. P6

recounted a bad experience with a previous manager who would attempt to ‘coach’ her but in

fact P6 perceived the interactions to be dictatorial and indeed ‘nasty’. She explained that if she

had been more experienced at the time and realised what coaching was and the nature of the

conversations she was having with that manager, she would have ‘been in a better position to

push back’. She stated that pushing back on these supposed coaching conversations was

difficult because of the ‘hierarchical relationship’:


She was definitely not coaching; she was something close to a dictator.

But she thought she was coaching? She really thought she was coaching but she was

quite punitive and just a little bit nasty.

Funny how you can confuse that, don't you think, in your mind, though? Yeah, I

think she thought she was helping but she was just a bit mean and directive-----

What was the real difference-----

It was the directive nature of it. But she thought that was coaching, but it was directing;

and just directing, no context and no - so "break the eggs in the cake mix", but not what

the eggs do or why you would put them in the cake mix at that point. (P6)

Furthermore and despite espousing the benefits of subordinates being coached by their

managers, managers can be embarrassed or resentful about being coached themselves by their

own managers:

The interesting thing is, sometimes I hate being coached myself, as a leader; which I

think is probably pretty hypocritical of me, sometimes (P4)

The above may be an issue related to some resistance to the perceived power their leader

may have over them in giving feedback. It may also mirror the experience that their

subordinates have when they are coached where it is presumed there is a deficit in performance.

As noted earlier, coaching is often delivered by managers in a remedial context, and therefore

coaching managers are likely to be sensitive to that context. Feelings of embarrassment and

perhaps even shame are possible reactions to being ‘coached’, particularly where the coaching


manager plays the role of ‘expert’ in the coaching relationship with their own subordinates

(Cavicchia, 2010).

It is not surprising, therefore, that while reluctant to be seen to be coached, managers

want to know from the person coaching them that coaching is taking place:

Do you know when you are being coached? Uhm, I do now. We were in a (training)

thing, which is our leadership academy, and they were talking about what coaching is

and I go, ‘hang on, my leader does that to me all the time’. So I have become more

aware of it now than I probably was 12 months ago. (FG participant)

P4 related how she cross she felt when she realised that her own manager considered

that the daily conversations they had been having for the past few months were coaching

conversations:

I reckon it took me about eight months to realise that's what she was doing. And then I

was a little bit pissed off (laughs), to be honest with you (P4 – 2nd interview).

P4 considered that these conversations were characteristic of the mutuality of their

relationship and although she had a very good relationship with her manager, and enjoyed the

interactions with her manager, she felt deceived that her manager had not been transparent with

her about the nature of those conversations.

I think if you ask my leader, if they ask for permission to coach, I would say "no". (P4

– 1st interview)


I think, and this might be an ego thing, "I don't need to be coached," kind of thing. But

I do. And it is probably now - if J had of told me upfront, I reckon I would have put

walls up but-----

Because of this notion of "I don't need to be coached"? Like, "you must have a

deficit or something to be coached"?

Yes, and it is probably not understanding, actually, what she's trying to do is not always

give me the answer. Let me go to the answer; because at the end of the day, the lesson

is going to be more valuable. (P4 – 2nd interview)

P4 explained that she had previously worked for another manager who rarely took a

coaching approach with her and mostly, in response to approaches from P4 with work issues,

would respond by being relatively directive and/or providing her with the answer or the

information she required. P4 found this to be a helpful style of leadership because it was explicit

to both of them that she was seeking help and being provided with help in a relatively direct

fashion. She found her new manager’s reflective and questioning style to be quite frustrating:

I find that difficult as well because I am very ‘shoot from the hip’ as well (P4)

However, some months later, when she understood from her manager that she had been

adopting a coaching style with her, P4 explained that:

… if I need an answer, I need to pre-warn her and give her some time to think. And then

I need to be really directive about what I need from her. But I think it took us a little

while to get there. (P4)


It is not unusual for informal coaching conversations not to be perceived by either

participant as constituting a coaching process (Anderson, 2013; Grant, 2010). A lack of

awareness by the coachee that they are being coached in informal coaching situations was

recently identified by Dixey (2015) in her phenomenological study of coaching managers. In

this study, managers expressed a preference that their coachees not be aware that they were

being coached as they believed it would detract from the coaching being perceived as part of

their leadership style and role. Dixey described this preference by managers to not declare they

were coaching as ‘a lack of transparency’ and ‘covert coaching’ (p.83) and acknowledged that

the reluctance by managers to formalise the conversations by providing clarity on ‘purpose

and consistency’ as contradictory to practitioner texts encouraging it. Yet, the very foundation

of coaching cultures and informal managerial coaching is predicated on the notion that

coaching will become an integral part of a manager’s leadership style (Bresser, 2010; CIPD,

2010; Hawkins, 2012; Rock & Donde, 2008) which suggests that rather than coaching being

seen as a separate process of management which should be flagged to employees by the

manager, it should naturally occur without the employee necessarily knowing that they are

being coached at any given time. This poses a dilemma for the manager where good practice

in coaching generally requires transparency through a process of permission seeking from the

potential coachee by establishing explicit boundaries around the coaching conversation as well

as assessing the readiness for the conversation (Bluckert, 2006; Kretzschmar, 2010).

In the context of executive coaching, boundary setting and permission seeking to coach

is effected through a process of contracting which is an essential tool to establish ‘clear

commitments’ or ‘mutual expectations’ (Frisch, 2001, p.246). Boundary setting is a process to

reduce misunderstandings and increase trust (Bluckert, 2006; Kretzschmar, 2010) as coaching

is not well defined and there is often ‘conceptual confusion regarding the boundaries of what


coaching is and is not’ (Ciporen, 2015, p.5). A form of contracting is usually a mandatory first

step in most coaching models and is advocated in well-known coaching models such as the

FLOW model (Flaherty, 1999), Dingman’s (2004) coaching model, the CLEAR model

(Hawkins & Smith, 2006), Bluckert’s (2006) coaching model, and Clutterbuck & Megginson’s

(2006) coaching model.

The contracting process is also used by internal coaches, that is, dedicated coaching

resources employed by the organisation that are not line managers, but in a managerial context,

where the coach is the manager and the ‘client’ is the subordinate, the term contracting is rarely

used. Accordingly, the process of explicitly establishing boundaries and expectations around

the informal coaching interactions is rarely conducted. In RS1’s coach training in the leadership

program, there is no mention of contracting or indeed of any generic process to seek permission

to coach, establish boundaries, or agree on issues of confidentiality.

There is divided opinion in the coaching literature around the extent to which

contracting is realistic for informal, managerial coaching interactions although the CIPD

(2007) has raised concerns about the ‘psychological boundary issues’ in relation to the unique

nature of managerial coaching. Hawkins (2012) argues that contracting is not just for external

coaches but that it is essential for coaching managers. He submits that a process of contracting

is particularly important in corridor conversations because surfacing the purpose of the

conversation reduces the dependency that employees can place on their managers for quick and

easy answers to questions rather than learning to resolve issues themselves. Hawkins suggests

that contracting for a coaching manager should involve being clear about the purpose and

outcomes of the conversation, the roles of the parties, and any other issues. In her study of trust

in reciprocal peer coaching, Cox (2012) refers to the contracting process as a ‘framework for


trust’ (p.436) and advocates that contracting should occur in informal, internal organisational

coaching relationships, as contracting strengthens trust in the relationship. She argues that

during this contracting process, issues that are particularly important in an internal peer

coaching relationship can be addressed but suggests that where one of the parties is the line

manager it may be problematic.

Contracting or surfacing the conversation as a coaching conversation is also an

important way of determining whether the subordinate is ready for coaching. This is

particularly important in the coachable moment because the very spontaneity of the moment

may mean that the moment is not right for the coachee. Determining readiness and capability

to engage in coaching (Bluckert, 2006) is a crucial part of contracting because the readiness of

an employee for coaching can affect how effective that coaching is (Kretzschmar, 2010).

Perhaps most importantly, however is that because a manager often has a dual role of

coach and evaluator (Hunt & Weintraub, 2007), confidentiality is one of the key issues in the

contracting process (Cox, 2012; Hawkins, 2012) and is integral to the trust between the parties.

In an impromptu coaching conversation without an initial contracting process, subordinates

may well wonder whether what they discuss with the coaching manager may be used in another

forum (Riddle & Ting, 2006). Accordingly, McCarthy and Milner (2013) submit that it is

essential that the coaching manager explicitly discuss issues of confidentiality with the

subordinate in advance of the conversation and they suggest that a coaching manager should

even go so far as to stop an informal conversation if they believe that the coachee may regret

being too open. Conversely, Anderson et al. (2009) argue that it is ‘unrealistic to expect the

deep rapport, level of confidentiality and ‘boundary maintenance’ expected from formal


coaching relationships’ because the coaching manager role is just a ‘style of management’

(p.7).

The issue of contracting is problematic in informal coaching because the process is

spontaneous and often happens without planning. Informal managerial coaching requires a

higher level of trust from the coachee because the role of the manager is constantly quickly

changing (Hunt & Weintraub, 2007). Formal coaching is usually apparent to coachees because

it is typically characterised by ‘sit-down sessions’ (Anderson, 2013), usually with notice, but

most importantly, with a clear understanding of the purpose of the meeting. Informal coaching

is a conversation in-the-moment, so there is no ‘flag’ to the employee about the purpose of the

conversation which without contracting, could be interpreted in many different ways by the

employee.

The lack of support from coaching managers for the process of contracting is in stark

contrast to the importance that is placed upon contracting by executive coaches. Contracting

was unimportant to coaching managers because they were not aware from their training of the

ethical issues related to transparency and boundary setting in coaching and they also may be

solely problem-focused and have little time to dwell on what might be considered as the

‘niceties’ of coaching. However, it is more probable, given the awareness managers had about

their employees’ perception that being coaching indicates a performance deficiency, and

further illustrated through their own experience of not wanting to be seen to be coached, that

the failure to label conversations as being coaching was a conscious notion designed to avert

any conflict with a reluctant coachee. Yet, the failure to surface their conversations as coaching

up front poses more risk to the coaching manager as it means there can be no contracting

process. Without an explicit contract as part of the coaching conversation process, neither party


can be clear that individual expectations will be met, and the manager, risks that the

conversation’s purpose may be misunderstood resulting in emotional or angry reactions from

an employee who may feel that the coaching has been covert and manipulative.

7.3 Applying standardised techniques

The lack of opportunity for preparation for a coachable moment is an additional risk for

the coaching manager who, as seen in Chapter 6, may be already concerned about existing

situational and interpersonal factors. How they approach the conversation and facilitate the

dialogue may be by standardising the process and techniques of conversation by applying

generic coaching models and transactional facilitation processes to reduce the risk of an

ineffective, emotional or conflictual conversation. Two techniques which are relied upon by

managers to conduct a coaching conversation are questioning and the application of a coaching

model, the latter constituting what Grant (2016) describes as the ‘mechanistic approaches’ (p.1)

which are often taught in workplace coach training programs.

Figure Twenty: Applying Standardised Techniques – the second sub-category of enacting coaching

7.3.1 Using questioning as the key coaching tool

There are many skills that are associated with managerial coaching including listening,

interviewing, and observation (Ellinger, 2013) but ‘questioning lies at the very heart of the

applying standardised techniques

I'll keep it predictable and safe


coaching conversation’ (Grant & O’Connor, 2010, p.2). The role of the coach ‘is largely one

of asking questions that open new possibilities for understanding, make new connections and

new meanings and, ultimately, new patterns of action’ (Grant & Cavanagh, 2011, p.29) and it

is apparent that coaching managers rely on questioning as the key technique to facilitate the

coaching dialogue in the workplace.

Coaching is around a specific question (FG participant)

Mostly not participating in the conversation, you know, waiting for an answer (FG

participant)

It is providing support and asking questions that help them reach the solution (FG

participant)

The dominance of questioning in coaching conversations originates from the Socratic

tradition of asking open-ended (Carey, Philippon, & Cummings, 2011; Neenan, 2009) and

‘uncomfortable core’ (Barnes & Payette, 2017, p.6) questions in a genuine attempt to facilitate

reflection and prompt insights, and for some relatively experienced and skilled coaching

managers, this is the key technique they employ:

So I think it's, rather than answering questions for her, I am trying to get her to get to

those solutions on her own. Does that make sense? (P4)

it's more of a dialogue. So it is not sort of a one-way flow of me saying how I would do

it; but maybe more of a discussion, but encouraging them to think about different


options, different - "if you take that approach, what might happen?", that kind of thing.

(P2)

While coaching managers understand that coaching is non-directive (Cox, et al, 2010)

and therefore the developmental coaching conversation means the coachee arrives at their own

solutions or realisations, they find it difficult to resist playing a directive role (Leimon, 2005)

which may be more indicative of the traditional, interventionist managerial style:

So I really just asked her questions but I tried not to feed her - I tried not to feed the

answer through the questions (P6)

…..mostly not participating in the conversation, you know, waiting for the answer;

coming back with a question to a question is my big one (FG)

I try not to – I don’t think I consciously try not to, but I try not to tell people things.

(P16)

I know there's been instances when I have reflected after the conversation and given

myself a kick, "I have been too direct." So I didn't let them do enough thinking. Didn't

let them do enough talking; because I saw the answer straight away and I told them

what the answer was, "Go on, go do it; it is really exciting". (P27)

A source of frustration for managers can be that not all employees want to be coached

and at times, merely want the manager to provide them with answers.


I had an interesting email/dialogue with one of my team the other day and she asked

me a question - I can't even remember what the topic was - and she basically asked me,

how would I present this piece of information to my peers; I think it was something to

do with that. And my response was, "Well, have you given any thought to how they

would like to receive information, or blah, blah, blah?" And she sent me an email

straight back saying, "Oh, that was such a coaching response"-----

Did she? Yes, and we sort of laughed about it but I think then she was a little bit

embarrassed that she had asked me such a question, that was "give me the answer

here", rather than, "This is what I am thinking of doing; what do you think about that?”.

(P11)

Because some people just want the answer, don't they? There's different types of people.

Some just want the answer; and some people want to know the "why" behind it. Now,

we are always a big believer in our area, the "why" behind it is very important because

that gives you more context. When you explain something to someone, the "why" is

important. But some people just want the answer and that's it. (P12)

Contemporary coaching scholars suggest that the purpose of managerial coaching is to

improve employee performance through facilitating learning and development (Beattie, et al,

2014; Grant, 2010; Grant, 2016; Hagen, 2012; Hunt & Weintraub, 2002; McCarthy & Ahrens,

2011) and yet it appears from this study that coaching is used for a range of different purposes

including the covert correcting of staff behaviour and even disciplining. Coaching managers

may also use various practices, under the guise of coaching, to control or manipulate employees

to the outcome required. These can include ‘changing minds’ which consists of building the

desired answers into the questions asked (Neenan, 2015), the ‘advice-in-disguise question’


(Rogers, 2008, p.60) which is sometimes referred to by practitioners as ‘sneaky telling’, and

prefacing questions with a statement (Wallis, 2016) to effectively lead the coachee to a pre-

determined conclusion.

The common technique throughout these practices is questioning which can be a form

of subtle control by guiding employees through questioning to come to the answer or realisation

required by the manager. Cox (2013) suggests that coaching questions should only be about

helping the coachee explore, clarify and learn, and indeed she asserts that ‘the only reason why

a coach asks a question is to move the client closer to some resolution of the task’ (p.108). But

if the questioning is not aimed at genuinely enlightening the person questioning, then it may

take on a false or disingenuous persona which is inconsistent with the coaching process based

on trust.

In their discourse analysis on Hunt and Weintraub’s (2002) seminal book on managerial

coaching, Nielsen and Norreklit (2009) submit that the authors’ advice to managers to use

questioning as the key coaching technique encourages the perception that the purpose of asking

questions is to create the appearance of genuine interest in the answers, rather than the real

purpose, which is to change behaviour to the way they require it. They argue that the

questioning is a way of controlling the employee’s ‘capacity to respond’ and could be

considered to be a ‘fake dialogue with questions anticipating stereotypical sets of answers’

(p.208). The coaching process assumes not only a fake façade but also a controlling aspect.

This is evident where for some coaching managers, the process of questioning appears to have

taken on an almost transactional quality which is aimed at going through the process of arriving

at the answer the manager is seeking. This is particularly evidenced in P5’s response to the

question of how she coaches employees which indicates that questioning takes on an almost


transactional, manipulative aspect to deliberately ensure that the coachee arrives at the answer

that the manager requires, which was an apology for behaviour:

……….it's usually just asking them questions, I guess, until they give you - until they

get that, "Yeah, sorry, I shouldn't have done that". (P5)

The potential for the coaching manager to use the coaching conversation in a

transactional and even controlling manner is at odds with much of the coaching literature which

strongly advocates the need for a managerial coaching style characterised by encouragement

and support (Ellinger, Ellinger, Hamlin, & Beattie, 2010), encouraging empowerment (Everard

& Selman, 1989; Rogers, 2000), and instilling trust (Joo, 2005). The coaching conversations,

described in this study, were invariably not related to personal or behavioural issues that would

naturally require supportive, trusting behaviours but rather were transactional in nature and

based on a use of questioning to either extract work-based information or to lead an employee

to pre-determined outcome. This should not be surprising given that much of informal

managerial coaching occurs without the ability to prepare for the conversation and within the

context of a workplace environment with the usual time constraints and output focus. In a time

pressured coachable moment, the compelling driver for the manager is to conduct a

conversation about the business issue or incident that has occurred or is about to occur and it

is rarely feasible for the manager to engage a full coaching model approach.

It is a time-based thing, too. Time-based? Yeah, you have got to create time to want to

do it. (P24)


Sometimes it can take time to coach. I guess it depends on what you are delivering,

and the time pressures around it. And also the pay-off that you want as well at the end

(FG participant)

Employing a targeted, transactional questioning approach not only saves time and

isolates the key issue to be discussed, but it also minimises the risk that the conversation may

become emotional, conflictual or stray into areas outside a manager’s coaching expertise.

7.3.2 Using Coaching Models

As with transactional questioning described above, managers also rely heavily on

coaching models in taking a structured approach to the informal coaching conversation. For

example, managers often use the GROW model which is attributed to Sir John Whitmore

(2009) and has been described as ‘the most influential and adaptable model of coaching’

(Carey, et al, 2011, p.52). GROW is an anacronym for goal, reality, options, and will2, and in

this study, most managers applied this model because it was the key coaching model used in

RS1 leadership and coaching training. Grant (2016) views the adoption of coaching models

such as GROW as being characteristic of the ‘second generation of workplace coaching’ (p.5)

which encouraged managers to structure coaching conversations into sit-down 30-60-minute

coaching sessions with staff. Grant argues that this is impracticable as most coaching

conversations are ‘on-the-run corridor-coaching conversations’ (p. 6). However, this is not the

experience of all managers who see a key advantage in using a coaching model such as GROW

as providing a sense of structure and predictability particularly for those managers who may

be inexperienced in coaching:

2 Grant (2016) describes the W in GROW as being ‘wrap-up’ rather than Will. This is a common variation from

Whitmore’s original model.


I think GROW is good, if you use it loose; like, if you are not too rigid with it. But I like

the - I like having some kind of road map to kind of stick to. (P1)

You said you learnt the GROW model; do you use that at all? I have, yep. I used it

quite deliberately for one situation I had last year ……it was more effective than if I

hadn't applied any model and just tried to do things more informally. (P2)

Something to hold onto and it makes it tangible for people who prefer structure and

measurability and all those sort of things (P6)

It is just mind-checking as you go through the conversation, "Hang on, should we check

the reality? Talk them through that." Say, "Look, you are here. Is that - what’s the

reality? And tell me about that." And get them to repeat it back to you. (P28)

Similar to a reliance on intuition when contemplating coaching, experienced managers

do not appear to always consciously rely on coaching models for structuring coaching

conversations:

I don't feel like I have ever used - I never feel like I am - I don't even think in my

communications, I am not very - I don't kind of follow a textbook or anything. I am

much more kind of, "Does this feel right?", yeah. (P4)


I guess I have had GROW beaten in my head. I am sure I use GROW but I don't

consciously use GROW. Like, I know I take them through the process of coming up with

options (P6)

So when you coach, are you conscious of using any particular models or processes?

Not really, no. Don't use processes. I am not a real process man. I am more of an ideas

man (P12)

Yet managers can be aware that the application of a model, especially one used in the

common training they all attend, can be recognised by coachees who may see the application

of a model as lacking authenticity.

I think "GROW" is good. I think it is good to have some kind of road map or something

to use when you are coaching, rather than just trying to wing it. Again, if it is too rigid

or if it is obvious what you are doing, then maybe it doesn't work as well that way. (FG

participant)

I wouldn't consciously - because if you do really consciously apply a model, people who

have done the same training as you will call you out. (P14)

The transparency around applying a coaching model was reinforced by P2 who

described two leaders who ‘had very good coaching styles’ but that both leaders’ adopted a

questioning style that she initially found frustrating when she would ‘go looking for an answer’:


When they were doing that, did you know that that was coaching----- Not really.

