international coaching psychology...

Interest Group in Coaching Psychology

ISSN: 1750-2764

International Coaching Psychology ReviewVolume 10 No. 2 September 2015

International Coaching Psychology ReviewEditorial BoardCo-ordinating EditorsUnited Kingdom: Stephen Palmer, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, City University London, Northampton Square, London, UK.Australia: Sandy Gordon, PhD, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.

Co-EditorsMichael Cavanagh, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, School of Psychology, Sydney University, Australia.Anthony M. Grant, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, School of Psychology, Sydney University, Australia.Travis Kemp, PhD, International Graduate School of Business, University of South Australia, Australia.David Lane, PhD, Middlesex University, London, UK.Alex Linley, PhD, School of Psychology, University of Leicester, UK.Alison Whybrow, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, City University London, UK.

SubscriptionsInternational Coaching Psychology Review (ICPR) is published in March and September. It is distributed free of charge to members ofthe British Psychological Society Special Group in Coaching Psychology and the Australian Psychological Society Interest Group inCoaching Psychology members. It is available to non-members (Individuals £50 per volume; Institutions £60 per volume; single copies£25) from: The British Psychological Society, SGCP, St. Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR. UK.

Abstracting and indexing: The ICPR is abstracted in psycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts and Google Scholar. The ICPR is included Cabell's Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Educational Psychology and Administration and Cabell'sDirectory of Publishing Opportunities in Educational Curriculum and Methods.

Notes for ContributorsThe ICPR is an international publication with a focus on the theory, practice and research in the field of coaching psychology.Submission of academic articles, systematic reviews and other research reports which support evidence-based practice are welcomed.The ICPR may also publish conference reports and papers given at the British Psychological Society Special Group in CoachingPsychology (BPS SGCP) and Australian Psychological Society Interest Group in Coaching Psychology (APS IGCP) conferences, noticesand items of news relevant to the International Coaching Psychology Community.

Case studies and book reviews will be considered. The ICPR is published by the BPS SGCP in association with the APS IGCP.

1. CirculationThe circulation of the ICPR is worldwide. It is available in hardcopy and PDF format. Papers are invited and encouraged from authorsthroughout the world. It is available free in paper and PDF format to members of the BPS SGCP, and free in PDF format to APS IGCPmembers as a part of their annual membership.

2. LengthPapers should normally be no more than 6000 words, although the Co-Editors retain discretion to publish papers beyond this lengthin cases where the clear and concise expression of the scientific content requires greater length.

3. ReviewingThe publication operates a policy of anonymous peer review. Papers will normally be scrutinised and commented on by at least twoindependent expert referees (in addition to the relevant Co-Editor) although the Co-Editor may process a paper at his or herdiscretion. The referees will not be aware of the identity of the author. All information about authorship including personalacknowledgements and institutional affiliations should be confined to the title page (and the text should be free of such clues asidentifiable self-citations, e.g. ‘In our earlier work…’).

Continued on inside back cover.

International Editorial BoardHilary Armstrong, PhD, Institute of Executive Coaching,Sydney, Australia.Paul Atkins, PhD, Australian National University,Canberra, Australia.Tatiana Bachkirova, PhD, Oxford Brookes University, UK.John Bennett, PhD, Queen’s University of Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.Michael Carroll, PhD, University of Bristol, UK.Ian Cockerill, PhD, University of Birmingham, UK.Cary Cooper, PhD, Manchester Business School, UK.Sarah Corrie, PhD, Middlesex University, London, UK.Paula Cruise, PhD, University of Cambridge, UK.Susan David, PhD, Melbourne University, Australia.Suzy Green, PhD, University of Wollongong, NSW Australia.Kate Hefferon PhD, University of East London, UK.

Stephen Joseph, PhD, University of Warwick, UK.Carol Kauffman, PhD, Harvard Medical School, USA.Roy Moodley, PhD, University of Toronto, Canada.Richard Nelson-Jones, PhD, Cognitive Humanistic Institute,Thailand.Lindsay Oades, PhD, University of Wollongong, Australia.Jonathan Passmore, PhD, Evora University, Portugal.James Pawelski, PhD, Positive Psychology Center,University of Pennsylvania, USA.Gordon Spence, PhD, University of Wollongong, NSW Australia.Ernesto Spinelli, PhD, Regent’s College, UK.Catherine Steele PhD, University of Worcester, UK.Reinhard Stelter, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit,University of Copenhagen, Denmark.Lewis R. Stern, PhD, Harvard University Medical School, USA.Dianne Stober, PhD, Fielding University, USA.Mary Watts, PhD, City University, London, UK.

The British Psychological SocietySpecial Group in Coaching Psychology

k

The Australian Psychological Society LtdInterest Group in Coaching Psychology

k

InternationalCoaching Psychology Review

k

Volume 10 No. 2 September 2015

k

114 International Coaching Psychology Review l Vol. 10 No. 2 September 2015

SGCP 5th European CoachingPsychology Conference 2015

Breaking New Ground Thursday 10th and Friday 11th December 2015

at the Holiday Inn London Bloomsbury

This Conference will inspire collaborations in research evidence,professional accreditation and training routes. It will provide a platform for

setting the aspirations and agenda for both coaching and coachingpsychology for the coming years.