Not until I thought about it later. No, I am more aware of it, with (leader). He's a little

bit more transparent; and he obviously applies the model. Whereas (other leader) was

a bit more - probably more subtle. Maybe not deliberately. You know, similar outcome,

but not as obviously taking you through a model and asking you questions in a

particular way, as (leader) does. (P2)

Using a coaching model appears to be more than just a useful way for managers to

structure coaching conversations, it is also another important safety element for managers to

increase the predictability of the conversation. Commonly used coaching models such as

GROW, CLEAR, and FLOW reinforce the use of questioning and provide a mechanism or

framework to ensure some order to questions. Recognising that organisations and indeed their

managers like to rely on standardised coaching models, Clutterbuck (2010) warned about the

simplicity of such models arguing, as does Grant (2016), that an over-use of models can result

in coaching becoming ‘mechanistic’ with the coachee becoming easily manipulated by the

coach. Although Clutterbuck’s caution principally relates to executive coaches, it is even more

relevant to managerial coaches who, through the power of the hierarchical relationship, have a

greater opportunity to direct the conversation and utilise models to control where the

conversation goes, and what areas it explores.

7.4 Summary

There are many paradoxes that arise because of the coaching manager’s desire to be

seen to be coaching by their managers but not by their coachees as well as their preference to

avoid engaging in a risky conversation. To that end despite the supposed unplanned nature of

an informal coaching conversation, the coaching manager, consciously or unconsciously, relies


on standardised techniques to structure and contain the coaching conversation. Containment

may also minimise the need to provide negative feedback in that conversation. Yet, despite the

preference to adhere to a standardised framework, the coaching manager rarely applies the

contracting process which is considered a key, and necessary step in generic coaching models

to set the aim and boundaries of the coaching conversation (Cox, 2012; Hawkins, 2012). The

reluctance to engage in contracting may relate to the desire of employees not to be seen to be

coached and again because internal coaching is still seen by some to arise from a deficit in

performance. The process of contracting surfaces the coaching process and makes it explicit,

thus increasing the likelihood of resistance by the coachee to the conversation. Hence one of

the many paradoxes of managerial coaching is that while agreement on the purpose and

parameters of a coaching conversation would normally increase the safety of the conversation

for both parties, it can be seen by coaching managers as increasing the risk that the employee

will be resistant to being coached. Managers may therefore coach covertly without employees

interpreting their actions as coaching.

In enacting their understanding of coaching without explicit contracting, managers

employ a range of techniques to decrease the risk that the coaching conversation will be

misunderstood or become conflictual. These techniques, such as questioning and coaching

models, provide a ‘tried and true’, structured framework to standardise the conversation and

provide predictability as far as possible. However, to the savvy coachees, who may also attend

the same coach training as their managers, such models may be recognised and the

conversational techniques employed may appear to be transactional, ‘going through the

motions’, and inauthentic.


Using tactics such as positioning the conversation to avoid it being seen as a coaching

conversation, and then applying standardised techniques to increase the predictability of the

conversation outcome, is consistent with the theoretical frame used in this study that provides

insight into the motivations of the coaching manager. Theory suggests that although managers

may be motivated by a desire to both assist employees and to be seen as a good organisational

citizen, they may adopt a range of tactics to reduce the anticipated negative consequences of

giving negative feedback (Baron, 1993). Accordingly, managers may adopt strategies to

minimise that risk (Brown, et al, 2015). Positioning the conversation as coaching and tightly

controlling the parameters of the conversation are characteristic of those tactics.

The fourth category of sensemaking and its sub-categories of de-briefing and learning

are the final stages in the process of engaging through coaching and are explained in the next

chapter.


Chapter 8

SENSEMAKING

How can I know what I think until I see what I say?

(Weick, 1979, p. 5)

____________________________________________

8.1 Introduction

The previous findings chapters (5, 6, & 7) presented the categories of constructing the

coachable moment, contemplating coaching, and enacting coaching. This chapter is the fourth

and final chapter of findings and depicts the sensemaking process that managers use to interpret

their coaching and how they learn from that process. The category of sensemaking has the two

sub-categories of reflecting and learning. The process of sensemaking is depicted in Figure

Twenty-One (below):

Figure Twenty-One: The major category of sensemaking


Constructing

Contemplating

Enacting

SensemakingLearning

Reflecting


8.2 Sensemaking

Sensemaking is a key leadership activity which correlates highly with leadership

effectiveness (Ancona, 2012). It is a cornerstone of coaching (du Toit, 2014). The sensemaking

process is one of filtering, categorising and integrating what has been learnt or observed into

existing frames of reference (du Toit, 2007, p.283) to construct ‘plausible understandings and

meanings’ (Ancona, 2012, p.5). By its very nature, sensemaking is also a retrospective activity

(Weick et al, 2005) and there is a strong reflective element involved in that process (Weick,

1995). The activity of sensemaking is also emergent and therefore requires leaders to be self-

aware and be able to engage others in understanding the unwritten ‘rules of the game’ in the

organisation (Ancona, 2012).

Sensemaking is one of the key aims of the coaching process: the coach assists a coachee

to make sense of the situation that they are examining usually by a process of reflection (du

Toit, 2007). But it is also important that the coach, particularly a coaching manager, be able to

make sense of and learn from the process of coaching which they construct, contemplate and

enact. Sensemaking is not just reflection: in the context of managerial coaching, it involves a

wider process of understanding the sometimes ambiguous role of the manager as a coaching

manager, a testing of the assumptions of reality, and an understanding of the circumstances of

the environment and enacted world (Weick, 1995). As well as making sense of their enactment

of the coaching process, the coaching manager also gains clarity through observations of other

people coaching. If the manager is motivated to do so, this enables them to establish a frame

of reference around the coaching process and learn by observing ‘learning by doing’ (Gibbs,

1988). Sensemaking is considered an important and natural activity for coaching managers as

the coaching aspect of their role can require them to wear a number of hats (Hicks &

McCracken, 2010; McCarthy & Milner, 2013; Riddle & Ting, 2006). Making sense of the


coaching element of the role is important for managers, in learning how to coach and learning

and reflecting are key to that sensemaking.

8.2.1 Learning

Managers learn about coaching through a number of different activities, some

intentional and provided by the organisation such as formalised training, and some through

informal methods such as their own observation of other people coaching. Some managers also

draw on life experiences outside organisations as the basis for their coaching skills and indeed

their coaching philosophy. While managers appear to gain standardised knowledge of coaching

through organisational training programs, it is clear that many place more value on learning

from observing skilled coaches than from formal training content.

Figure Twenty-Two: Learning - the first sub-category of sensemaking

Learning through formal training

Coaching skills are not naturally part of a manager’s skill set (Grant, 2016) and many

leadership training programs include specific training in coaching skills (Grant, 2004). Studies

reveal that internal coach training commonly has a focus on knowledge and skills development

such as relationship building, listening, questioning, goal-setting, and giving feedback

(McCarthy & Milner, 2013), emotional intelligence and building trust (Ladyshewsky, 2010),

learningI'll learn from

watching good coaches


and group dynamics and team coaching (Thornton, 2010). Training in these skills is usually

delivered in short ‘off-the-shelf’ courses and often around the use of a single proprietary

coaching model (McCarthy & Milner, 2013) such as the GROW coaching model. Given that

managers find such tools useful to standardise coaching conversations, it is not surprising that

many managers in this study could remember the generic coaching models they had been

exposed to but not the specifics of the other content of the training programs.

Managers also did not place value on learning what they described as ‘soft skills’,

intimating that they already possessed good interpersonal ‘soft skills’. This resonates with the

level of comfort managers had in coaching around technical skills and with the apparent

reluctance to coach in areas of behavior.

As I said, from a soft skills perspective, I don't place an enormous amount of value on

that skilling (P9)

you know, generally the way that things work: you are promoted, or you are put into a

leadership role with the technical skills and with limited soft skills. And those things

you pick up over time. (P1)

But I don't know that going on a training course actually changes - particularly in

coaching; because I do think coaching is a bit more inherent; it is a bit more on the

"feeling" side, rather than the "doing" stuff. (P11)

Similarly, managers in this study appeared to value tertiary qualifications in the broader

area of leadership rather than training in the micro interpersonal skills or ‘soft skills’ required


for effective coaching conversations. This may be because managers are more interested in the

perception that they are a coach rather than the doing actual coaching and accordingly may

place more value on acquiring the traditional, formal qualifications directly relevant to the

technical aspects of their role. Given that managers prefer to publicly represent conversational

interactions with subordinates as coaching, they may under-value the skills required to be an

effective coach. Indeed, many day-to-day conversations with subordinates do not require the

exercise of coaching skills because they are transactional conversations. Without professional

support as a coach or being able to observe a coaching role-model, their frame of reference for

what constitutes coaching may be limited.

One manager noted that a previous organisational, formal coach training program he

underwent had ‘an interesting emphasis’ explaining:

I would characterise it as a blend of, "This is how you would approach coaching," but

there were clearly distinct elements of that that were about the informal performance

review process….. it was an interesting discussion at the time, that coaching - there

was a perception, coaching had a negative connotation to it, among staff; and even a

little bit with managers, as opposed to viewing it as "trying to do better, shouldn't

necessarily have a negative feel to it". (P10)

This presentation of coaching as an aspect of, or a lead into, performance management,

may in part explain why many managers appear to use coaching as a remedial tool or as part

of a performance management process.

Training content is also crucial for the credibility of the formal training and managers


are skeptical about coaching training which they may perceive as offering superficial advice or

even platitudes. Drawing on a case study on coach training programs, Grant (2016, p. 6)

comments that ‘highly jargonised’ and ‘pseudoscientific language’ can create an ‘in-group’

and an ‘out-group’ in organisations with the latter resentful and even ‘hostile’ about such

training. Managers value specific feedback and practical ‘how to’ advice on coaching more

than broader training on concepts such as collaboration:

And there is coaching training about working together more collaboratively. But that

training is in the abstract, it doesn’t spell out what is required to change current

practices (our collaboration training was: “we are agreed you need to work together

more, here are some of the benefits of working together more, here are some

examples!”; which is different to: “John & Suzy, your major problem seems to be the

need to communicate better especially about who is best placed to hit the ball, how

about we try…”). (P20)

Learning by observing others

Observing others in skilled coaching greatly influences managers, and where they have

positive experiences of being coached, they try to emulate those who they perceive to have a

good coaching style. This is not unusual in any type of managerial learning and can be

explained with reference to social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) which posits that assuming

people are attentive and can retain and are motivated to reproduce the behaviours they observe,

they can learn through observation. However, if coaching is newly introduced in the

organisation, or it is not supported either culturally or with training and development, role

models with appropriate workplace coaching skills may not be available. Additionally, if

managers are not aware of what constitutes good coaching practice they may observe and

replicate behaviours that are not desirable.


… where I see people who really stand out as being really good at it, I think it's very

powerful (P2)

I think I have picked and choose what I have identified in other people and other leaders

(P4)

Despite the emphasis in the literature that managerial coaching is distinctively different

from executive coaching (Beattie et al, 2014; Hagen, 2012), a significant influence on

managers is the learning they gain from actually being coached themselves by an executive

coach.

I have been coached before. So would I be doing these things, if someone hadn't told

me I should? I don't know. But I have had the benefit of being coached myself. (P27)

Being able to actually observe a ‘process’ of coaching, conceptualise, understand, and

replicate it, is not only useful for a manager but is, compared to formal classroom training, a

preferred way of learning coaching skills:

I have certainly learnt by doing, from my coach ……. part of what I have done through

that experience is how to…….”what’s the process underlying this? How can I replicate

that?” (P10)

As part of the internal leadership program of her organisation, P11 had the opportunity

to be coached by a well-renowned executive coach. She described the experience as having ‘a


profound impact on me’ and valued it particularly because it allowed her to reflect on herself

as a person and to explore herself as a ‘whole person’:

When I spent my ten sessions with (external coach), we talked about work very little. It

was much more about "me, and my sense of self-and my authenticity and my happiness;

and what did I want to achieve"……… A lot of the work that I did with (external coach)

was about being more authentic; and I think I am a much better leader as a result of it.

(P11)

But learning about coaching also comes from observing poor coaching styles in action

from line managers:

There's probably a couple of people in my career that stand out, both in positive and in

the negative. You know, "I really don't want to engage like that". I think that's probably

had the most profound impact on me - and this is only in the last couple of years - was

when I did my own personal development stuff with a coach (P11)

For the coaching manager, learning about being a coach occurs through formal coach

training, observing and experiencing expert coaches, and through outside life experiences.

These modes of learning are consistent with Levy, Oates, Hunt, and Dobson’s (1989) off-the-

job learning, structured learning in the workplace, and on-job learning, which Seagraves, and

Boyd (1996) more memorably describe as learning for work, learning at work, and learning

through work. While formal training on coaching provides coaching managers with some

useful models and techniques to use, having the opportunity to observe people who are skilled

in coaching appears to be a significant learning aid. Observing somebody else coaching,


particularly as a coachee, allows a manager to conceptualise the process of coaching in a real

rather than simulated environment of formal classroom-based training.

There are many advantages to managers engaging with an executive coach and

managers’ experiences with executive coaches are largely positive. This may be because

external coaches are a useful way to provide a safe and confidential environment for managers

to explore their development needs (Lindbom, 2007), or because they usually have chosen the

particular executive coach themselves (Lawrence, 2017), or because they are able to

conceptualise what expert coaching looks like and can use those ‘mental models’ in their own

coaching of subordinates (McCarthy & Milner, 2013, p. 772). Experiencing being coached by

an executive coach may also reduce any cynicism that managers may have about coaching

(Ladyshewsky, 2010) and if the experience is largely positive that may enhance their own

coaching skills (Knights & Poppleton, 2008).

Learning from the sporting analogy

Managers do not only learn about coaching from formal training or observing line

managers and executive coaches. A strong and interesting theme that arose in the current

research was the use of a sports coaching frame when referring to their coaching style or

approach. Managers ascribed their background in sports to their interest in workplace coaching

as well as their professed understanding of what constitutes workplace coaching:

So I have always been part of, say, sporting teams or part of groups, where we work

together for some objective. So I would say most of my coaching style or managerial

style - probably just don't call it will "coaching", so just working with people - is based

probably on experiences that I have had maybe outside of work as much as at work.


It forces you to have a team attitude. Because I hate losing so it makes you say “hang

on mate, lift your game here,” or yourself. It actually forces you to help each other.

Often in your reflection stuff, when you are playing a sport, it is both forward looking,

backward looking, in the moment – all of those things are occurring in the game if you

will. (P8)

Well, to explain what "coaching" is to me, I would probably explain where my coaching,

I believe, comes from. I am actually a trained, elite level, netball coach. I have always

coached in sport, with the philosophy - and I could ask anyone that I have ever dealt

with - "everybody brings something to the game", and I approach work in exactly the

same way. "There's something that you bring here. I just need to explore what that is

and help you find it". (P14)

Every experience has the potential to shape the behaviour of an individual and all life

experiences, including those in the sports domain have the capacity to affect the level of

supportiveness of a manager (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Coaching in the workplace is often said

to have its roots in sports coaching (Carey et al, 2011; Beattie et al, 2014) with the origins of

modern business coaching being linked to Timothy Gallwey’s (1974) book – The Inner Game

of Tennis. While Everard and Selman (2003) reject the notion that the techniques of sports

coaching can be translated to business management, they do suggest that viewing managerial

coaching through the sporting ‘context of a committed partnership in which sports coaches

operate’ (p.20) would be valuable. This notion of a committed partnership is reflected in how

the coaching managers above reflected on their experiences of the influence of their sporting

backgrounds on their conceptualisation of coaching and particularly in relation to teamwork:


Although I have worked in a lot of teams until probably the last four or five years I

haven’t had to manage big groups. So that is interesting because as a younger adult I

probably was involved a lot more in leadership areas in my life in sporting teams…..

As a young kid I was always captain of my sporting teams when I was seven years old

to 17. That was always the way. I just learnt that that’s how I find success to get people

to come along with you. ……..It’s a team sport thing. I think you learn so much in your

young life about things like that. (P17)

Grant (2016) argues that the main vehicle for teaching managers how to coach in the

‘2000s’ has been the formal training program in which managers have been provided with

classroom-based training in which the roll out of proprietary training models, such as GROW,

are relied upon as the basis of teaching coaching skills. Yet, despite Grant suggesting that

organisations have now moved onto a third-generation paradigm with a focus on creating a

‘culture of quality conversations’ (p. 7), it appears that the main source of coaching skills for

managers remains the formal, classroom-based training with an emphasis on the coaching

model. This approach however, is clearly insufficient to sustain skills and create further

learnings as evidenced by Rafferty and Fairbrother’s (2015) study of the factors which

influence how coaching skills are acquired and integrated into practice. The study found that

‘practice opportunities, follow up, and organisational support’ (p. 6) had significant effect on

the acquisition and application of coaching skills from formal training. Being able to observe

coaching skills role-modelled by senior management was also identified as valuable for

training participants to embed their coaching skills back in the workplace.


8.2.2 Reflecting

Sensemaking is a continual, social process of meaning creation and sense is made

through the ‘values, frames of reference and meanings we assign to situations’ (du Toit, 2014,

p.9). Yet, coaching managers have few structured or formalised processes in place to talk

through their coaching experiences and therefore reflect in an honest and critical way. This is

somewhat anomalous as one of the desired outcomes of coaching is that perceptions of truth

can be challenged as part of the sensemaking process (du Toit, 2014).

Figure Twenty-Three: Reflecting – the second sub-category of sensemaking

Reflection is central to learning and sensemaking, and concrete experiences help ‘to

identify problems, emerge solutions or engage in collective inquiry’ (Fenwick 2010, p. 81).

Reflection before, in and on action is a constructivist perspective (Lundgren, Bang, Justice,

Marsick, Poell, Yorks, Clark, & Sung, 2017) and in that perspective ‘learners act as

independent and active constructors of their own knowledge’ (p. 309). Chapter Six explicated

the concept of reflection-in-action in which some managers reflect while coaching and are able

to correct action or change the action being undertaken in the moment. Reflection-in-action,

which Schon (1983) described as ‘doing something while doing it’ (p.54) requires the element

of surprise which is characteristic of the coachable moment.

reflecting how can I make sense of this?


But an equally important concept for coaching managers is that of reflecting-on-action

or the act of retrospectively reflecting on action already taken (Schon, 1992). The concept of

reflective thinking lacks an agreed upon understanding (Hebert, 2015) although Dewey (1933)

defined it as a process of ‘turning a subject over in the mind and giving it serious and

consecutive consideration’ (p.3) and as ‘active, persistent and careful consideration of any

belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further

conclusions to which it tends’(p.9). It is a ‘stop and think’ action (Arendt, 1971). For the

manager, the process of reflecting-on-action creates a link between the professional knowledge

of the manager and their craft knowledge (Saylor, 1990) or Schon’s (1991) ‘knowing-in-action’

(p.241). Reflection-on-action is a critical aspect of the learning process (Argyris, 2004; Schon,

1997) and important for coaching managers as coaches construct their coaching knowledge

through reflecting on their experiences of coaching (Nash, 2016). However, reflecting can be

a solitary (Helyer, 2015) and introspective activity (Cox, 2005) and although managers act

thoughtfully, it is argued that they do not appear to spend much time actually thinking Weick

(1983).

Triggering reflection

Personal experience is the underpinning to the concept of reflection but for reflection

on personal experience to occur, a trigger is required. Lundgren et al (2017) suggest that

triggers can be as simple as just noticing or they can be a more considered process of reviewing

and interpreting what has come before. However, Rogers (2001) argues that the common

elements related to reflection define the trigger as ‘an unusual or perplexing experience’ (p.41).

As an example, Dewey’s (1933) model is based on reflection as triggered by a problem that

needs to be solved. In the case of coaching managers, it appeared that the latter was the case

with the trigger for reflection often being a problem or difficulty in the coaching interaction:


If things go badly or well, I do try to jot down afterwards what was successful and what

wasn't. (P10)

And it's only after being in a leadership role for 12 months, you would probably look

back at some opportunities and go, "Man, I did that really bad," or, "I could have done

that a lot better," and you probably burnt some bridges and things like that early on.

(P1)

The trigger for reflection was mirrored in Knowle, Gilbourne, Borrie and Neville’s

(2006) exploration of the reflective practices of sports coaches. This study concluded that a

barrier to ‘rounded reflective experience’ (p.174) is the perception by sports coaches that

reflection is a negative activity. The coaches perceived reflection negatively because they

focused mostly on what went wrong; they appeared unable to focus on positives. The negative

focus around reflection for both managerial and sports coaches may be because managers

traditionally adopt a problem-focused perspective (Schon, 1983) and reflection is often

triggered by problems or difficulties experienced (Dewey, 1933). It could be hypothesised that

because of this, a coaching manager who adopts a performance management or remedial

approach to coaching a subordinate, may be more likely to reflect on a coaching conversation

that was not successful as the performance gap would be seen as a compelling problem to be

solved. The focus on a gap or problem to stimulate reflection on coaching may be a more

helpful way for coaching managers to learn and make sense of their coaching conversations.

Reflection on coaching for some managers was something that was valued as a process

for learning and change:


it is important that I look back and look at what I feel that I did well and what I could

have done better so that I can apply that next time around. (P15)

I constantly wonder whether what I am doing is effective. (P10)

P28 described how he engaged with reflection after every coaching conversation – ‘I

make the time’ – and also included notes in his iPhone of ‘life tips, managing myself’. His

aspiration of doing so weekly, may sometimes be monthly:

(CEO) was giving us a talk about "resilience"; and how she's become resilient and what

things over her career she's taken away from that. And it is the "bouncing-back piece",

and managing stress. She's one of the people who said, "You have got to make time to

check-in with yourself." So I wrote that down; I wrote some of that stuff down and I

reflect on that as part of my weekly thing. It mightn't be weekly. It might end up being

monthly, sometimes-----(P27)

The process by which managers learn from their coaching experiences and improve

their coaching interactions is best explained through the lens of David Kolb’s cycle of

experiential learning. Kolb (1984) suggests that the learning process involves the learner

observing and reflecting upon a concrete experience they have had and absorbing that into their

own framework of previous experiences and learnings in order to conclude new ways of doing

things. Learning from experience is ‘the way in which people make sense of situations they

encounter in their daily lives’ (Marsick & Watkins, 1990, p. 15). This requires that managers

take the time in a busy day to review their coaching conversations and draw conclusions about

what did and did not work. It involves intentionality: unlike informal learning methods, it is a


conscious process. Meaning or sensemaking occurs through reflection on experience (Marsick

& Watkins, 1990).

Weick (1983) rejects the notion that managers should be encouraged to reflect in a

separate process and argues that this is inconsistent with their preferred learning style. He

argued some decades ago that managers may either think in their own time, or may not need to

ponder over issues which do not constitute a genuine puzzle, or that managers think all the time

but that it is not easily observable because they think ‘simultaneously with action’ (p. 222).

Weick contended that thinking by managers occurs concurrently with action and that it should

not be seen as separate from action as some other activity must be occurring for thinking to

occur. He encourages us to see that managerial activity is undertaken with thinking and

presumptions of logic, as well as an expectation of a type of order. If a manager has strong

presumptions about a proposed action, then it is likely that stronger action by the manager will

result. Conversely, if the manager has a weaker presumption, then the manager is likely to be

more hesitant about the proposed actions. Weick differs from Schon (1983) who argues that

while reflection-in-action is equally important as reflection-on-action, the latter allows the

opportunity for a manager to examine the results of the reflection-in-action and identify good

practice and learn from it.

There is little evidence that coaching managers commonly engage in reflection after

their informal coaching conversations. This may be because reflection is unlikely to be a

priority in a busy day. However, it may also be because despite managers often represent their

day-to-day conversations as coaching conversations, as the conversations are not always of a

coaching nature, they are not recognised by the coaching manager at the time as being coaching

conversations. This may change if there is a significant trigger for reflection such as a


conversation having been unsuccessful or there is an ongoing problem identified. Nonetheless,

the nature of coaching in response to the coachable moment does not appear compatible with

a process of considered reflection perhaps more aligned with a formal and consciously pre-

planned coaching session.

The lack of informal coaching reflection is a significant gap in the sensemaking process

for coaching managers because, without a process which forces or triggers a process of

reflection, managers cannot learn from concrete experiences, are unable to discern what

worked and what did not work in the coaching interaction, and importantly, will find it more

difficult to change coaching practices to adapt to coaching successes and failures.

Using supervision for de-briefing and reflection

In executive coaching, the gap in self-reflective activity can be filled through the

process of formal supervision which although not a common practice (Grant, 2012) can be used

to facilitate formal reflection on coaching practice. Through structured conversations with a

coaching supervisor, the coach is encouraged to explore the relationship they have with their

coachee and to consider the dynamics within that relationship (Jepson, 2016). A reflection

process makes it ‘possible to celebrate your strengths, uncover your blind spots and explore

the potential for unconscious bias’ (Clutterbuck, Whitaker & Lucas, 2016, p.5) and provides a

more deliberate approach to reflection (Lucas, 2012). But the use of an external person to

conduct formal supervision processes for coaching managers in the workplace is rare and the

responsibility for supervision of a coaching manager largely falls to the line manager, that is,

the manager of the coaching manager. This is inherently problematic as any notion of effective

supervision would require the senior manager to have not only sound supervision and coaching

skills, but also be perceived by the coaching manager to be trustworthy and confidential.


Without these latter traits, it would be risky for the coaching manager to enter a dialogue that

would require them to honestly reflect Being able to de-brief on their coaching with an

independent person was important for managers:

……it would need to be someone almost outside the organisation, you know, just to

really feel comfortable opening up and that whatever you are saying is staying within

– I think that would be invaluable. (P16)

Yet although talking with a coaching supervisor is a crucial factor in developing and

embedding coaching skills for managers (Grant, 2012), structured processes for de-briefing

coaching managers rarely occur in organisational coaching programs (Clutterbuck, et al, 2016).

I certainly reflect on those conversations. So that's - I think that is I good thing. Because

in the past - I guess I would be going back a few years now - I probably didn't spend

much time at all sitting down by myself and reflecting, in terms of "what went well, what

didn't go well". But when you sit in a room like this, or something, with a formal coach,

it almost forces you to look in the mirror. I do find that reflection time worthwhile. (P8)

In the absence of an internal, dedicated and skilled resource to facilitate reflection,

managers rely on less-skilled sources such as their spouse or other another staff member:

I certainly can go home to my husband and say, “This is what happened today, and this

is what I think I did well and this is what I don’t think I did well. What do you think?”

(P15)


I talk to my husband obviously when I get home. He gets the full debrief from what’s

happening (P18)

I might have a staff member and talk through why it worked or why it didn't. (P10)

Coaching supervision for external coaches has been said to have three main functions:

quality control, skills development, and attending to coach emotions (Hawkins & Smith, 2006;

Munro Turner, 2011; Standards Australia, 2011). From a quality control perspective, unlike

executive coaches, managerial coaches are unlikely to members of any professional coaching

association and accordingly are not governed by any external applied professional ethics and

standards. It is therefore difficult to see how a quality control process such as supervision

(Lawrence & Whyte, 2014; Robson, 2016; Clutterbuck, et al, 2016) would not be an attractive

proposition to an organisation that is encouraging coaching practices in its managers. De-

briefing with a trained supervisor can provide a coaching manager with the independence and

confidentiality that their own line managers may not be perceived to have, allowing the

coaching manager to talk about their own emotions that may surface through coaching

conversations.

8.3 Summary

Sensemaking is a process which requires a level of conscious thinking and reflecting

(Weick, et al, 2005). For the coaching manager, the imperative for sensemaking is because

coaching is a social process (Shoukry & Cox, 2018) which brings with it a range of

complexities. Managerial coaching takes place within an organisational context promoting

performance largely through organisational and cultural conformity, and in the coaching

process, the role of the coaching manager is not to control but to assist the coachee to


understand what needs to occur in terms of behaviour change to meet organisational goals.

(Nielsen & Norreklit, 2011). The process requires open and honest dialogue between manager

and subordinate despite the hierarchical and conflicting role demands requiring the coaching

manager to be an evaluator as well as a coach (Orth et al, 1987). As part of the sensemaking

process the manager needs to contextualise, filter, and even prioritise the ambiguities of the

coaching manager role.

Yet, at all stages of the informal coaching process, little conscious thinking about the

actual process of coaching occurs: managers rarely plan a process tailored to the situation,

preferring to apply standardised models and techniques, and they rarely reflect on their

coaching after the coaching conversation. Their actual coaching is akin to Weick’s (1983)

thinking ‘simultaneously with action’ (p.222) and Argyris and Schon’s (1974) ‘theories-in-use’

(p.8) or Schon’s (1987) ‘artistry’, and what Van Manen (1991) describes as ‘anticipatory

reflection’ (p.101) which describes the considerations made before a process or event, rarely

occurs. The time when an element of conscious thinking may occur is when managers

contemplate the range of factors as to whether the situation is right for them to coach. This

failure to plan or reflect on the process of the coaching conversation itself may be that, as Weick

(1983) suggests, the thinking occurs in the action itself and therefore is more valuable. The

coaching process is transactional and the key thinking before or reflecting after is less focused

on learning from the process as it is focused on reducing risk and ensuring that the

circumstances will give rise to a safe environment for the interaction. In the context of

Habermas’ framework of three learning domains (Mezirow, 1981, p.4), the coaching manager’s

interest in learning sits in the technical and practical domains and not the emancipatory domain

which is based on insights gained where the space exists to engage in critical reflection on the

context of learning.


Reflection also rarely occurs for practical reasons because organisations do not provide

systems to facilitate de-briefing, reflection, and supervision and also because managers rarely

find the time or are inclined to reflect unless there is an adverse event to trigger the reflection.

Although managers gain knowledge and skills in coaching through organisational training

programs, these programs are largely about using proprietary coaching models and soft skills.

Managers do not overly value this formalised training. They conceptualise and construct their

understanding of coaching through observing others coaching, and from their life experiences,

and this shapes their learning about how to coach. Without formalised processes in place to

facilitate reflection and promote coach role-modelling, coaching managers resort to

sensemaking through discussions with family and friends which is not optimal for ensuring

quality of the coaching managerial role. The following chapter presents the core category of

engaging through coaching and contains the theoretical explanation of the coaching manager.


Chapter 9

ENGAGING THROUGH COACHING

Doing good, looking good, and avoiding conflict

_____________________________________________

9.1 Introduction

The core category generated in this study – engaging through coaching – is critical to

understanding the research question of how managers make decisions about coaching because

it explicates the actions, strategies, and motivations of managers when presented with the

coachable moment. Engaging through coaching represents the desire by managers to engage

with their employees in a wide range of conversations to improve subordinate performance and

demonstrate a leadership style while avoiding conflict, unpleasantness or other negative

emotion. Using coaching as a generic term to describe their various verbal interactions with

employees and using coaching-like techniques allows a manager to engage with subordinates

when an opportunity – a coachable moment – arises, in a safe and organisationally desirable

manner. This chapter will present the core category and its properties, the motivations of

managers to engage with their staff through an informal coaching approach, and the strategies

used by managers in engaging the coachable moment.

9.2 The Core Category – engaging through coaching

A core category has ‘carrying capacity’ (Charmaz, 2014, p.247) and provides a frame

which can interpret the constituent theoretical concepts. As such it has the greatest analytic and

explanatory power (Corbin & Strauss, 1998). The core category – engaging through coaching

- responds to all the research questions as it ‘pulls other categories together to form an

explanatory whole’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p.146).


The four phases of the central social process presented in the previous four chapters

are: constructing, contemplating, enacting, and sensemaking. Constructing refers to how

managers conceptualise coaching and why they may choose to describe their conversations

with subordinates as constituting coaching. Contemplating refers to managers assessing the

factors in play when the coachable moment presents. Enacting reflects the tactics that managers

employ to conduct a safe informal coaching conversation. Sensemaking depicts the process by

which managers continually learn from their coaching and how they can continually make

sense of what they see and experience. While the first three phases of this process are linear,

the last phase – sensemaking - is cyclical and may occur at various stages of informal coaching:

through reflecting after a coaching conversation, through training before coaching, and as a

result of constantly observing others throughout the coaching journey.

9.2.1 The concept of ‘engaging’

To understand the core category, the concept of engagement needs exploration. The

term to engage has been defined in this thesis as ‘to become involved, or to have contact with

someone’ (Cambridge English Dictionary, 2018), and in this context suggests the drawing or

involving of someone into a conversation (Oxford English Dictionary, 2018). Engagement is

well discussed in the human resource management literature (Macey & Schneider, 2008) and

has even become a popular buzzword (Richman, 2006). It has been examined from many

perspectives including the individual, work, and the organisation, but it is evident that the

manager has a key impact on employee engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008). There is a

significant link between an employee’s relationship with their supervisor and their engagement

(Judge, Thorsen, Bono, & Patton, 2001) and communication by leaders is important in driving

engagement (Welch, 2011). Managers understand that communicating with their staff is an

important part of demonstrating leadership. Accordingly, managers seek to engage with staff


on a range of issues through formal and informal conversations, on a variety of topics, and

through a range of different mechanisms such as instructing, training, counselling, directing,

and guiding. This study has found that managers prefer to use the term coaching to describe

their informal, verbal attempts to engage with their employees, irrespective of whether or not

they are actually demonstrating coaching behaviours. Engaging with staff using even basic

coaching behaviours of listening, questioning, and goal setting (McCarthy & Milner, 2013) is

an accepted way of empowering staff (Bresser, 2010) and there is an increasing expectation

engagement with staff by managers will be through coaching (McCarthy & Milner, 2013).

Previous chapters, through the depiction of the four major categories, have addressed

the process that relates to the construction and definition of coaching. However, as coaching is

a social process it is important to understand contextual factors at play, that is, to understand

not only what process actors engage in, but why they engage in the process and how they may

engage in the process (Shoukry & Cox, 2018). To fully interpret the process of engagement in

coaching, it is therefore important to understand the basic social processes of how managers

engage in the coaching process and, the basic social psychological processes that underpin why

managers seek to engage with their employees through coaching (Charmaz, 2014; Glaser,

2005). The what, why and how of the basic social process of engaging through coaching is

depicted below:


Figure Twenty-Four: Connecting the process, motivators and strategies of engaging through

coaching

9.3 The motivations driving engaging through coaching

In exploring the how and why of managers engaging in informal coaching, the work of

Grant and Mayer (2009), as outlined in Chapter 4, theorises that managers’ coaching

motivations are driven by a need to ‘do good’ and ‘look good’. A further and integral part of

the explanation is offered by feedback giving avoidance theory. Similar to the two previous

theories, I have truncated it to another simple, colloquial expression and used ‘avoiding

conflict’. In summary, the motivations for managers to seek to engage with staff through using

or purporting to use coaching behaviours are to ‘do good, look good, and avoid conflict’.

‘Doing good and ‘looking good’ represent the dual motivations of managers to coach

in the moment: the wish to genuinely assist an employee in their performance and development,

Process

(what)

• constructing

• contemplating

• enacting

Motivators

(why)

• doing good

• looking good

• avoiding conflict

Strategies

(how)

• defining coaching broadly

• managing the engagement risks

• controlling the conversation

sensemaking


as well as the wish to create the impression that they are conforming to the organisational desire

that managers exhibit coaching leadership behaviours. They exist independently of each other

with a manager being motivated by both the desire to help another through coaching and also

model organisational expectations, or a manager may only coach in the moment from one

desire only: either to assist another or to look good in the eyes of the organisation. ‘Avoiding

conflict’ represents a desire that over-arches both the desire to look good and do good in that

managers will avoid or distort a coaching conversation, or employ other controlling or risk

minimizing strategies if they believe there is a high risk of the conversation becoming

conflictual or emotional. The motivations of the coaching manager are depicted in Figure

Twenty-Five and explored in more detail below:

Figure Twenty-Five: The motivations driving decisions to engage with the coachable moment

9.3.1 Organisational Citizenship Behaviour Theory: Doing good by informally coaching

Organisations desire that managers adopt good leadership practices and coaching is one

of these desired practices. However, unless a manager is employed in a dedicated internal coach

role where coaching is a formal part of their job duties (Feldman & Lankau, 2005) informal

coaching is not a behaviour mandated through position descriptions, contracts, or other

mechanisms to stipulate behaviour or duties. As coaching is a style (Anderson, 2013; Goleman

the coachable moment

Avoiding Conflict

Looking GoodDoing Good


2000) rather than a specific practice which can be predicted or stipulated for specific occasions,

if a manager coaches when a coachable moment presents, then it is because they have chosen

to adopt a coaching style for that conversation. If they do not coach in the moment, it may be

because they have chosen not to adopt a coaching style, or because they have not recognised

that a coachable moment has presented.

Irrespective of the reason, using a coaching approach is discretionary and given the

confidential nature of informal coaching, indeed is most likely not readily observable to the

coaching manager’s superior. In fact, coaching managers are rarely recognised by organisations

(CIPD, 2009; Ellinger & Bostrum, 2014), and as noted previously, there are rarely

organisational processes in place to provide managers with extrinsic rewards for demonstrating

coaching behaviours. The knowledge that coaching is a well-used or a preferred style of the

manager is most likely made known to the superior through anecdotes from coachees, from the

coaching manager relating that they have coached, or not at all. Nevertheless, often managers

engage in coaching behaviours not for rewards or recognition, but for the intrinsic rewards it

provides such as providing a sense of helping and even developing their staff. As such informal

managerial coaching can be considered to be an extra-role behaviour: it is exercised on a

discretionary basis (Anderson, 2013, p.253) and is a helping activity. It can therefore be viewed

as an example of an affiliative, organisational citizenship behaviour.

I can usually find 5 minutes for someone to help them on their way (P17).

I think I get the pleasure of working with more engaged people. In other words, I come

to work and I am a bit happier because the people that I work with are hopefully a bit

happier. (P8)


However, helping behaviours are not necessarily self-sacrificial – they can serve self-

interests (Avolio & Locke, 2002). Managers see great benefits in many of the behaviours that

they describe as informal coaching such as training and side-by-side instruction. It is in their

interest to assist their employees to improve their performance and accordingly these benefits

can be powerful motivators for managers to capitalise on arising coachable moments:

For me if I can teach them how to do it and help them learn how to do it well then it

means they are going to do it better next time which makes my job easier (P18)

Overall, there are organisational rewards that often flow from informal coaching:

……there is a long-term pay off in their performance, retention, their job satisfaction.

There's a raft of things that benefits me in some ways; because it makes my job easier.

(P10)

The manager wanting to ‘do good’ will be more motivated to do so where they share

similar values to the organisation (Lemmon & Wayne, 2015). Managers appear to equate

having coaching conversations as another aspect of role-modelling the ‘nice’ culture of the

organisation. Doing good is consistent with being nice and if a manager can use a coaching

conversation to address an issue, they are not only doing good and being nice, but also role-

modelling the values of the organisation. As has been noted before and will be explored further

below, adopting a coaching approach, or describing conversations as coaching, is also

consistent with avoiding hard feedback conversations which may be seen as performance

management. Consequently, managers can achieve many positive aims by adopting a coaching

approach.


9.3.2 Impression Management Theory: Looking good by informally coaching

Employees are expected ‘to be visibly engaged at appropriate times in the activity of

the organisation’ (Goffman,1963, p.176) and accordingly, they will be defined by the

organisation by the extent to which they are engrossed in organisational activity. Using

Goffman’s (1963) analogy of the front and back region performances of actors, formal pre-

planned coaching can be viewed as a performance in a front region when it is observed by

supervisors and subordinate staff as a required function’. In a back region, coaching is the

interaction in the coachable moment, that is, where the coaching is spontaneous, informal by

nature, but not necessarily observed by others. The stimuli for a manager to engage in a

coachable moment may be the overt visibility of the behaviour to senior organisational staff,

or indeed the prevailing organisational cultural which encourages coaching as a norm and a

desirable behaviour. However, if the extent to which managers are seen as leaders will relate

to the extent to which they are visibly seen as exercising desirable skills such as coaching, then

it may be more difficult for managers to impress through coaching behaviours in the coachable

moment, which is a moment unlikely to be highly observable to those that matter.

The distinction between Goffman’s (1963) front and back region performances was

also evident in this study in the descriptions managers provided to evidence the prevalence and

frequency of their coaching. Nonetheless, it was evident that many of the examples would not

be considered as coaching conversations and that this was probably known by the managers.

However, given that their organisations were supporting the research and most participants had

attended some sort of organisation-sponsored leadership workshop which included coaching

training, managers appeared to want to impress by offering positive instances where they were

active coaches.


Hence, managers were unwilling to see their conversations with their subordinates as

being anything other than coaching, and certainly did not want to be seen to be offering any

criticism of any aspect of coaching as a management style. This was about ‘looking good and

sounding right’ (Sheane, 2011, p.145) and is consistent with managers wanting to be seen as

accomplished in their coaching because coaching is a leadership activity and therefore

indicative of a higher status and seniority. The desire for managers to manage impressions

around their coaching is depicted in the category of constructing and greatly influences how

managers conceptualise coaching as a management activity and style, and how they construct

their understanding of a coachable moment. But it is also a tension for managers as there are

perceived risks in coaching some subordinates and there are also risks in how and to whom

coaching interactions are represented. As earlier noted, managers are aware that employees

perceive coaching to be aligned with a deficit in performance and they are careful not to

describe their informal conversations as coaching to the coachees. They are also reluctant to

advertise that they also have been coached informally by their own managers although the

noted difference is that being coached by an external executive is perceived to be an indication

of success. Accordingly, managing impressions around their coaching behaviours is a tricky

issue for managers – they want to be seen to be aligning with the organisational aim of a

coaching culture, but are managing impressions upward and indeed downward.

However, not all organisational interpersonal behaviour involves impression

management. Jones and Pittman (1982) argue that it is unlikely that impression management

will be relevant where the employee is highly absorbed in the activity, where the behaviour is

caused by emotions such as anger and joy, where the interaction is ritualised, or where it is

important for people to be authentic such as in therapy. For managers who are highly

experienced coaches, or who have an innate coaching leadership style where informal coaching


conversations are a natural part of their interactions with staff, the principal motivation to coach

is unlikely to be to impress but is rather due to behaviour that is unconscious or habitual

(Bolino, et al, 2016). However, as depicted in the category of contemplating, whether

experienced or inexperienced in coaching, managers may not display coaching behaviours at

all if they perceive that there may be conflict in the coaching interaction.

9.3.3 Feedback Giving Avoidance Theory: Avoiding conflict through informally coaching

Managers equate the coaching process with the giving of feedback and often

specifically use the term ‘feedback’ to describe coaching interactions. Feedback is often the

gateway to a manager-initiated coachable moment or it can be used by the manager to respond

to issues raised by an employee. Yet, managers find it difficult to give feedback in a range of

different scenarios (Brown et al, 2016). As noted in Chapter 4, in the traditional performance

appraisal process, which is usually scheduled and formal, managers employ a range of well

documented tactics to avoid, or at least lessen the impact of, giving feedback to employees

(Lizzio, et al, 2008). But when confronted with a coachable moment, which by nature occurs

without planning and can be initiated by an employee, managers often cannot anticipate the

nature of the issue arising and therefore can be anxious and hesitant about engaging in that

coachable moment. That the coachable moment is deficit related increases the risk of resistance

from the employee to the feedback itself or reacting negatively to the coaching conversation

purely because they perceive a coaching is addressing a remedial issue. These concerns

managers have about engaging the coachable moment are consistent with the findings outlined

in the category – contemplating – which suggests that coaching managers consider a range of

risk factors when deciding whether or not to coach when the moment presents. If the risk of

conflict, emotion or other unpleasantness is high, irrespective of their desire to be seen to be

coaching, managers may not engage the coachable moment at all, will revert to a directive or


‘command and control’ style or they may simply continue to employ a range of strategies to

control the conversation and minimise any negative outcome. Those strategies are the findings

from the major category - enacting - as outlined below.

9.4 The strategies of engaging through coaching

There are three main strategies used by managers in the engaging through coaching

process: constructing a broad definition of coaching, managing the engagement risks, and

controlling the parameters of the coaching conversation. These strategies are driven by the

three motivations to do good, look good, and avoid conflict while engaging in the coachable

moment. The strategies are inherent in the major categories and depict the properties of the

categories; they are described below:

Figure Twenty-Six: The strategies used to engage through coaching

9.4.1 Defining coaching broadly

The core category of engaging the coachable moment conceptualises the construction

of the coachable moment and the subsequent coaching process as a very broad range of range

of day-to-day verbal interactions they have with their employees. These verbal interactions

include what contemporary literature may describe as coaching, but also encapsulate traditional

•describing most interactions as coaching

•using the term coaching to disguise negative feedback giving

defining coaching broadly

•carefully selecting coachees

•avoiding emotional or conflictual topics

managing engagement

risks

•being selective in how conversations are positioned

•using techniques to control the conversation

controlling the conversation


management interactions such as instructing, training, and advising. This wide interpretation

of the coaching process and the innovative construction of the notion of the coachable moment

serves three purposes. Firstly, through the vehicle of ‘coaching’, managers attempt to engage

with their subordinates on a range of issues to realise the benefits of organisational and

performance improvement, as well as deriving more intrinsic benefits for themselves such as a

sense of satisfaction in assisting an employee’s performance and development. As coaching

involves using largely positive behaviours and techniques such as listening skills and goal

setting, these conversations with employees are largely mutually productive and well accepted.

Although managers can exercise discretion as to whether they wish to coach when the

coachable moment presents, if they do so, a large driver of this is often the desire to be a good

organisational citizen and assist the employee.

Secondly, by applying a wide definition to their verbal interactions with subordinates,

managers are more able to represent to their own superiors and the organisation at large that

they are demonstrating coaching behaviours which are organisationally desirable behaviours.

By referring to the numerous interactions they have with their subordinates as coaching

conversations, managers model that they are more than just compliant with the organisational

expectation that leaders will coach, but that they are actively supportive of, and competent in,

informal coaching. This use of impression management tactics does not necessarily mean that

managers do not also wish to ‘do good’ by their coaching: it merely means that perhaps in

addition to that, they also wish to ‘look good’ in the eyes of those who may influence promotion

and rewards.

Thirdly, the use of a broadly constructed understanding of the coachable moment allows

the manager, understanding that employees often seek to avoid negative feedback or react to it


in a hostile manner, to disguise or mask the giving of negative feedback to an employee by

calling the feedback process a ‘coaching conversation’. Managers need a ‘safe’ way of

engaging with subordinates on difficult and uncomfortable issues and engaging through

coaching provides that opportunity. The coaching conversation is a helping conversation rather

than a threatening conversation which may be feared by an employee as being part of a separate

disciplinary process. Avoiding a conflictual interaction is an important impression

management tactic for the manager in organisations where a ‘nice’ culture exists or where

coaching is particularly valued for its non-adversarial nature.

9.4.2 Managing the engagement risks

There is significant risk for a manager in engaging in the coachable moment. As the

coachable moment cannot always be foreseen, unlike formal, planned coaching in which

managers may be able to plan out or script a coaching conversation, the manager may not

always be prepared to conduct a conversation which could be unpredictable. As noted in

Chapters 5 and 6, managers can be anxious about the risks involved in coaching conversations

and contemplate carefully before engaging in a conversation which might pose risks in terms

of conflict or emotion. The deficit nature of the coachable moment in which a performance gap

or inadequacy is the basis for the coachable moment further heightens the risks that are

associated with the manager not being able to carefully contemplate and plan the approach to

the conversation. And as the coachable moment is not always in the control of the manager and

can be initiated by the coachee, for example, seeking feedback on an issue of performance, the

perceived risks for the manager can be high. However, as the coachable moment can be

approached or operationalised by a number of different interventions allows a level of safety

for the manager: if they assess the coachable moment could give rise to conflict or difficult

emotions, they can apply a non-coaching technique to avoid giving feedback and delay or


distort the conversation (Benedict & Levine, 1988), or they can avoid the conversation

altogether. Nevertheless, the coachable moment, despite the potential for learning that it brings,

also brings with it risk for an aspiring coaching manager.

But it is this preference to avoid a conflictual conversation, that in the spontaneity and

immediacy of the coachable moment, is a more compelling consideration than the desire to do

good and look good by coaching. The assessment of risk plays a key part in the manager’s

choice to engage in the coachable moment, and the potential for a coaching conversation, or

indeed any conversation with a subordinate to become adversarial or conflictual, is examined

carefully by the manager before engaging in the moment. As depicted in the category of

contemplating, the manager will weigh up a number of factors to determine whether a coaching

approach should occur. These factors relate to their perceived psychological safety and include

the relationship and trust existing, the coachability of the employee, and the level of confidence

the manager has in their own skill to manage the conversation. The perceived risk in these

factors will outweigh the desire to be, and be seen to be, a good organisational citizen assisting

the employee and modelling desired behaviours. The category enacting depicts how managers,

being conscious of the potential for the coaching conversation to become conflictual or

emotional, utilise questioning techniques and standardised coaching products and processes to

attempt to control the parameters and outcome of the coaching conversation. The last category

in the process of informal coaching – sensemaking – extends this theory of conflict or feedback

giving avoidance further explaining how the trigger for managers to reflect on their coaching

experiences is often an adverse event such as an unsuccessful or conflictual coaching

conversation. However, managers rarely find the time to reflect, and opportunities to de-brief

and therefore learn about what worked and what may work in the future in coaching

conversations is limited. Thus, managers’ reflections of informal coaching can be centred


around negative experiences continuing their need to risk assess the coachable moment as it

arises.

9.4.3 Controlling the conversation

When a decision has been made to engage in a coachable moment, managers may still

employ a range of tactics to control the coaching conversation and ensure that the conversation

remains focused and not emotional or conflictual. These tactics include being selective in how

conversations are positioned and using techniques to control the conversation. For example, a

manager can be seen to be deeply engaged in coaching an employee by displaying deep

listening and questioning skills, but these skills can be used in a functionalist and transactional

manner, calculated to manipulate and coerce (Tyler, 2011). Similarly, using proprietary

coaching models is a tactic used by managers to control the conversation and ensure that it

stays within parameters of what the manager is comfortable with discussing.

9.5 Summary

This chapter has presented the core category of engaging through coaching as the

process which allows managers to be seen to be engaging with staff on a range of issues while

still managing the risks that is entailed in engaging in spontaneous informal coaching

conversations. Through constructing coaching as being inclusive of many different types of

verbal interactions such as correcting behaviour, instructing, and training, managers are able to

represent most of their conversations to their colleagues and superiors as ‘coaching’ thereby

demonstrating desirable leadership behaviour. Through contemplating a range of situational

and personal factors carefully before engaging in a coachable moment, managers are able to

evaluate the risk involved in a potential coaching conversation. They can therefore avoid that

conversation if they assess that there may be a negative outcome to the conversation. If


managers choose to engage in the coachable moment, they can attempt to minimize and control

other potential negative outcomes in their enacting of the coaching conversation by positioning

the conversation and applying standardised techniques. Managers’ sensemaking occurs

cyclically and is an ongoing process that shapes their understanding of the coachable moment

and their subsequent engagement with the coachable moment. Situating the core category and

its findings in the literature revealed that the process of informal coaching is driven by the

manager’s motivation to ‘do good and look good’ by displaying coaching behaviours but that

this motivation may be tempered by the perception of a risk of conflict or emotion arising in

the coaching interaction.

The findings from the core category and all four major categories position the role of

the coaching manager as paradoxical in a number of ways not the least being the multiple and

conflicting roles held by the coaching manager. These are expanded upon in Chapter Ten which

summarises the overall findings, addresses the research questions, presents the theoretical

propositions which represent the contributions of this research, and identifies potential

limitations of the research.


Chapter 10

CONCLUSION

________________________________________________________________________________

10.1 Introduction

This research aimed to explore the informal coaching experiences of managers, and

specifically explain how and why managers decide to coach or not when a coachable moment

presents itself. It did not aim to generate a substantive theory but to generate theoretical

propositions related to the understanding and operationalising of coachable moments by

managers in the workplace. This chapter will conclude the thesis by firstly summarising the

research, then addressing the research questions as part of the overall explanation of the core

category, discussing the theoretical and practical contributions of this study including the

emergent theoretical propositions, and finally presenting limitations of the study.

10.2 Summarising the Research

The objective of this research was to explore the coaching experiences of managers and

explore the process by which managers make decisions about whether they will take

opportunities to informally coach when the coachable moment presents itself. Informed by an

interpretivist – constructivist approach, the methods used in this research were drawn from the

grounded theory works of Glaser and Strauss (1967) and the modified constructivist grounded

theory of Charmaz (2006). Consistent with inductive, deductive and abductive processes, while

the subject matter of coaching and managerial coaching was contextualised through the

literature at the outset of this study, the theoretical framework through which to view the

findings was not identified until the process of data generation and initial analysis was

undertaken. The framework assimilated three relevant theories of Organisational Citizenship

Behaviour, Impression Management, and Feedback Giving Avoidance.


The data generation process used both purposive and theoretical sampling through

interviews with coaching managers in three different organisations. In all, 31 face-to-face, in-

depth interviews and a focus group were conducted over a period of approximately 12 months.

The final number of interviews undertaken was determined by a judgement on theoretical

sufficiency or where sufficient data had been generated to allow for a full exploration of the

area under study (Charmaz, 2014).

Engaging through coaching emerged from the data analysis process and reflects the

experiences of managers informally coaching their subordinate staff. This core category

comprised four major categories: constructing, contemplating, enacting and sensemaking.

These major categories were explored in Chapters 5 to 8, and explained the processes by which

managers approached and considered a coachable moment. Chapter 5 presented the major

category of conceptualising has and its two sub-categories of aspiring and defining. These

findings explain how managers come to understand the coaching concept and process and

construct their own interpretation of the coachable moment. The sub-categories of aspiring and

defining depict how managers wish to be seen as coaching leaders in their organisations and

consequently, define coaching in a very broad sense so that most of the verbal interactions they

have with staff fall within their definition of coaching. This chapter also positioned the

coachable moment as an opportunity, or a gateway, for a manager to engage in informal

coaching and presented the construct of the coachable moment phenomenon.

In Chapter 6, the category of contemplating was explained by the four sub-categories

of evaluating the moment, assessing coachability, considering the relationship, and checking

self-confidence. These sub-categories represent the factors that managers contemplate before

deciding to coach when the coaching opportunity presents. In Chapter 7, the third major


category of enacting is explored. This category consists of the two sub-categories of

positioning the conversation and applying standardised techniques both of which depict the

process and tactics managers use to position and control the conversation to minimise any risks.

The last major category of sensemaking constitutes two sub-categories: debriefing and learning

which describe how managers not only reflect on their coaching conversations but also initially

learn about coaching. Extending the categories of conceptualising and contemplating, Chapter

8 – Sensemaking - further depicts how managers conceptualise and construct their

understanding of coaching through observation of others coaching, their life experiences, and

to some extent formal training.

The study concludes with Chapter 8 and an explanation of how the major categories are

pulled together by the core category – engaging through coaching – which depicts the overall

process of informal managerial coaching and presents the construct of the coachable moment

from the perspective of the coaching manager. The very nature of the coachable moment

increases the problematic nature of informal managerial coaching. The spontaneity of the

coachable moment means that managers coaching conversations are unexpected and this in

turn, increases the risk for the coaching manager that an unplanned conversation may not be

successful. The deficit nature of a coachable moment is such that the manager may have to

provide negative feedback to the coachee. Managers do not like to provide negative feedback

as there may be an adverse response from the recipient. The core category positions the

manager’s approach to the coachable moment within a framework of motivations related to the

managers desire to ‘do good, look good, and avoid conflict’: managers want to assist and

develop their employees for their mutual benefit, and they also want to create and maintain the

impression that they are good leaders who have coaching skills. However, informal, unplanned

managerial coaching gives rise to a risk of conflict that they would rather avoid. Accordingly,


managers consciously and unconsciously engage in a range of tactics to assess, distort, control,

and make sense of the informal coaching process. The core category explicates these strategies.

10.3 Addressing the Research Questions

There were three guiding research questions to address the overarching research

question of how and why do managers coach when the coachable moment presents? Those

questions were:

o How do managers recognise a ‘coachable moment’?

o What do managers perceive are the barriers and facilitators to operationalising

coachable moments?

o How do managers operationalise the coachable moment?

The key research question in this study was addressed by analysing, synthesising, and

abstracting data from a focus group, one-to-one interviews with coaching managers, and

relevant literature. The resultant categories answer the three guiding research questions as

follows:

10.3.1 How do managers recognise a coachable moment?

Although there is no single, uniform definition of a coachable moment used by the

coaching managers, managers conceptualise the phenomenon of the coachable moment as the

unexpected opportunity to engage verbally with their subordinates. While not all managers

believe there is a need to label ‘the moment’ they do believe that they need to recognise when

the moment arises and to capitalise on that moment where the circumstances are appropriate to

do so. It appears that managers do not have difficulty recognising a coachable moment and


indeed the wide-ranging way in which managers conceptualise and define the coachable

moment means that they are confronted with many, many moments which they perceive as

coaching opportunities Managers recognise the coachable moment in a range of scenarios; by

observing a behaviour or incident that requires comment, by an employee approaching a

manager to seek advice or direction, by an issue that has just occurred that requires analysis,

or through an opportunity to provide feedback generally because the time and place appears to

be conducive to do so.

The coachable moment is perceived to be a ‘light bulb’ moment for the manager in

terms of realising the opportunity to provide feedback to facilitate a learning, as well as for

their subordinates to gain a potential learning. However, this study has found that not all of

these moments are coaching opportunities and not all the moments are addressed by using

traditional coaching behaviours. Yet such moments are still depicted as coaching interactions

because coaching is an organisationally desirable behaviour. This understanding and

recognition of the coachable moment is represented in the major category of conceptualising

which explains how managers widely define coaching because they aspire to be seen as

coaching leaders.

10.3.2 What do managers perceive are the barriers and facilitators to operationalising

coachable moments?

While managers can recognise the unexpected opportunity to coach, this does not mean that

they always take the opportunity to do so. Managers consciously or unconsciously weigh up

the presenting circumstances, both situational and personal, and reach a decision on whether

or not to coach depending on the perceived level of risk. The barriers and facilitators to

coaching are effectively different sides of the same coin. For example, a poor relationship


between a manager and subordinate which is characterised by lack of trust, will pose a barrier

to an informal coaching moment. A good relationship will be a facilitate a manager to capitalise

on the moment. Other barriers to coaching in the moment are lack of time for the manager to

have a conversation or an unsuitable venue. But logistical issues such as these are not the key

factors that present as barriers to managers: barriers to coaching are, for to the coaching

manager, more psychological than logistical (Hunt & Weintraub, 2002), and issues related to

the nature or topic of the potential coaching conversation are far more influential on their

decision to coach. These issues largely relate to whether the coaching gap is about poor or

dysfunctional behaviour or any issue that may involve a need to give negative feedback. If such

a conversation was to result in conflict or emotion, then the manager will assess that as a risky

conversation and a barrier to the conversation. Managers also perceive employees who are not

open to feedback or who are ‘narrow minded’ or ‘unself-aware’, as barriers to effective

coaching conversations and it is unlikely that they will take up an opportunity to take a coaching

approach to those employees. Key facilitators of the coachable moment are perceptions by the

manager that the subordinate is ‘open’ to coaching, is agreeable and likeable, and opportunities

to coach where the manager has technical expertise in the subject area. These barriers and

facilitators are depicted in the major category of contemplating.

10.3.3 How do managers operationalise the coachable moment?

A key finding from this research has been that the conversations managers report on as

coaching conversations do not always converge with the coaching literature and often resemble

instruction, training and, even disciplining. Thus addressing the question of how and why

managers operationalise the coachable moment needs to start from the premise that there is no

one understanding or construct of informal coaching. Managers coach in a range of ways, using

different processes and skills, and with different objectives. However, the fact that the


coachable moment is unexpected and the manager cannot plan for a coaching conversation

serves in some ways to standardise the coaching. This is so because the manager is likely to

attempt to reduce the risk involved in an unexpected conversation in positioning the

conversation and engaging techniques such as transactional questioning and using coaching

models. These were reflected in the major category of enacting.

10.4 The Contributions of this Study

10.4.1 Theoretical Propositions

The aim of this research was to explore perceptions of informal coaching practices by

managers and to develop theoretical propositions about how and why managers informally

coach. Three key propositions were generated from the conceptual categories which created a

theoretical understanding of the process of informal coaching, or the process of engaging

through coaching.

Managers are motivated to coach by wanting to do good, look good, and avoid conflict

The first theoretical proposition relates to why managers may coach or not coach when

the coachable moment presents. The proposition is that assuming there is little or no risk in the

coaching conversation, managers may decide to coach because they wish to develop an

employee or enhance their performance, or because they wish to cultivate a favourable

impression in the organisation by exhibiting coaching behaviours. It may be for either or both

reasons. However, where the risks in the proposed coaching conversation are considered too

great, then the manager will avoid the coaching conversation.

There are four phases to operationalising a coachable moment

The second theoretical proposition is that are four phases to the informal coaching

process. The first three phases of constructing, contemplating and enacting represent the


consideration and actual undertaking of the coaching conversation by the manager. These

phases are linear and may be consciously or unconsciously engaged in by the manager. The

fourth phase is the process by which managers continually learn from their coaching and is

cyclical occurring at various stages of the informal coaching process.

Managers adopt a range of strategies to minimise the risk in coaching conversations

The third theoretical proposition explains what strategies managers use to actually

engage in the coaching process and suggests that managers may adopt strategies to minimise

risk such as defining coaching broadly, managing the conditions of coaching engagement and

controlling the conversation.

10.4.2 Contribution to Theory

This research contributes to the limited but gradually growing body of knowledge

around managerial coaching which unfortunately is often explored and considered through the

lens of the largely unrelated activity of executive coaching. Through the 31 in-depth interviews

with managers, this study offers a rich, and deeper understanding of not only how managers

coach informally but also how they make their coaching decisions ‘in-the-moment’. Using

grounded theory methods, this study has moved beyond description to theorise that managers

construct their conversations with staff as ‘coaching’ because coaching is an organisationally

desirable activity as well as a non-conflictual way of providing feedback to staff.

The originality of the contribution of this study is fourfold: firstly, it interprets and

explores the phenomenon of the coachable moment from the perspective of coaching managers,

and that exploration has resulted in the development of a construct of the coachable moment.


Secondly, this study validates and extends the proposition that managers consider

informal coaching to be a risky activity (Turner & McCarthy, 2015). The analysis addressed

the process of decision-making whereby managers sought to reduce risk when confronted with

a coachable moment.

Thirdly, this study has identified that managers employ standardised techniques and

models in informal coaching conversations in an attempt to control the conversation to reduce

the risk of managing emotion or conflict.

Lastly, through an exploration of the process of sensemaking, or how managers make

sense of their coaching, this study has concluded that because coaching managers rarely de-

brief or reflect as part of informal coaching, the process of learning from their coaching

experiences often does not occur. This is a key finding for organisations investing in coaching

training to consider and address.

10.5 Contribution to Practice

10.5.1 An understanding of the coachable moment construct

The finding that coaching is defined by managers in many different ways is not

remarkable as indeed the literature also defines managerial coaching in numerous ways and

acknowledges that this is so. What is of interest is that managers define coaching so differently

and broadly because they consider it organisationally desirable that they are seen to be coaching

and because it allows them to disguise the giving of feedback as coaching. A motivator is that

managers are uncomfortable in having one-to-one conversations with subordinates that may

result in conflict, aggression or emotion. A coachable moment arises unexpectedly and unless

managers are well skilled in conducting unplanned conversations and the giving of feedback,

they may well seek to avoid these conversations.


These findings have practical implications and primarily for leadership training

programs conducted by organisations. As the coachable moment is the gateway to an informal

coaching conversation, it is important that training participants have an understanding of this

phenomenon. If they can identify the coachable moment then arguably they may be able to take

up the opportunity to coach in conducive circumstances. Teaching managers to identify the

moment and then conduct a triage-like process to understand whether coaching is the correct

approach in the circumstances may assist managers who feel compelled to model and use

coaching behaviours in circumstances where they may not be appropriate. In addition, as

previously discussed in the Contextual Review, there are a myriad of other benefits of

managerial coaching that make it organisationally desirable for managers to captialise on the

coachable moment. These include improvement in the manager’s own interpersonal skills, such

as listening ability, confidence level, and workplace balance, as well as improving employee

self-efficacy and general organisational resilience.

10.5.2 Identification of the need to provide managers with further skills in managing conflict

The giving of feedback and dealing with conflict is clearly an area in need of further

work in organisations. If managers can enhance their skills in this area, they will increase their

confidence in giving feedback and accordingly there will be less need for subterfuge in using

the term coaching to label these conversations.

10.5.3 Understanding how managers perceive coaching as a leadership style

There is also an opportunity for organisations to reposition coaching as an important

leadership style but only one of a number of essential leadership styles which can be selected

and utilised on a contingency basis depending upon the circumstances presenting. It would also

be useful for organisations to change expectations around coaching as a leadership style to


place less emphasis on the term coaching to describe interactions between manager and

subordinate. Distinguishing between the different types of interpersonal interactions and skills

which are used on a continuum in the day of a manager would be useful for managers in

deciding what style is appropriate for presenting situations. In addition, re-branding coaching

in the eyes of employees from a remedial intervention to an investment in development may

re-position coaching as a valued activity and the coachee as worthy of a coaching investment.

10.5.4 The need for a process of coach supervision

From a learning perspective, there are many advantages in organisations adopting

professional supervision style practices for managerial coaches. As it can take up to six months

after training for managers to feel comfortable in using their new coaching skills (Grant, 2010),

supportive practices such as supervision are increasingly important to ensure coaching

behaviours are enacted and training is embedded (Clutterbuck, 2009). Professional supervision

which facilitates reflection can enhance the self-awareness of coaching managers (Cox, 2005).

The sharing of experiences not only allows for the manager to develop an increased knowledge

base (Knowles, et al, 2001) but also allows for the manager to shape understandings and make

meaning from their interactions. Given the investment that organisations make in conducting

formal, classroom based coaching training, it is important that processes are in place for

managers to be able to de-brief on their coaching. Here managers can reflect on and make sense

of, their interactions with staff, seek advice, and determine new coaching strategies; it is also a

way for the organisation to monitor and quality control their internal coaching program. A

program of professional coaching supervision would achieve this.


10.6 Researcher Reflections

Reflection can be ‘taken for granted’ in coaching practice (Cushion, 2018, p. 82), so as a

practicing coach, and given this thesis has examined the process of coaching, it seems logical

if not necessary at this point, to consciously engage in reflections on this research journey. My

study commenced with a certainty that the coachable moment was a researchable phenomenon

and indeed was a very key part of the overall coaching experience for managers. However, as

the study progressed, it became clear that because the coachable moment is conceptualised

differently by managers, contingent upon the circumstances in which it arises and therefore not

always operationalised, it may not have the significance that I wished to bestow upon it. The

coachable moment has been a useful construct to consider as the gateway to the informal

coaching conversation but it is the whole process of the coaching conversation, both the

consideration of it, the actual conversing, and the reflecting and sensemaking that follows

which provides the rich insights into how and why managers informally coach.

I have also reflected on how the use of interviews as a data generation method may have

impacted on the findings in this research. It is argued that people rarely tell the truth but rather

extrapolate or interpret in interviews (Pinder, Petchev, Shaw & Carter, 2005; Randall &

Phoenix, 2001). Charmaz (2014) presents a somewhat nuanced view of this suggesting that

interviews are ‘performances’ and argues that ‘what people say may not be what they do, have

done, and would do in the future’ (p.78). This is likely true in the case of many of the

participants in this research who, being aware that coaching is actively promoted in their

organisation as a leadership behaviour, may have exaggerated their coaching proclivity with

the hope that they were visibly demonstrating the leadership aptitude and skill they perceive

the organisation demands. A desire to be seen as a coaching manager may well have influenced

their very decision to volunteer for the study. Accordingly, the use of the interview in this study


may be considered as a limitation as described below but is balanced by the use of interviews

as one source of data in the study. I have acknowledged from the outset of the study that the

intensive interview should always be considered as ‘a construction, or reconstruction of a

reality’ (Charmaz, 2006, p.21).

10.7 Limitations of the Study

As Patton (2002, p.223) notes: ‘There are no perfect research designs. There are always

trade-offs’. This study has a number of limitations. First and foremost, perhaps the most

significant limitation to this study was my limited experience with the grounded theory method.

Being aware of this from the outset, although perhaps being even more aware as the

complexities of analysis became evident, I engaged in numerous strategies to try to supplement

by inexperience. Chief of those was my frequent engagement with the Supervisor on my team

who is an expert in this methodological area. I also immersed in on-line grounded theory

academic support groups and read widely to be able to make an informed choice between using

Constructivist Grounded Theory and Classical Grounded Theory methods. Somewhat related

to this, is the limitation of using an interpretive framework.

A further limitation of this research is that although managerial coaching is by nature a

dyadic relationship, the scope of the research was an exploration of coaching from the

perspective of the manager only. Consequently, the behaviours and motivations of the coaching

manager have not been able to be viewed from the perspective of the coachee. There is clearly

an opportunity for further, complementary research.

A further, but also predictable, limitation of this study is the existence of a level of

social desirability bias (Fisher, 1979) among the participants who, as reported in the body of


this report, not only volunteered to participate in this research because it was seen as

organisationally desirable to do so, but also appeared inclined to present ‘coaching’ as an

activity in which they engaged extremely frequently. As previously noted, because I did not

want to influence participants’ understanding of a coachable moment, a definition of coaching

was not provided to the participants. This allowed for conceptualisation by participants of their

own individual understandings of coaching and the coachable moment which provided rich

data for this study but also resulted in many experiential anecdotes during the interviews which

appeared wholly unrelated to coaching.

A potential limitation of this research relates to a stated objective of grounded theory

methodology, that is, to develop theory. As this research considered only a small pool of

participants, there was no expectation at the commencement of the research that new theory

development, either of a formal or substantive nature, would be the outcome. Accordingly, this

study did not aim to generate theory but rather to generate theoretical propositions which can

be further explored. Furthermore and because this research was aimed at the exploration and

discovery of participants’ experiences in three corporate organisations, there was no claim to

generalisability (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). The findings of the study, however, may

resonate in organisational areas that are similar in function and culture.

Finally, the analysis in this study was only undertaken by one researcher: myself.

Accordingly, the analysis relies solely upon my own interpretation and the findings emerged

through my own framework of experience. I note Glaser’s (2002) advice to minimise where

possible the potential for research bias by considering personal views as another source of data

to be eliminated through the process of constant comparison of data. Rather and in adopting a

constructivist position for this research, I sought to consider, identify and surface my


perceptions and opinions from the beginning of, and throughout this study, to heighten

awareness of their potential for bias (Charmaz, 2006).

10.8 Future Research

As an exploratory study, this research has identified a number of areas which can be

further explored to understand the experience of informal coaching in the workplace. Firstly,

as the sample in this study was limited to three relatively ‘coaching-aware’ organisations in

terms of their desire to increase coaching leadership behaviours and the resultant investment

they have made in leadership training, it would be interesting to explore whether managers

from less sophisticated organisations experienced informal coaching in the same way as

managers in this study. Identifying whether those other managers are also motivated by ‘doing

good, looking good, and avoiding conflict’ would be of great interest in considering whether a

coaching culture impacts on a manager’s decision to adopt a coaching style of leadership.

As this study explored only one half of the dyadic coaching relationship, it would be

useful to explore the experiences of the coachees in being coached in the moment. Do they

recognise the coachable moment in the same way that a manager does? If so, do they identify

a manager when a manager chooses not to take that opportunity to coach them?

10.9 Concluding Remarks

‘Language forms the basis of institutions’ (Harrison & Young, 2005, p.42) and the

discourse around coaching in organisations and the wider coaching community largely draws

from the role and context of the executive coach which is vastly different from the role and

context in which the coaching manager operates. In the context of encouraging managers to

adopt coaching behaviours to demonstrate leadership qualities, coaching is often presented by


the organisation as a positive, developmentally focused activity conducted in a dyad which is

framed by non-judgement and confidentiality. However, these qualities are descriptive of the

practice of executive coaching (Jones, et. al, 2016) but are incompatible with the context of a

manager and subordinate. In that context the manager has an evaluative role and the manager’s

interests often differ considerably from those of the subordinate, and confidentiality cannot

always be guaranteed. Section 2.6 of the Contextual Review, which was developed before data

generation commenced, positioned the manager-as-coach role as problematic in that regard.

This was concluded from the managerial coaching literature which highlighted the contrast

between traditional management and coaching, the defining of coaching responsibilities as a

role, and the inevitable power imbalance in the managerial coaching relationship. The findings

of this research are consistent with this positioning: the considerable contemplation of risks

engaged in by managers before operationalising a coachable moment is indicative of the

wariness managers have about impromptu or unplanned informal coaching in the overall

context of their role and relationship with their subordinates. However, it is not just the role of

the manager, or the relationship between manager and subordinate, that is problematic in

managerial coaching. Of greater significance is that the very use of the term ‘coaching’ to

describe day-to-day managerial conversations with subordinates creates dilemmas for

managers and their subordinates in informal conversations to correct performance or provide

feedback. As outlined, this study has found that a vast array of conversations between managers

and employees are labelled by managers as coaching for a range of reasons, chiefly because it

allows them to demonstrate that they are engaging in the leadership behaviours required by the

organisation. Yet, it is not coaching in the contemporary use of the word that should be

promoted by the organisation as an ongoing managerial style but rather that the manager

engages with subordinates in a consultative, collaborative, non-directive, and developmentally

focused manner where the situation requires that approach. And as this research has found, not


all discourse with employees is appropriate for a coaching approach or should be described as

coaching.

The concept and practice of managerial coaching is increasingly becoming popular in

organisations as a strategy to shift managers from a command and control management style

to a more empowering and inclusive leadership style. But it is an under-researched area which

has no agreed definition among its scholars and is variously perceived by scholars as either a

separate discipline from other forms of coaching, or as a distinct management role, or as a sub-

set of leadership skills and behaviours. Irrespective of how it is defined, the notion of a manager

taking the opportunity to speak informally with staff to facilitate a learning is embraced by

organisations who perceive the notion of coaching to be a positive cultural change strategy.

However, this study, whilst being supportive of the notion of managers adopting coaching

behaviours, has identified significant barriers that exist for managers who desire to coach and

be seen coaching, yet are anxious to avoid the conflict that may occur through providing

feedback in a coaching conversation. While the contemporary organisation continues to

‘idealise’ managerial coaching (Beattie, et al, 2014, p. 185) and references to coaching by

managers allude to ‘a new world workplace vision in which old-styles of management are passé

and coaching is king’ (Ferrar, 2006, p.3), such ‘optimism’ may fail to recognise the challenge

that managerial coaching presents to both managers and their subordinates (Beattie, et al, 2014,

p. 185).


References

Adams, S.M. (2005). Positive affect and feedback‐giving behaviour. Journal of Managerial

Psychology. 20(1), 24-42.

Ahrens, J. & McCarthy, G. (2016). Managerial coaching: A practical way to apply leadership

theory? In P. A. Davis (Eds.), The Psychology of Effective Coaching and Management

(pp. 353-365). United States: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Allen, T.D., Day, R., & Lentz, E. (2005). The role of interpersonal comfort in mentoring

relationships. Journal of Career Development. 31(3), 155-169.

Ancona, D. (2012). Sensemaking framing and acting in the unknown. In Snook, S., Nitin, N.,

& Rakesh K. (2012). eds. The Handbook for Teaching Leadership: Knowing, Doing, and

Being. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2012.

Anderson, V. (2013). A Trojan Horse? The implications of managerial coaching for leadership

theory. Human Resource Development International, 16 (3), 251-266.

Anderson, V., Rayner, C. & Schyns, B. (2009). Coaching at the Sharp End: the role of line

managers in coaching at work, London: CIPD.

Arendt H. (1971). Thinking, Vol. 1 of the Life of the Mind. Harcourt Brace, Jaovanovich, New

York.

Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, May- June

(69), 99-109.

Argyris, C. (2004). Reflection and beyond in research on organizational learning. Management

Learning. 35(4), 507–509.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D.H. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book235126

http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book235126


Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of

Management Review. 14, 20–39.

Avolio, B.J. & Locke, E.E. (2002). Contrasting different philosophies of leader motivation.

Altruism versus egoism. The Leadership Quarterly. 13, 169-191.

Babbie, E. (1995). The practice of social research (7th ed.), Wadsworth, Ca., USA

Baker-Finch, S. (2011). Does training in coaching skills develop coaching managers? Master

of Business Coaching Unpublished Research Report. Sydney Business School,

University of Wollongong, New South Wales.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: towards a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review. 84 (2), 191-215.

Barcelo. J. (2016). The association between agreeableness, extraversion, and support for

secessionist movements: Evidence from a large survey of more than 33,000 respondents

in Catalonia. Personality and Individual Differences. 107, 102-107.

Barnes, B. & Payette, P. (2017). Socratic questioning. The National Teaching and Learning

Forum. 26 (6), 6-8.

Baron, R. A. (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy,

and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (2), 199-207.

Baron, R. A. (1990). Countering the effects of destructive criticism: The relative efficacy of

four interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology. 75, 235-245.

Baron, R. A. (1993). Criticism (informal negative feedback) as a source of perceived unfairness

in organizations: Effects, mechanisms, and countermeasures. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.),

Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp.

155-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


Baron, L., & L. Morin. (2009). The coach–coachee relationship in executive coaching: A field

study. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 20 (1), 85–106.

Barry, T. (1992) The Manager as Coach. Industrial and Commercial Training, (24), 2.

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (2000). MLQ-Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City,

CA: Mindgarden.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum

Associates.

Bateman, T.S. & Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship

between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal. 26 (4), 587-

595.

Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social psychological answer. Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for personal attachments

as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin. 117(3), 497-529.

Beattie, R.S. (2006). Line managers and workplace learning: Learning from the voluntary

sector. Human Resource Development International. 9 (1), 99-119.

Beattie, R.S., Kim, S., Hagen, M.S., Egan, T.M., Ellinger, A.D., & Hamlin, R.G. (2014).

Managerial Coaching: A Review of the Empirical Literature and Development of a

Model to Guide Future Practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 16 (2), 184-

201.

Beck C.T. (1993). Qualitative research: the evaluation of its credibility, fittingness, and

auditability. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 15, 263–266.

Benedict, M.E. & Levine, E.L. (1988). Delay and distortion: Tacit influences on performance

appraisal effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology. 73(3), 507-514.


Bennett, B. (2003). Developmental Coaching. Training Strategies for Tomorrow; 2003; 17 (4).

Bennett, J.L. (2006). An Agenda for Coaching-Related Research. A Challenge for Researchers.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. 58 (4), 240–249.

Bergdahl, E., & Bertero, C.M. (2015). The myth of induction in qualitative nursing research.

Nursing Philosophy. 16, 110-20.

Berglas, S. (2002). The very real dangers of executive coaching. Harvard Business Review.

June 2002, 87-92.

Bernheim, B.D. (1994). A theory of conformity. Journal of Political Economy. 102(5), 841-

877.

Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2011). Grounded theory: A practical guide. SAGE Publications. Kindle

edition.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

Bluckert, P. (2005) Critical factors in executive coaching - the coaching relationship. Industrial

and Commercial Training. 37 (6/7), 336.

Bluckert, P. (2006). Psychological dimensions of executive coaching. Buckingham, UK: Open

University Press.

Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors?

Academy of Management Review, 24, 82-98.

Bolino, M.C., Kacmar, K.M., Turnley, W.H., & Gilstrap, J.B. (2008). A multi-level review of

impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management. 34 (6), 1080–

109.


Bolino, M., Long, D., & Turnley, W. (2016). Impression management in organizations: Critical

questions, answers, and areas for future research. Annual Review of Organizational

Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 3, 377–406.

Bommeljie, R. (2015). Managerial Coaching. New Directions for Adult and Continuing

Education. 148, Winter, 2015.

Bond, C.F. & Anderson, E.L. (1987). The reluctance to transmit bad news: private discomfort

or public display. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 23, 176-187.

Boniwell, I. (2007) Editorial: Special issue on the boundaries between coaching and other

helping by talking professions. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and

Mentoring. Special Issue. Summer, 2007.

Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Blaize, N. (2006). Developing sustainable leaders through

coaching and compassion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5, 8-24.

Bozer, G. & Jones, R.J. (2018). Understanding the factors that determine workplace coaching

effectiveness: a systematic literature review. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2018.1446946.

Breckinridge, J.P. (2012). Choosing a methodological path: Reflections on the constructivist

turn. Grounded Theory Review. An International Journal. 11(1).

Bresser, F. (2010). The Global Business Guide for the Successful Use of Coaching in

Organizations. Frank Bresser Publishing, Cologne

Brooks, I. (2009) Organisational Behaviour. Individuals, Groups and Organisation. Pearson

Education Limited. England. 4th Edition.

Brower, H.H., Lester, S.W., Korsgaard, M.A., & Dineen, B.R. (2009). A closer look at trust

between managers and subordinates: Understanding the effects of both trusting and being

trusted on subordinate outcomes. Journal of Management. 35 (2), 327-347.


Brown, M., Kulik, C.T., & Lim, V. (2016). Managerial tactics for communicating negative

performance feedback. Personnel Review. 45(5), 969-987.

Bryant, A. (2002) Regrounding grounded theory. The Journal of Information Technology

Theory and Application, 4 (1), 25-42.

Burke, L.A., & Miller, M.K. (1999). Taking the mystery out of intuitive decision-making. The

Academy of Management Executive. 13(4), 91-99.

Byrne, D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

Carey, W., Philippon, D.J., & Cummings, G.G. (2011). Coaching models for leadership

development: An integrative review. Journal of Leadership Studies. 5(1), 51-69.

Cambridge University Press. (2018). Cambridge online dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary

online. Retrieved at June 6, 2018, from the website temoa: Open Educational Resources

(OER) Portal at http://www.temoa.info/node/324

Cavanagh, M. (2012). Mental health issues and challenging clients in executive coaching.

(Found at http://www.groups.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/article_cavanagh.pdf) on 8

March 2012

Cavanagh, M., Grant, A.M., & Kemp, T. (2005). Evidence based coaching. Volume one.

Theory, research and practice from the behavioural sciences. Evidence Based Coaching

Conference. Australian Academic Press.

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In Denzin, N.K.

and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). SAGE, Thousand

Oaks, USA.

Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: A qualitative method for advancing

social justice research. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds): Handbook of qualitative

research (3rd ed, 507-535). Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE.

http://www.temoa.info/node/324

http://www.groups.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/article_cavanagh.pdf


Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative

Analysis. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory as an emergent method. In Hesse-Biber, S.N. & Leavy,

P. Handbook of emergent methods. (155-170). New York, NY: Guliford Press.

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. SAGE. UK. 2nd Ed.

Charmaz, K. (2014). Grounded theory in global perspective: Reviews by international

researchers. Qualitative Inquiry. 20 (9), 1074-1084.

Charmaz, K. (2017). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry.

Qualitative Inquiry. 23 (1), 34-45.

Charmaz, K. (2017). Constructivist grounded theory. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12

(3), 299-300.

Charmaz, K., Thornberg, R., & Keane, E. (2017). Evolving grounded theory and social justice.

In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds). The Sage Book of Qualitative Research. (5th ed., 411-

433).

CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel Development). (2006). Learning and Development

Annual Survey Report. London: CIPD.

CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel Development). (2007). Learning and the Line: The role

of line managers in training, learning and development. Change Agenda. London: CIPD.

CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel Development). (2009). Taking the Temperature of

Coaching. Summer, 2009. London: CIPD.

CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel Development). (2010). Learning and Talent

Development. Annual Survey Report. London: CIPD.


CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel Development). (2012). Learning and Development

Annual Survey Report. London: CIPD.

Chiovitti, R. F., & Piran, N. (2003). Rigour and grounded theory research. Journal of Advanced

Nursing. 44 (4), 427-435.

Ciporen, R. (2015). The emerging field of executive and organizational coaching: An

overview. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 148, Winter, 2015.

Clutterbuck, D. (2009). The use of internal resources for coaching and mentoring. Global Focus

The EFMD Business Magazine. 3(3), 3-6.

Clutterbuck, D. (2010). Coaching reflection: the liberated coach. Coaching: An International

Journal of Theory, Research and Practice. 3(1), 73-81.

Clutterbuck, D., & Lane, G. (2004). The situational mentor: An international review of

competences and capabilities in mentoring. Aldershot, Hants, England: Gower.

Clutterbuck, D., & Megginson, D. (2005). Making coaching work: Creating a coaching

culture. CIPD Publishing.

Clutterbuck, D., & Megginson, D. (2006). Creating a coaching culture. Industrial and

Commercial Training, 38 (5) 232–237.

Clutterbuck, D., Whitaker, C., & Lucas, M. (2016). Coaching supervision: A practical guide

for supervisors. New York: Routledge.

Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001) In good company: How social capital makes organizations

work. Boston. MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Connor, M., & Pokora, J. (2012). Coaching and Mentoring at Work: Developing Effective

Practice. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.


Corbin, J., & Strauss, A.L. (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and procedures

for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Coutu, D., & Kauffman, C. (2009). What can coaches do for you? Harvard Business Review.

87(1), 91–7.

Cox, E. (2005). Adult learners learning from experience: using a reflective practice model to

support work‐based learning. Reflective Practice. 6(4), 459-472.

Cox, E. (2012). Individual and Organizational Trust in a Reciprocal Peer Coaching Context.

Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20(3), 427-443.

Cox, E., Bachkirova, T. & Clutterbuck, D. (Eds) (2010). The Complete Handbook of Coaching.

Sage, London.

Cox, E., Bachkirova, T. & Clutterbuck, D. (2014) Theoretical Traditions and Coaching Genres:

Mapping the Territory. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 16 (2), 139-160.

Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches. 4th Ed. SAGE Publications. Kindle Edition.

Creswell, J.W., & Miller, D.L. (2000). Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry. Theory

into Practice. 39(3), 124-130.

Cunningham, I. (2001). Sweet charity!! Managing employee commitment in the UK voluntary

sector. Employee Relations. 23(3), 226-240.

Cushion, C.J. (2018). Reflection and reflective practice discourses in coaching: a critical

analysis. Sport, Education and Society. 23 (1), 82-94.

Dahling, J.J., Taylor, S.R., Chau, S.L., & Dwight, S.A. (2016). Does coaching matter? A

multilevel model linking managerial coaching skill and frequency to sales goal

attainment. Personnel Psychology. 69, 863-894.


Daudelin, M. (1996). Learning from experience through reflection. Organizational Dynamics,

24, 36–48.

De Haan, E. (2008) Relational Coaching: Journeys towards Mastering One-to-One Learning.

Chichester: John Wiley.

Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relations of Reflective Thinking to the

Educative Process. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. West Lafayette, IL: Kappa Delta Pi.

Dey, I. (1993) Qualitative Data Analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London:

Routledge.

Dey, I. (2007). Grounding categories. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage Handbook

of Grounded Theory (1-28). London, UK: Sage.

Dingman, M.E. (2004). The effects of executive coaching on job-related attitudes.

(Unpublished thesis). Regent University, VA, USA.

Dixey, A. (2015). Managerial Coaching: A formal process or a daily conversation?

International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring. Special Issue 9, June

2015, 77.

Dorfman, P.W., Stephan, W.G. & Loveland, J. (1986). Performance appraisal behaviors:

Supervisor perceptions and subordinate reactions. Personnel Psychology. 39(3), 579-

597.

Drake, D. (2009). Evidence is a verb: A relational approach to knowledge and mastery in

coaching. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring. 7 (1),

February 2009.


Dweck, C.S. (1996). Implicit theories as organizers of goals and behavior. In P.M. Gollwizter

and J.A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to

behavior, (pp. 69-90). New York: Guilford Press.

Du Toit, A. (2007). Making sense through coaching. Journal of Management Development.

26(3), 282-291.

Du Toit, A. (2014). The prerequisites of coaching. In Making Sense of Coaching. London, GB:

SAGE Publications Ltd, 2014. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 19 June 2016.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.

Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.

Edmondson, A.C. & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future

of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior. 1, 23-43.

Elbanna, S., & Fadol, Y. (2016). The role of context in intuitive decision-making. Journal of

Management and Organization. 22(5), 642-661.

Ellinger, A.D. (2013). Supportive supervisors and managerial coaching: Exploring their

intersections. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 86, 310–316.

Ellinger, A.D., & Bostrum, R.P. (2014). Managerial coaching behaviours in learning

organisations. The Journal of Management Development. 18(9), 752-771.

Ellinger, A.D., Ellinger, A.E., Bachrach, D.G., Wang, Y.L., & Bas, A.B.E. (2011).

Organizational investments in social capital, managerial coaching, and employee work-

related performance. Management Learning, 42 (1), 67-85.


Ellinger, A.D., Ellinger, A. E., & Keller, S. B. (2003) Supervisory coaching behavior,

employee satisfaction, and warehouse employee performance: A dyadic perspective in

the distribution industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly 14(4), 435–458.

Ellinger, A.D., Ellinger, A.E., Hamlin, R.G., & Beattie, R.S. (2010). Achieving improved

performance through managerial coaching. In: Watkins, R. & Leigh, D. (eds) Handbook

of Improving Performance in the Workplace Volume 2: Selecting and Implementing

Performance Interventions. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer, 275–296.

Ellinger, A.E., Elmadağ, A.B., & Ellinger, A.D. (2007). An examination of organizations’

frontline service employee development practices. Human Resource Development

Quarterly. 18(3), 293–314.

Elmadağ, A.B., Ellinger, A.E., & Franke, G.R. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of

frontline service employee commitment to service quality. Journal of Marketing Theory

and Practice. 16(2), 95–110.

Engage. (n.d.) In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved from

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/engage

European Foundation for Management Development/European Mentoring and Coaching

Council. (2009). The use of internal resources for coaching and mentoring in European

companies. Brussels, Belgium: European Foundation for Management Development.

Everard, R.D. & Selman, J.C. (2003). Coaching and the Art of Management. Organizational

Dynamics. doi: 10.1016/0090-2616(89)90040-5

Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative Analysis (Social Research Today). Taylor and Francis. Kindle

Edition.

Fatien, P., & Otter, K. (2015). Wearing Multiple Hats? Challenges for Managers-as-Coaches

and their organizations. International Leadership Journal. Fall 2015.


Feldman, D.C. & Lankau, M.J. (2005). Executive coaching: A review and agenda for future

research. Journal of Management. 31(6), 829-848.

Fenwick, T. (2010). Workplace Learning and Adult Education. European Journal for Research

on the Education and Learning of Adults. 1(1–2), 79–95.

Ferrar, P. (2006). The Paradox of Manager as Coach: Does being a manager inhibit effective

coaching? Unpublished Master Thesis. Oxford Brookes University

Fisher, C.D. (1979). Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: A

laboratory investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 64(5), 533-540.

Fisher, R.J. (1993) Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning. Journal

of Consumer Research. , 20 (2), pp303-315.

Flaherty, F. (1999). Coaching: Evoking excellence in others. Oxford: Butterworth-Fleinemann.

Flanagan, J.C. (1954). The Critical Incident Technique. Psychological Bulletin. 54 (4), 327-58.

Fournies, F.F. (1987). Coaching for Improved Work Performance. Kansas, MO: Liberty Hall.

Frisch, M. (2001). The Emerging Role of the Internal Coach. Consulting Psychology Journal;

Practice and Research Fall, 53. (4), 240-249.

Gailliot, M. T. 2010. The effortful and energy-demanding nature of prosocial behavior. In M.

Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better

angels of our nature: 169–179. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Gallwey, W. T. (1974). The inner game of tennis. New York: Random House.

Gardner, W.L. & Martinko, M.J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of

Management. 14(2), 321-338.


Garvey, R. (2011). Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book About Coaching

and Mentoring. SAGE Publications. Kindle Edition.

Garvey, R., Stokes, P., & Megginson, D. (2014) Coaching and Mentoring: Theory and

Practice. CA: Sage.

Geddes, D. & Baron, R.A. (1997). Workplace aggression as a consequence of negative

performance feedback. Management Communication Quarterly. 10(4), 433-454.

Gervasio, A., & Crawford, M. (1989). Social evaluations of assertiveness: A critique and

speech reformulation. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 13, 1–25.

Giacobbi, Peter. (2000). The athletic coachability scale: construct conceptualization and

psychometric analyses. Thesis (Ph. D.) University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 2000.

Gibb, J.R. (1973). Defensive communication. In H.J. Leavitt & L.R. Pondy (Eds.), Readings

in managerial psychology (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gibb, S. (2003). Line manager involvement in learning and development: Small beer or big

deal? Employee Relations. 23, 281–290.

Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: a guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford, FE

Unit Oxford Polytechnic.

Gibson, B., & Hartman, J. (2014). Rediscovering grounded theory. Kindle Edition. SAGE

Publications.

Gilley, A., Gilley, J. & Kouider, E. (2010). Characteristics of Managerial Coaching.

Performance Improvement Quarterly. 23(1), 53-70.

Glaser, B.G. (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory.

Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B.G. (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.


Glaser, B.G. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with

description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B.G. (2007). Doing formal theory. In Bryant A, Charmaz K (Eds), The Sage Handbook

of Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, London, 97-113.

Glaser, B.G. & Holton, J. (2005). Basic Social Processes. Grounded Theory Review. An

International Journal. 4(3), June.

Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for

Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine.

Gloss, E. (2012). A hint of this and a pinch of that: Theories that inform coaching and

consulting. Graduate Studies Journal of Organizational Dynamics. 2 (1).

Goffman, E. (1963). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin.

Goleman, D. (2000). The Leadership that Gets Results. Harvard Business Review. March-

April.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of

emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Gormley, H., & Van Nieuwerburgh, C. (2014). Developing coaching cultures: a review of the

literature. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice. DOI:

10.1080/17521882.2014.915863.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development

of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-

level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.

Graham, S., & Wedman, J. F. & Garvin-Kester, B. (1994). Manager coaching skills: What

makes a good coach? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7, 81–94.


Grant, A. M. (2005). What is evidence-based executive, workplace and life coaching? In Grant,

A.M.., Cavanagh, M., & Kemp, T. (Eds.), Evidence-based coaching. Vol:1: Theory,

research and practice from the behavioural sciences. Bowen Hills Qld: Australian

Academic Press

Grant, A. M. (2007). Past, present future: The evolution of professional coaching and coaching

psychology. In S. Palmer & A. Whybrow (Eds.), Handbook of coaching psychology. (23–

39). London: Routledge.

Grant, A. M. (2010). It Takes Time: A Stages of Change Perspective on the Adoption of

Workplace Coaching Skills. Journal of Change Management. 10 (1), 61-77.

Grant, A.M. (2013). The Efficacy of coaching. Chapter 1 in The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of

the Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring, First Edition. Passmore, J., Peterson, D.B.,

& Freire, T. (Eds) John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Grant, A.M. (2015). What constitutes evidence-based coaching? A two by two framework for

distinguishing strong from weak evidence for coaching. International Journal of

Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring. 14 (1), 74.

Grant, A. M. (2016). The third generation of workplace coaching: creating a culture of quality

conversations. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice.

doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2016.1266005.

Grant, A.M., & Hartley, M. (2013) Developing the leader as coach: insights, strategies and tips

for embedding coaching skills in the workplace. Coaching: An International Journal of

Theory, Research and Practice, 6 (2), 102-115.

Grant, A.M., & M.J. Cavanagh. (2004). Toward a profession of coaching: Sixty-five years of

progress and challenges for the future. International Journal of Evidence-based

Coaching and Mentoring. 2 (1), 1–16.


Grant, A. M., & Cavanagh, M. J. (2011). Coaching and positive psychology. In K. M. Sheldon,

T. B. Kashdan & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Designing positive psychology: Taking stock and

moving forward (pp. 293-309). New York: Oxford University Press.

Grant, A.M., & Mayer, D.M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression

management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviours.

Journal of Applied Psychology. 94(4), 900-912.

Grant, A.M., Passmore, J., Cavanagh, M. & Parker, H. (2010). The state of play in coaching

today: A comprehensive review of the field. International Review of Industrial and

Organizational Psychology. 25, 125–167.

Grant, A.M., & Zackon, R. (2004). Executive, Workplace and Life Coaching: Findings from a

Large-Scale Survey of International Coach Federation Members. International Journal

of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring. (2), 2. Autumn 2004.

Grant, A.M. & O’Connor, S.A. (2010). The differential effects of solution-focused and

problem-focused coaching questions: a pilot study with implications for practice.

Industrial and Commercial Training. 42(2), 102-111.

Grant, A.M., Studholme, I., Verma, R., Kirkwood, L., Paton, B., & O’Connor, S. (2017). The

impact of leadership coaching in an Australian healthcare setting. Journal of Health

Organization and Management. 31(2), 237-252.

Green, J., & Grant, A.M. (2003). Solution Focused Coaching: Managing People in a Complex

World. London: Pearson Education Limited.

Gregory, J. B., & Levy, P.E. (2010). Employee coaching relationships: enhancing construct

clarity and measurement. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and

Practice. 3(2), 109-123.

Gregory, J. B., & Levy, P. E. (2012). Employee feedback orientation: Implications for effective

coaching relationships. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and

Practice. 5(2), 1–14.


Guadagno, R.E. & Cialdini, R.B. (2007). Gender differences in impression management in

organizations: A qualitative review. Sex Roles. 56, 483-494.

Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Denzin &

Y. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Gyllenstein, K. & Palmer, S. (2007). The coaching relationship: An interpretative

phenomenological analysis. International Coaching Psychology Review. 2(2), 168-177.

Hagen, M. (2010). Black Belt coaching and project outcomes: An empirical investigation.

Quality Management Journal, 17, 54–67.

Hagen, M. S. (2012). Managerial coaching: A review of the literature. Performance

Improvement Quarterly. 24 (4) pp.17-39.

Halal, W., & Taylor, K. (1999). Twenty-first century economics: Perspectives of

socioeconomics for a changing world, Macmillan, New York (1999).

Hall, R.D., & Rowland, C.A. (2016). Leadership development for managers in turbulent times.

Journal of Management Development. 35(8), 942-955.

Hallberg, L.R-M. (2006). The core category of grounded theory: Making constant

comparisons. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being.

1(3), 141-148.

Hamlin, R.G., Ellinger, A.D., & Beattie, R.S. (2006). Coaching at the Heart of Managerial

Effectiveness: A Cross-Cultural Study of Managerial Behaviours. Human Resource

Development International. 9 (3), 305-331.

Hamlin, R.G., Ellinger, A.D., & Beattie, R.S. (2008). Behavioural indicators of ineffective

managerial coaching: A cross-national study. Journal of European Industrial Training.

32, 240-257.


Hardingham, A., Brearley, M., Moorhouse, A., & Venter, B. (2004). The coach’s coach:

Personal development for personal developers. London: CIPD.

Harms, P.L. & Rosebuck, D.B. (2010). Teaching the art and craft of giving and receiving

feedback. Business Communication Quarterly. 73(4), 413-431.

Harris, J.I., & Winskowski, A.M. & Engdahl, B.E. (2007). Types of workplace social support

in the prediction of job satisfaction. Career Development Quarterly. 56 (2), 150–156.

Harrison, C., & Young, L. (2005). Leadership discourse in action: A textual study of

organizational change in a Government of Canada department. Journal of Business and

Technical Communication. January 2005, 19 (1).

Hart, W. (2003). Getting culture. Imbuing your organisation with coaching behaviour.

Leadership in Action. 25 (4), Sept/Oct. 2005, 8.

Hawkins, P. (2008). The coaching profession: some of the key challenges. Coaching: An

International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice. 1(1), 28-38.

Hawkins, P. (2012) Creating a coaching culture. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Hawkins, P., & Smith, N. (2006). Coaching, mentoring and organizational consultancy:

Supervision and development. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Hébert, C. (2015). Knowing and/or experiencing: a critical examination of the reflective

models of John Dewey and Donald Schön. Reflective Practice. 16(3), 361-371.

Helyer, R. (2015). Learning through reflection: the critical role of reflection in work-based

learning. Journal of Work-Applied Management. 7(1), 15-27.

Hersey, P. (1984). The situational leader. New York: Warner Books.

Herzberg, Frederick (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: World Publishing.


Heslin, P.A., Venderwalle, D., & Latham, G.P. (2006). Keen to help? Managers’ implicit

person theories and their subsequent employee coaching. Personnel Psychology. 59 (4),

879-902.

Hicks, R. & McCracken, J. (2010). Three hats of a leader: Coaching, mentoring, and teaching.

Physician Executive. 36(3), 68-70.

Higginbottom, G., & Lauridsen, E.I. (2014). The roots and development of constructivist

grounded theory. Nurse Researcher. 21(5), 8.

Holton, J. (2007). The coding process and its challenges. In Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. The

SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory, 265-289.

Hood, J. C. (2007). Orthodoxy vs. Power: The Defining Traits of Grounded Theory. In A.

Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. London, UK:

SAGE Publications Ltd.

Hunt, J.M., & Weintraub, J.R. (2002). How coaching can enhance your brand as a manager.

Journal of Organizational Excellence. Spring 2002. 21(2).

Hunt. J.M., & Weintraub, J.R. (2007). The coaching organization: A strategy for developing

leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hunt, J.M., & Weintraub, J.R. (2011). The Coaching Manager: Developing Top Talent in

Business. SAGE Publications. Kindle Edition.

Hunt, J.M., Weintraub, J.R., Levin, S., Bobotas, L., Shaw, S., Shermount, H., & Hickey, P.

(2007). The coaching manager in nursing. In J. M. Hunt & J. R. Weintraub (Eds.) The

coaching manager: Developing top talent in business. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hutchinson, S. & Purcell, J. (2003). Bringing Policies to Life – The Vital Role of Front Line

Managers in People Management. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

(CIPD), London.


International Coaching Federation. (2016). Building a coaching culture with managers and

leaders. Human Capital Institute, 2016.

Isabella, L. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key

organizational events. Academy of Management Journal. 33 (1), 7.

Ito, A. & Bligh, M. (2017). Feeling vulnerable? Disclosure of vulnerability in the charismatic

leadership relationship. Journal of Leadership Studies. 10(3), 66-70.

Ives, Y. (2008). What is Coaching? An Exploration of Conflicting Paradigms. International

Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring. 6 (2). August 2008.

Jeffries, C.H., & Hornsey, M.J. (2012). Withholding negative feedback: Is it about protecting

the self or protecting others? British Journal of Social Psychology. 51, 772-780.

Jepson, Z. (2016). An investigation and analysis of the continuous professional development

and coaching supervision needs of newly qualified and experienced coaches: a small-

scale practitioner-based study. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research

and Practice., 9(2), 129-142.

Johnson, C. (2011). The complete guide to managing people: A manager's essential toolkit for

inspiring, challenging and developing staff. Proactive Press. Kindle Edition.

Jones, E.E. & Pittman, T. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In

Psychological Perspectives on the Self, (ed). Suls, J. 231–62. Hillsdale: Lawrence

Erlbaum Assoc.

Jones, R., Woods, S., & Guillame, Y. (2015). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A

meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology. April, 2015.

Joo, B. (2005). Executive Coaching: A conceptual framework from an integrative review of

practice and research. Human Resource Development Review 4 (4), 462-488.

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Baek-Kyoo+Joo/$N?accountid=15112

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/Human+Resource+Development+Review/$N/42729/DocView/221817058/fulltextwithgraphics/$B/1?accountid=15112

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/42729/Human+Resource+Development+Review/02005Y12Y01$23Dec+2005$3b++Vol.+4+$284$29/4/4?accountid=15112


Joo, B., Sushko, J., & McLean, G. (2012). Multiple Faces of Coaching: Manager-as-coach,

Executive Coaching, and Formal Mentoring. Organization Development Journal. 30 (1)

Spring 2012.

Jordan, A.H. & Audia, P.G. (2012). Self-enhancement and learning from performance

feedback. Academy of Management Review. 37(2), 211-231.

Kahn WA. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at

work. Academy of Management Journal. 33, 692–724.

Kampa-Kokesch, S., & Anderson, M. (2001). Executive coaching: a comprehensive review of

the literature. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. 53 (4), 205–228.

Kaye, B. (1993). Career development-Anytime, anyplace. Training & Development. Dec 1993,

47.

Kenny, M., & Fourie, R. (2015). Contrasting classic, Straussian, and constructivist grounded

theory: Methodological and philosophical conflicts. The Qualitative Report. 20(8), 1270-

1289.

Kim, S. (2010). Managerial coaching behavior and employee outcomes: A structural equation

modeling analysis. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, College

Station.

Kim, S. & Kuo, M-H. (2015). Examining the relationships among coaching, trustworthiness,

and role behaviours: A social exchange perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioural

Science. 51(2), 152-176.

Klein, G. (2015). A naturalistic decision-making perspective on studying intuitive decision-

making. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 4(3), 164-168).

Kloster, T. W. & Swire, W. S. (2010). Unleashing the Power of Anytime Coaching. Public

Manager. 39 (1), 49-53.


Kluger, A.N. & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A

historical review, a meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.

Psychological Bulletin. 119, 254-284.

Knights, A., & Poppleton, A. (2008). Developing Coaching Capability in Organisations.

London: CIPD.

Knoll, D.L., & Gill, H. (2011). Antecedents of trust in supervisors, subordinates, and peers.

Journal of Managerial Psychology. 26(4), 313-330.

Knowles, Z., Gilbourne, D., Borrie, A. & Neville, A. (2001). Developing the reflective sports

coach: a study exploring the processes of reflective practice within a higher education

coaching programme. Reflective Practice. 1, 924–935.

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1984.

Koopman, J., Lanaj, K., & Scott, B.A. (2016). Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: A

daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of Management

Journal, 59, 414-435.

Krazmien, M., & Berger, F. (1997). The coaching paradox. International Journal of Hospitality

Management. 16(1), 3-10.

Kretzschmar, I. (2010). Exploring clients’ readiness for coaching. International Journal of

Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring. Special Issue No.4, October 2010.

Kretchmar, J. (2014). Social Learning Theory. In Learning Methods and Theories. (Eds) Salem

Press Editors

Kuzmycz, D.B. (2011). Coaching behaviours of managers as a predictor of higher quality

leader-member exchanges and employee engagement. PhD Dissertation. ProQuest

Dissertations Publishing.


Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage

Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research

Interviewing (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009.

Ladyshewsky, R.K. (2010). The manager as coach as a driver of organizational development.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 31 (4), 292 – 306.

Lankau, M.J., Riordan, C.M., & Thomas, C.H. (2005). The effects of similarity and liking in

formal relationships between mentors and proteges. Journal of Vocational Behaviour.

67, 252-265.

Langley. A. (1999) Strategies of theorizing from process data. Academy of Management

Review, 24, 691-710.

Larson, J.R. (1984). The performance feedback process: A preliminary model. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance. 33, 42-76.

Larson, J.R. (1986). Supervisors’ performance feedback to subordinates: The impact of

subordinate performance valence and outcome dependence. Organizational Behavior

and Human Performance, 37, 391–408.

Latham, G.P. (2001). The Importance of understanding and changing employee outcome

expectancies for gaining commitment to an organizational goal. Personnel Psychology.

54(3), 707-716.

Lawrence, P. (2017). Managerial coaching – A literature review. International Journal of

Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring. 15(2), August 2017, 43-69.

Lawrence, P. & Whyte, A. (2014). What is coaching supervision and is it important? Coaching:

An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice. 7(1), 39-55.


Lawton-Smith, C., & Cox, E. (2007). Coaching: is it just a new name for training? International

Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring. Special Issue, Summer 2007.

Leary, M.R. & Kowalski, R.M. (1990). Impression management: a literature review and two-

component model. Psychological Bulletin. 107(1), 34–47.

Leimon, A. (2005). Essential Business Coaching. Routledge, Hove.

Lemmon, G. & Wayne, S.J. (2015). Underlying motives of organizational citizenship

behaviour: Comparing egoistic and altruistic motivations. Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies. 22(2), 129-148.

Lempert, L. B. (2007). Asking questions of the data: Memo writing in the grounded theory

tradition. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory

(pp. 245-264). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE

Lennard, D. (2010). Coaching Models: A Cultural Perspective: A Guide to Model Development

for Practitioners and Students of Coaching. Taylor & Francis. Kindle Edition.

Leonard-Cross, E. (2010). Developmental coaching: Business benefit – fact or fad? An

evaluative study to explore the impact of coaching in the workplace. International

Coaching Psychology Review. 5 (1), March 2010, 36-47.

Levy, M., Oates, T., Hunt, M. & Dobson, F. (1989). A Guide to WBL terms: definitions and

commentary on terms for WBL in vocational education and training. FE Staff College

WBL project.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Lindbom, D. (2007). A Culture of Coaching: The Challenge of Managing Performance for

Long-Term Results. Organization Development Journal, 25(2), 102.


Liu, X., & Batt, R. (2010). How supervisors influence performance: A multi-level study of

coaching and group management in technology-mediated services. Personnel

Psychology. 63 (2), 265-298.

Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & MacKay, L. (2008). Managers and subordinates’ evaluations of

feedback strategies: The critical contribution of voice. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology. 38(4), 919-946.

Lo, C. O. (2016). Literature integration: An illustration of theoretical sensitivity in grounded

theory studies. The Humanistic Psychologist. 44 (2), 177-189.

Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lombardo, M. & Eichinger, R. (2001). The Leadership Machine. Minneapolis, MN:Lominger.

London, M. (1995). Giving feedback: Source-centered antecedents and consequences of

constructive and destructive feedback. Human Resource Management Review. 5(3), 159–

188.

London, M. (1997). Job feedback: Giving, seeking, and using feedback for performance

improvement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

London, M., & Smither, W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the

longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review.

12, 81-100.

Longenecker, C. (2010). Coaching for better results: key practices of high performance leaders.

Industrial and Commercial Training. 42 (1), 32-40.

Lucas, M. (2012) Exploring the double value of supervision: A developmental perspective for

internal coaches. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching. Vol. X, No. 2.

December, 21–38.


Lundgren, H., Bang, A., Justice, S.B., Marsick, V.J., Poell, R.F., Yorks, L., Clark, M., & Sung,

S.Y. (2017). Conceptualizing reflection in experience-based workplace learning. Human

Resource Development International. 20(4), 305-326.

Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 1, 3-30.

Machin, T.M., & Jeffries, C.H. (2017). Threat and opportunity: The impact of social inclusion

and likeability on anonymous feedback, self-esteem, and belonging. Personality and

Individual Differences. 115, 1-6.

Macmillan, M. (2011). A coach approach to staff engagement. Canadian Journal of Library

and Information Practice and Research. 6(2), 1-9.

Maier, T., Tavanti, M., Bombard, P., Gentile, M., & Bradford, B. (2015) Millennial Generation

Perceptions of Value-Centred Leadership Principles. Journal of Human Resources in

Hospitality & Tourism. 14 (4), 382-397.

Markovic, J., McAtavey, J.M., & Fischweicher, P. (2014). An integrative trust model in the

coaching context. American Journal of Management. 14(1-2), 102-111.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2011). Designing Qualitative Research. Kindle Edition.

California: Sage.

Marsick, V.J. & Watkins, K.E. (1990). Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace.

New York: Routledge.

Maslow, A. H. (1954) Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row.

Matzler, K., Bailom, F., & Mooradian, T.A. (2007). Intuitive decision-making. MIT Sloan

Management Review. 49(1), 113-89.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational

trust. The Academy of Management Review. 20(3), 709-734.


McCarthy, G. (2010). Approaches to the postgraduate education of business coaches.

Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 50(2), 323-357.

McCarthy, G. (2014). Coaching and Mentoring for Business. SAGE Publications. Kindle

Edition.

McCarthy, G. (2015). Coaching - Experiences of pluralism in a young discipline. British

Academy of Management Conference - The Value of Pluralism in Advancing

Management Research, Education and Practice 2015 (pp. 1-21). United Kingdom: British

Academy of Management.

McCarthy, G., & Ahrens, J. (2011). Challenges of the coaching manager. 25th Annual

Australia New Zealand Academy of Management Conference (ANZAM 2011) pp. 1-1.

New Zealand: Anzam.

McCarthy, G., & J. Milner (2013). Managerial coaching: challenges, opportunities and

training. Journal of Management Development, 32(7), 768-779

McComb, C. (2009). How Does Psychological Contract Explain the Efficacy of Coaching?

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations. 34(2), 44-60.

McGuire, C. (1999). Do race and sex affect employees' access to and help from mentors?

Insights from the study of a large corporation. In (eds) Crosby, F., Ely, R., & Murrell.

(1999). Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relationships within multicultural

organizations, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McLean, G., Yang, B., Kuo, M.H., Tolbert, A., & Larkin, C. (2005). Development and initial

validation of an instrument for measuring managerial coaching skill. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 16, 157-178.

Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education. 32(1),

Fall, 3-24.


Milner, J., McCarthy, G., & Milner, T. (2018). Training for the coaching leader: how

organizations can support managers. Journal of Management Development. 37(2),

pp.188-200.

Minichello, V., Aroni, R. & Hays, T. (2008). In-Depth Interviewing. 3rd Edition. Pearson

Education Australia.

Misiukonis, T. (2011). The conclusions middle managers draw from their beliefs about

organisational coaching and their coaching practices. International Journal of Evidence

Based Coaching and Mentoring. Special Issue No.5, June 2011, 54-69.

Mobley, S. (2001). How to use coaching to help employees learn and grow? The Interpreter.

Winter 2000/2001, 4.

Moen, F., & Federici, R.A. (2012). Perceived leadership self-efficacy and coaching

competence: Assessing a coaching-based leadership self-efficacy scale. International

Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 10, 1-16.

Moon, J. (1999). Learning journals: A handbook for academics, students and professional

development. London: Kogan Page.

Mooradian, T., Renzl, B., & Matzler, K. (2006). Who trusts? Personality, trust and knowledge

sharing. Management Learning. 37(4), 523-540.

Morgan, D. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods:

Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 362-376.

Moss, S.E., Sanchez, J.I., Brumbaugh, A.M., & Borkowski, N. (2009). The mediating role of

feedback avoidance behavior in the LMX-Performance relationship. Group and

Organization Management. 34(6), 645-664.

Moss, S.E., Sanchez, J.I., & Heisler, W.J. (2004). Are your employees avoiding you?

Managerial strategies for closing the feedback gap. The Academy of Management

Executive. 18(1), 32-46.

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/author/Milner%2C+Julia

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/author/Milner%2C+Trenton


Mosteo, L., Batista-Foguet, J., Mckeever, J., & Serlavós, R. (2016). Understanding Cognitive-

Emotional Processing Through a Coaching Process: The Influence of Coaching on

Vision, Goal-Directed Energy, and Resilience. The Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science. 52 (1), 64–96.

Mruck, K. and Mey, G. (2007). Grounded Theory and Reflexivity. In Bryant, A and Charmaz,

K. (eds.), Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory, Sage, London, UK.

Mukherjee, S. (2012). Does coaching transform coaches? A case study of internal coaching.

International Journal of Evidence-Based Coaching and Mentoring. 10 (2), August, 2012.

Munro Turner, M. H. (2011). The three words four territories model of supervision. In T.

Bachkirova, P. Jackson, & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), Coaching and mentoring supervision

theory and practice. Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press McGraw-Hill.

Nash, C. (2016). Donald Schon. Learning, reflection, and coaching practice. In Learning in

Sports Coaching. Theory and Application. (eds) Nelson, L., Groom, R., & Potrac, P. New

York: Routledge.

Neenan, M. (2009). Using Socratic questioning in coaching. Journal of Rational - Emotive and

Cognitive - Behavior Therapy. 27(4), 249-264.

Ng, K., & Hase, S. (2008). Grounded Suggestions for Doing a Grounded Theory Business

Research. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol. 6 (2).

Nielsen, A.E., & Norreklit, H. (2009). A discourse analysis of the disciplinary power of

management coaching. Society and Business Review. 4(3), 202-214.

O'Broin, A. & Palmer, S. (2010). Introducing an interpersonal perspective on the coaching

relationship. In Palmer, S. & McDowall, A. (Eds) The coaching relationship: putting

people first. 9-33 Routledge, Hove.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.


Orth, C. D., Wilkinson, H. E., & Benfari, R. C. (1987). The manager’s role as coach and

mentor. Organizational Dynamics, 20 (9), 66-74.

Park, S., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. (2008). An examination of relationships between

managerial coaching and employee development. Paper presented at the Academy of

Human Resource Development International Research Conference in the Americas

(Panama City, FL, Feb 20-24, 2008)

Passmore, J. (2007). Coaching and mentoring - The role of experience and sector knowledge.

International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring. Special Issue,

Summer, 2007.

Passmore, J. (2007). Addressing deficit performance through coaching – using motivational

interviewing for performance improvement at work. International Coaching Psychology

Review. 2 (3), 265 – 75.

Passmore, J., & Fillery-Travis, A. (2011). A critical review of executive coaching research: a

decade of progress and what's to come. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory,

Research and Practice. 4(2), 70-88.

Passmore, J., & Jastrzebska, K. (2011). Building a coaching culture: a development journey

for organisational development. Coaching Review. 2011.

Paustian-Underdahl, S.C., Shanock, L.R., Rogelberg, S.G., Scott, C.W., Justice, L., & Altman,

D.G. (2013). Antecedents to supportive supervision: An examination of biographical

data. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 86, 288–309.

Perry, C. (1998). A structured approach for presenting theses. Australasian Marketing Journal.

6 (1), 63-85.

Peterson, D. (2006). People are complex and the world is messy: a behaviour based approach

to executive coaching in Stober, D. & Grant, A.M. (eds) Evidence-Based Coaching

Handbook, Wiley, New York, N.Y.


Peterson, D. B., & Hicks, M. D. (1996). Leader as coach: Strategies for coaching and

developing others. Minneapolis, MN: Personnel Décisions International.

Pierce, J.L., & Gardner, D.G. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizational context :

A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management. 30(5),

591-622.

Pinder, R., Petchey, R., Shaw, S. & Carter, Y. (2005). What’s in a care pathway ? Towards a

cultural cartography of the new NHS. Sociology of Health and Illness, 27 (6), 759-779.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organizational

citizenship behaviours : A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and

suggestions for future research. Journal of Management. 26(3), 513-563.

Pousa, C., & Mathieu, A. (2010). Sales managers’ motivation to coach salespeople: An

exploration using expectancy theory. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching

and Mentoring. 8, 34-50.

Pousa, C., & Mathieu, A. (2015). Is managerial coaching a source of competitive advantage?

Promoting employee self-regulation through coaching. Coaching: An International

Journal of Theory, Research and Practice. DOI: 10.1080/17521882.2015.1009134

Pulles, N.J. & Hartman, P. (2017). Likeability and its effect on outcomes of interpersonal

interaction. Industrial Marketing Management. 66, 56-63.

Rafferty, R. & Fairbrother, G. (2015). Factors influencing how senior nurses and midwives

acquire and integrate coaching skills into routine practice: a grounded theory study.

Journal of Advanced Nursing. doi: 10.1111/jan.12607

Ran, M., Wang, F., Wendt, J.H., Wu, J., & Euwema, M. (2016). Gender and managerial

coaching across cultures: female managers are coaching more. The International Journal

of Human Resource Management. 27(16), 1791-1812.


Randall, W. & Phoenix, C. (2009). The problem with truth in qualitative interviews: reflections

from a narrative perspective. Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 1 (2), 125-140.

Redshaw, B. (2000). Do we really understand coaching: How can we make it work better?

Industrial and Commercial Training. 32, 106–108.

Remenyi, D. (2014). Grounded Theory. The Reader Series. Academic Conferences and

Publishing International Ltd, Reading:UK.

Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it? Workspan.

49, 36-9.

Rioux, S.M. & Penner, L.A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A

motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 86(6), 1306-1314.

Roberto, M.A. (2002). Making difficult decisions in turbulent times. Ivey Business Journal.

66(3), 14-20.

Robson, M. (2016). An ethnographic study of the introduction of internal supervisors to an

internal coaching scheme. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and

Mentoring.14(2), 106-122.

Rock, D., & Donde, R. (2008). Driving organizational change with internal coaching programs:

part one. Industrial and Commercial Training, 40 (1),10–18.

Rogers, A. (1986). Teaching Adults. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Rogers, A. (2000). The ingredients of good coaching. Works Management, 53(6), 14-17.

Rogers, J. (2008). Creating Trust: Foundation Values and Practices for Coaches. Maidenhead:

Open University Press.

Rogers, R. R. (2001). Reflection in higher education: A concept analysis. Innovative Higher

Education. 26 (1), 37–57.


Rosen, S. & Tesser, A. (1972). Fear of negative evaluation and the reluctance to transmit bad

news. The Journal of Communication. 22, 124-141.

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and

new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 25(1), 54-67.

Şahin, F., Gürbüz, S., & Şeşen, H. (2017). Leaders’ managerial assumptions and

transformational leadership: the moderating role of gender. Leadership &

Organization Development Journal. 38(1),105-125.

Saylor, C. R. (1990). Reflection and professional education: Art, science and competency,

Nurse Education., 15, 8–11.

Schachter, D. (2008). Look for the Coachable Moment. Information Outlook 12 (5).

Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books, NY, USA.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in practice, Aldershot,

England: Ashgate.

Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. (San Francisco, Jossey Bass).

Schön, D.A. (1991). Concluding comments, in D.A. Schön (Ed.) The Reflective Turn: case

studies in and on educational practice. pp. 343-359. New York: Teachers College Press.

Schön, D. (1992). The crisis of professional knowledge and the pursuit of an epistemology of

practice. Journal of Professional Care. 6(1), 49-63.

Schonbach, P. (1980). A category system for account phases. European Journal of Social

Psychology. 10, 195-200.

Schonbach, P. (1990). Account episodes: The management or escalation of conflict.

Cambridge, K: Cambridge University Press.

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/author/%C5%9Eahin%2C+Faruk

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/author/G%C3%BCrb%C3%BCz%2C+Sait

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/author/%C5%9Ee%C5%9Fen%2C+Harun


Schutte, F., & Steyn, R. (2015). The scientific building blocks for business coaching: A

literature review. SA Journal of Human Resource Management. 13(1).

Seagraves, L. & Boyd, A. (1996). Supporting learners in the workplace: guidelines for

learning advisers in small and medium sized companies (Stirling, University of Stirling).

Shannahan, K.L.J., Shannahan, R.J., & Bush, A.J. (2013). Salesperson coachability: What it is

and why it matters. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing. 28(5), 411-420.

Sheane, S.D. (2011). Putting on a good face: An examination of the emotional and aesthetic

roots of presentational labour. Economic and Industrial Democracy. 33(1), 145-158.

Sinclair, M., & Ashkanasy, N. (2005). Intuition: Myth or a decision-making tool? Management

Learning. 36(3).

Skiffington, S., & Zeus, P. (2003). Behavioral coaching: How to build sustainable personal

and organizational strengths. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.

Somers, M. (2007). Coaching at Work. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Speedy, S. (2005). Emotions and emotionality in organisations. Australian Journal of Business

and Social Inquiry, 3.

Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Spreitzer, G. M., & Quinn, R. E. (2001). A company of leaders: Five disciplines for unleashing

the power in your workforce. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Standards Australia. Coaching in Organisations. HB-332-2011. (2011). Sydney: SAI Global

Limited under licence from Standards Australia Limited.

Star, S.L. (2007). Living grounded theory: cognitive and emotional forms of pragmatism. In

A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 114-136).

London: Sage Publications Ltd.


Stebbins, R. (2011). Exploratory Research in Social Sciences. SAGE Publications Inc.

Steelman, L.A., & Wolfeld, L. (2016). The manager as coach: The role of feedback orientation.

Journal of Business Psychology. DOI 10.1007/s10869-016-9473-6

Stern, P. N. (2007). On solid ground: Essential properties for growing grounded theory. In A.

Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 114-136).

London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Stewart, D. & Shamdasani, P. (2007). Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. 2nd Edition. SAGE

Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.

Stober, D., & Grant, A.M. (2006). Evidence Based Coaching Handbook, Wiley, New York,

NY. Kindle version.

Strauss, A., & Corbin. J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures

and techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, USA

Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: what grounded theory is not. Academy of Management

Journal. 49 (4).

Sue-Chan, C., Chen, Z., & Lam, W. (2011). LMX, coaching attributions, and employee

performance. Group and Organization Management. 36(4), 466-498.

Tannenbaum, S.I., Beard, R.L., McNall, L.A., & Salas, E. (2010). Informal learning and

development in organizations. In Kozlowski, S.W.J. & Salas, E. (Eds), Learning,

Training, and Development in Organizations. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New

York, NY. 303-33.

Tata, J. (2002). The influence of managerial accounts on employees’ reactions to negative

feedback. Group and Organization Management. 27(4), 480-503.


Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & van Vianen, A. E. M. (2014). Does coaching work? A meta-

analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational

context, The Journal of Positive Psychology. 9(1), 1-18.

Thornton, C. (2010). Group and Team Coaching. Routledge: London.

Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2007). Advancing ethnographic research through grounded

theory practice. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of grounded

theory. 493–512. Los Angeles: Sage.

Ting, S., & Riddle, D. (2006). A framework for leadership development coaching. In S. Ting

& P. Scisco (Eds.), The CCL handbook of coaching: A guide for the leader coach (pp.

34_62). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Turner, C., & McCarthy, G. (2015). Coachable Moments: Identifying the factors that influence

managers to take advantage of them in day-to-day management. International Journal of

Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 13 (1).

Tyler, J. A. (2011). Reclaiming rare listening as a means of organizational re-enchantment.

Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(1), 143-157.

Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (2000). Implications of leader-member

exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: Relationships as

social capital for competitive advantage. Research in Personnel and Human Resources

Management, 18, 137-185.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007) Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting

leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. Leadership Institute Faculty

Publications. 2007 Paper 18.

Urquhart, C. (2013). Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide. SAGE

Publications. Kindle Edition.


Van der Rijt, J., van de Wiel, M. W. J., van den Bossche, P., Segers, M. S. R., & Gijselaers,

W. H. (2012). Contextual antecedents of informal feedback in the workplace. Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 23, 233–257.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit

of construct and definitional clarity. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research

in organizational behaviour. 17, 215–285. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Van Manen, M. (1991). Tact in Teaching. The State of New York Press, New York

Van Velsor, E. & Hughes-James, M. (1990). Gender issues in the development of managers:

How women managers learn from experience. Centre for Creative Leadership Report

No. 145.

Vich, M. & Kim, M.Y. (2016). Construction and application of radical candour: Efficiency of

criticism at work. Central European Business Review. 5(4), 11-22.

Wallis, G. (2016). ‘Good question’: Exploring the experiences of generating questions in

coaching. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring. Special

Issue No.10, June 2016.

Weick, K.E. (1983). Managerial Thought in the Context of Action (ch). In Suresh, S. (1983).

The Executive Mind. Jossey Bass

Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of

sensemaking. Organisation Science, 16(4), 409–421.

Weintraub, J.R., & Hunt, J.M. (2015). 4 reasons why managers should spend more time

coaching. Harvard Business Review. HBR.Org.May 29, 2015.

Welch, M. (2011). The evolution of the employee engagement concept: Communication

implications. Corporate Communications, 16(4), 328-346.


Wells, C.V. & Kipnis, D. (2001). Trust, dependency, and control in the contemporary

organization. Journal of Business and Psychology. 15(4), 593-603.

Wheeler, L. (2011). How does the adoption of coaching behaviours by line managers contribute

to the achievement of organisational goals? International Journal of Evidence Based

Coaching and Mentoring. 9(1), 1-15.

Whitmore, J. (1992). Coaching for performance. London: Nicholas Brealey.

Whitmore, J. (2003) Coaching for Performance (3rd Edition). London, UK: Nicholas Brealey

Publishing, United Kingdom.

Whitmore, J. (2009). Coaching for Performance: GROWING People Performance and

Purpose. (3rd ed). Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Willemyns, M., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. (2003). Trust me, I'm your boss: Trust and power in

supervisor–supervisee communication. International Journal of Human Resource

Management. 14(1), 117-127.

Willis, J.W. (2007). Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and Critical

Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Witherspoon, R., & White, R. P. (1996). Executive coaching: A continuum of roles. Consulting

Psychology Journal, 48(2), 124-133. doi:10.1037/1061-4087.48.2.124

Zenger, J.H., & Stinnett, K. (2006). Leadership coaching: developing effective executives.

Chief Learning Officer, 5 (7), 44-7.

Zeus, P. & Skiffington, S. (2000). Complete Guide to Coaching at Work. McGraw-Hill, Sydney


Appendices

Appendix A: Graphical Depiction of the Categories of Engaging through Coaching


Constructing the coachable moment

aspiringI want to be seen

to be nice

there are some benefits in this

defining

might be better if I show and tell

planting little seeds

Contemplating coaching

weighing up the moment

is this the moment?


is this person coachable?

considering the relationship

is this a good relationship?

evaluating the overall risk

is this risky for me?Enacting

coachingpositioning the conversation

lets not actually call it coaching

applying standardised techniques i'll keep it

predictable & safe

Sensemaking

learningI'll learn from

watching good coaches

reflecting

how can I make sense of ths?


Appendix B: Recruitment Email

Subject Title: Opportunity to participate in a research study on coaching by leaders.

Dear colleagues

XX Organisation is pleased to be participating in a research project on coaching by leaders in the

workplace. The project is being undertaken by Christina Turner as part of her PhD research in the QUT

Business School. Christina’s doctoral research explores the experiences of managers coaching their

subordinate staff, and in particular, how they may coach informally as part of their leadership style.

As XX Organisation has a commitment to focusing on the leadership development of our people, we

believe that this is a useful opportunity to not only contribute to valuable research in the leadership

and coaching field generally, but also to improve our general awareness of our leadership style and

consider how coaching may fit within our day-to-day leadership. It is anticipated that this research will

be able to inform us about the future development of our leadership and coaching programs and

activities.

Christina is seeking to interview any of our staff who have other staff reporting to them, and

accordingly would be considered to provide leadership for these staff. The interview would be of

approximately one hour duration, and will be confidential. Participants in this research would also be

asked to attend a focus group of around one hour duration, although participation in the focus group

is not a pre-condition for participating in the confidential interview. It is expected that the research

interviews will be conducted from mid-February 2017 to approximately July 2017.

There is absolutely no obligation to participate in this research. If you wish to participate, all contact

will be between Christina and you. XX Organisation will not be advised who has participated in the

research or even made inquiries about the research project. But we do encourage you to take this

opportunity to learn more about coaching and leadership by participating in this project.

If you would like more information on this opportunity, please contact Christina Turner directly on

[email protected] Christina will be able to provide you with written information on this

project and your participation. She is also happy to confidentially talk through any questions you may

have. Christina will also be conducting a no-obligation Information Session for people interested in

the project in the ?? Room on Level ?? on (DATE). This research has been approved by the QUT Human

Research Ethics Committee - QUT Ethics Approval Number xxx

NAME

CEO/Chief Human Resources Officer

mailto:[email protected]


Appendix C: Participant Information Sheet (Interview)

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

– Interview –

COACHABLE MOMENTS: How leaders experience informal coaching in the

workplace. QUT Ethics Approval Number

1700000060

RESEARCH TEAM

Principal

Researcher:

Principal

Supervisor:

Associate

Supervisors:

Christina Turner, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Business, QUT

Associate Professor Vicky Browning, Faculty of Business, QUT

Associate Professor Carol Windsor, Faculty of Health, QUT

Professor Lisa Bradley, Faculty of Business, QUT

DESCRIPTION

This project is being undertaken as part of PhD study for Christina Turner who is a PhD student in the QUT

Business School. The purpose of this project is to explore the experiences of managers informally coaching

in the workplace. You are invited to participate in this project because you are responsible for leading staff

and accordingly, may or may not coach these staff from time to time.

PARTICIPATION Your participation will involve an audio recorded interview at your office or any other agreed location that

will take approximately one hour of your time. There will also be an Information Session held at your

organisation’s premises to provide information on this research project.

Interview questions may include:

• Tell me about a time when an opportunity arose to coach a subordinate staff member.

• Did you take that opportunity? If so, can you explain the circumstances of that opportunity?

• If not, can you explain why you didn’t take that opportunity? What factors influenced your decision? Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you do agree to participate you can withdraw from

the project without comment or penalty. You can withdraw anytime during the interview. If you withdraw

within 2 weeks after your interview, on request, any identifiable information already obtained from you will

be destroyed. Your decision to participate or not participate will in no way impact upon any current or future

relationship you may have with your organisation or QUT.

EXPECTED BENEFITS

The results of this study may benefit you through gaining an understanding of informal coaching as well as

reflecting upon your own coaching and leadership style. In addition to the professional and personal

development benefit that you may receive personally from reflecting on your leading and coaching

experiences, it is expected that this project will provide information that will benefit leaders and

organisations in Australia. The research results are also expected to be of use to the HR and Learning &

Development department which invests in leadership and coaching training and development. By

http://www.qut.edu.au/


understanding the context in which informal coaching may occur, and what may be barriers or enablers to

managers/leaders in their coaching, the organisation will be able to better design and deliver leadership and

coach training and address any perceived coaching barriers. A feedback session on the results of this study

will be available to all staff.

RISKS There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this project.

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY All comments and responses will be treated confidentially unless required by law. The names of individual

persons are not required in any of the responses. As the project involves audio recording the interview:

• The audio recording will be destroyed 5 years after the last publication.

• The audio recording will not be used for any other purpose.

• Only the named researchers and a transcriber who is bound by a confidentiality agreement will have access to the audio recording.

• It is not possible to participate in the project without being audio recorded.

Any data collected as part of this project will be stored securely as per QUT’s Management of research data

policy. Please note that non-identifiable data from this project may be used as comparative data in future

projects or stored on an open access database for secondary analysis.

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE We would like to ask you to sign a written consent form (enclosed) to confirm your agreement to participate.

QUESTIONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT If you have any questions or require further information please contact one of the researchers listed

below.

Christina Turner [email protected]

Associate Professor Vicky Browning [email protected]

CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROJECT QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any

concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the Human Research Ethics Advisory

Team on +61 7 3138 5123 or email [email protected] The Human Research Ethics Advisory Team is not

connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.

THANK YOU FOR HELPING WITH THIS RESEARCH PROJECT. PLEASE KEEP THIS SHEET FOR YOUR

INFORMATION.





Appendix D: Initial Interview Schedule

SAMPLE QUESTIONS FOR SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

1. Can you tell me something about your role in this organisation:

• Your job role

• How many staff report to you

• What role do you report to

2. Have you ever received any leadership or coaching training before working for this

organisation?

• Can you describe the nature and extent of that training?

3. Have you received any leadership or coaching training from this organisation?

• Can you describe the nature and extent of that training?

4. Have you received any coaching yourself, either formal or informal, since you have been

employed by this organisation?

• Can you describe the experience?

• How effective was it for you?

5. Do you regard a coaching style to be an effective leadership style?

6. How would you describe your leadership style?

7. What do you understand by the term “coachable moment”? How would you describe it?

8. Can you think of a time when a coachable moment presented itself to you and you used

that moment to coach an employee?

• Can you describe the circumstances?

• What specific factors influenced your decision at that time to coach?

9. Can you think of a time when a coachable moment presented itself to you but you chose

not to use that moment to coach an employee?

• Can you describe the circumstances?

• What specific factors influenced your decision at that time not to coach?

10. Have you ever received any feedback, either formal or informal, about your coaching

practices?


Appendix E: Participant Information Sheet (Focus Group)

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

– Focus Group –

COACHABLE MOMENTS: How leaders experience informal coaching in the

workplace. QUT Ethics Approval Number

1700000060

RESEARCH TEAM

Principal

Researcher:

Principal

Supervisor:

Associate

Supervisors:

Christina Turner, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Business, QUT

Associate Professor Vicky Browning, Faculty of Business, QUT

Associate Professor Carol Windsor, Faculty of Health, QUT

Professor Lisa Bradley, Faculty of Business, QUT

DESCRIPTION

This project is being undertaken as part of PhD study for Christina Turner who is a PhD student in the QUT

Business School. The purpose of this project is to explore the experiences of managers informally coaching

in the workplace. You are invited to participate in this project because you are responsible for leading staff

and accordingly, may or may not coach these staff from time to time.

PARTICIPATION Your participation will involve attendance at a Focus Group interview for approximately one hour. There

will also be an Information Session held at your organisation’s premises to provide information on this

research project.

Focus Group interview questions may include:

• What does a coaching leadership style mean to you?

• Who would describe themselves as having a coaching leadership style?

• What do you understand by the term ‘coachable moment’? Can you describe a coachable moment?

Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. You can leave at any time during the Focus Group

interview. However, if you participate in the Focus Group, we will not be able to withdraw your data. Your

decision to participate or not participate will in no way impact upon any current or future relationship you

may have with your organisation or QUT.

EXPECTED BENEFITS

The results of this study may benefit you through gaining an understanding of informal coaching as well as

reflecting upon your own coaching and leadership style. In addition to the professional and personal

development benefit that you may receive personally from reflecting on your leading and coaching

experiences, it is expected that this project will provide information that will benefit leaders and

organisations in Australia. The research results are also expected to be of use to the HR and Learning &



Development department which invests in leadership and coaching training and development. By

understanding the context in which informal coaching may occur, and what may be barriers or enablers to

managers/leaders in their coaching, the organisation will be able to better design and deliver leadership and

coach training and address any perceived coaching barriers. A feedback session on the results of this study

will be available to all staff.

RISKS There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this project.

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY All comments and responses will be treated confidentially unless required by law. The names of individual

persons are not required in any of the responses. As the project involves audio recording the Focus Group:

• The audio recording will be destroyed 5 years after the last publication.

• The audio recording will not be used for any other purpose.

• Only the named researchers and a transcriber who is bound by a confidentiality agreement will have access to the audio recording.

• It is not possible to participate in the project without being audio recorded.

Any data collected as part of this project will be stored securely as per QUT’s Management of research data

policy. Please note that non-identifiable data from this project may be used as comparative data in future

projects or stored on an open access database for secondary analysis.

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE We would like to ask you to sign a written consent form (enclosed) to confirm your agreement to participate.

QUESTIONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT If you have any questions or require further information please contact one of the researchers listed

below.


Associate Professor Vicky Browning [email protected]

CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROJECT QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any

concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the Human Research Ethics Advisory

Team on +61 7 3138 5123 or email [email protected] The Human Research Ethics Advisory Team is not

connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.

THANK YOU FOR HELPING WITH THIS RESEARCH PROJECT. PLEASE KEEP THIS SHEET FOR YOUR

INFORMATION.





Appendix F: Consent Form (Focus Group)

CONSENT FORM FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

– Focus group –

COACHABLE MOMENTS: How leaders experience informal coaching in the workplace. An exploratory, interpretive study.

QUT Ethics Approval Number 1700000060

RESEARCH TEAM

Principal Researcher:

Principal Supervisor:

Associate Supervisors:


Associate Professor Vicky Browning [email protected] 3138 1126

Associate Professor Carol Windsor [email protected] 3138 3837

Professor Lisa Bradley [email protected] 3138 5081

STATEMENT OF CONSENT

By signing below, you are indicating that you:

• Have read and understood the information document regarding this project.

• Have had any questions answered to your satisfaction.

• Understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team.

• Understand that you are free to leave at any time during the Focus Group interview. However, it will not be possible to withdraw your data because of the group situation.

• Understand that if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project you can contact the Human Research Ethics Advisory Team on +61 7 3138 5123 or email [email protected]

• Understand that the project will include an audio recording.

• Understand that non-identifiable data from this project may be used as comparative data in future projects.

• Agree to participate in the project.

Name

Signature

Date

PLEASE RETURN THIS SIGNED CONSENT FORM TO THE RESEARCHER.








Appendix G: Example of Initial Coding

Initial Code

Transcript

Drawing from wisdom

Coaching = teaching &

improving

Cheerleading/motivating

Focusing on their

success

Using a sporting analogy

Identifying gaps

What’s best for them

_________________

Having coffee

Commencing by

inquiring

Noticing demeanour

‘unpacking the moment’

Realising the coaching

need

When you say "coaching", how is that different? What is it? What

would I see, if I saw you having a "coaching conversation"?

Someone wise said to me, "There's a big difference between two

leadership styles. If you are there to coach, you are there to teach

and you are there to help them improve." A lot of leaders are

cheerleaders and they are there just to encourage, "Yeah, go, go,

go." And that is pretty easy. So the biggest difference probably for

me is the focus; and the focus is on their improvement and their

success. And if that is the case, I could coach looking after a football

team; got to pick up on the things that they are not doing so well

and where they need to improve and help them through those

things, in a way that is best for them; maybe not for you.

________________________________________

We were having a coffee, or they were just downstairs by the coffee

machine; I was just asking how she was going. And I noticed there

was something she was stressed with, and trying to unpack that. I

realised pretty quickly that it was a "coaching moment". I didn't

think of it as a coaching moment. I just realised it was something

that we needed to work through together.


Appendix H: Example of Focused Coding

Initial Code Transcript

Learning from role-models

Assessing coachability

Yes. He's probably someone that I learn a lot from, at the

moment; because I don't have that skill-set naturally but he

does. I absorb a fair bit of that style. He refers to me as a

"sponge" because I do just sit there and ask a lot of questions

about that. Sometimes I am direct and say, "Look, you have

got this kind of style. I want to learn more about that";

because some of the instances that I have had which are more

direct, probably would have been better to be a bit more

indirect.

So generally the people I will coach will be the ones that I

see the most potential in. That's not to say they are doing an

awesome job now. It is to say, they are the ones that are

really hungry for it; really want to improvable and be better.

There are people that just don't want to or don't get it; and I

have had both - all types of those before and you just need to

make decisions; and they are hard decisions; but that's what

your job is about. There are individuals who are not those

people; they don't process coaching in the same way. You

can try, try, and try and you can be there in two years and

achieve 5 per cent with what you can achieve with someone

else, with a bit more potential and passion to develop

themselves.


Appendix J: Example of Code and Process Memos

CODE MEMO 16/05/2017

People who are difficult to coach Resistance

Not knowing you are being coached – not wanting to be questioned Some interviewees talked about not liking being coached without knowing they are being coached. As if its subversive or undercover – a sense of being tricked? Even though they recognise that it is being done well, and by somebody they like, there is a sense of being tricked – “I just want to be told”– P4 – didn’t find the questioning approach very useful when she had lost all confidence and it was a high stakes issue. P4 talks about times when she doesn’t want to be coached and questioned – she wants a “straight answer”. It’s a sense that her time is being wasted with the questioning if it’s an issue that is stressful for her and she’d just rather be told. P4 – style of the person being coached and the situation needs to be assessed. P2 – sensing resistance from coachee – who was “incredibly literal” and just wanted to be told. He wasn’t able to think for himself. P2 – resistant coachee – he’s difficult to coach because he doesn’t think he needs it; difficult to coach somebody who has low self-awareness

Process Memo 16 May 2017

Asking the same questions – attempting to standardise Noticed halfway through coding first lot of interviews that I was trying to ensure that I was asking all the same questions all the time – as if I was trying to standardise each interview. Whereas in reality, I should have been dropping the questions that were no longer relevant and initiating new questions to follow the new apparent paths opening up.


Change to Questions Need to explore further the PROCESS of how interviewees define or come to understand coaching – so as well as asking how they define coaching, need to explore how they came to that understanding – was it their training, prior knowledge, own understanding? Sensemaking around coaching …………….


Forming categories too early Reflecting on Suddaby’s article (What Grounded Theory is Not) and wondering if I may have moved too fast to form even initial categories. Not so much influenced by pre-existing views thoughts, but just that not a lot of original data emerging – so I thought saturation, but probably not. More so, I need to re-form interview questions and tackle from new angle. However obvious that “coachable moment” may be too narrow a subject/perspective to elicit much data so expanding into broader understanding of informal coaching generally.

exploring coachable moments · 7 the theoretical framework relating to the coachable moment 8 the...

Documents