Please visit www.sgcp.eu for further information

This event is organised by the BPS Special Group in Coaching Psychology and administered byKC Jones conference&events Ltd, 01332 224501

Leadership, Executive and Business CoachingPositive Psychology Coaching (including resilience)

Tools & Techniques in Coaching Psychology including CPD & Peer PracticeCoaching Psychology Research Network, including internationalcollaborations, international developments, new research, new

researchers and new developments

There will be two days of impressive Speakers, exciting and new Topics

Papers covering the following themes:and a broad range of Master classes, Skills Workshops and Scienti�c

Dr Tatiana BachkirovaKeynote Speakers

Dr Suzy Green

Dr Helen TurnbullProf Roger Steare

International Coaching Psychology Review l Vol. 10 No. 2 September 2015 115© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1750-2764

Contents116 Editorial: 10 years, 10 volumes of the International Coaching Psychology Review

Stephen Palmer & Sandy Gordon

Papers

118 Who sees change after leadership coaching? An analysis of impact by rater level and self-other alignment on multi-source feedback.Doug MacKie

131 Authentic Leaders are… conscious, competent, confident, and congruent: A Grounded Theory of Group Coaching and Authentic Leadership DevelopmentTony Fusco, Siobhain O’Riordan & Stephen Palmer

149 Walking a mile in an executive’s shoes: The influence of shared client-coachexperience on goal achievementAlex T. Chinn, James P. Richmond & John L. Bennett

161 Using Clean Language to explore the subjectivity of coachees’ experience and outcomesSusie Linder-Pelz & James Lawley

175 Evaluating a coaching and mentoring programme: Challenges and solutionsTatiana Bachkirova, Linet Arthur & Emma Reading

190 Teachers’ experiences of an introductory coaching training workshop in Scotland: An interpretative phenomenological analysisMargaret Barr & Christian van Nieuwerburgh

Reports

205 Special Group in Coaching Psychology NewsDasha Grajfoner

207 Interest Group in Coaching Psychology News Nic Eddy

210 International Coaching Psychology Review – Volume index 2015

DOUG MACKIE asks ‘Who sees changeafter leadership coaching? An analysisof impact by rater level and self-other

alignment on multi-source feedback’. Usingmultisource feedback from 31 executivesand senior managers from a large not-for-profit organisation, he assesses the effective-ness of strength-based coaching andself-other rater alignment on leadershipoutcomes after six sessions of coaching.

Our second article also focuses on lead-ership. In this paper Tony Fusco, SiobhainO’Riordan and Stephen Palmer explore andbring together Group Coaching and Authen-tic Leadership Development (ALD). A Grounded Theory approach was used inthis study. The authors put forward anunderpinning theory of Group Coachingand ALD and introduce a model of authen-tic leadership based on the core concepts ofconscious, competent, confident andcongruent leadership.

In ‘Walking a mile in an executive’sshoes: The influence of shared client-coachexperience on goal achievement’ AlexChinn, James Richmond, and John Bennettdiscuss survey data from 206 target organisa-tions, coaches in their network, and theircoaching clients. Specifically, they determinewhether using shared professional andindustry experience to match coaches andclients by coaches, clients, HR partners andthird-party coach-client matching services,maximises goal achievement.

Susie Linder-Pelz and James Lawleyreport on ‘Using Clean Language to explorethe subjectivity of coachees’ experience andoutcomes’. Employing a Clean Languagephenomenological approach their thematicanalyses reveals both favourable andunfavourable evaluations and several impli-

cations for coaching psychologists related topacing and timing of coaching sessions.

In the next paper, Tatiana Bachkirova,Linet Arthur and Emma Reading illustratean independently conducted research studyto develop appropriate measures and evalu-ate the coaching/mentoring programmethat had been running for over five years.They also explore specific challenges in theevaluation of a large-scale coaching pro-gramme and to suggest new solutions. Theyargue for the development of additionalmethods in outcome research on coachingprogrammes that are aligned with the mainprinciples and philosophy of coaching as apractice.

In our last paper the researchers,Margaret Barr and Christian van Nieuwer-burgh, use an interpretative phenomeno-logical analysis to explore five teachers’experiences of an introductory coachingtraining workshop in Scotland. In the studythe participants reported that collaboratingwith others and having time for reflectionenhanced their learning. It is interesting tonote that in Scotland new professionalupdate procedures require school leaders touse coaching skills.

As usual we finish with reports from theBPS SGCP Chair and APS IGCP Convenor.

With my colleagues in the UK andAustralia, I (SP) have been co-editing theInternational Coaching Psychology Review(ICPR) for 10 years. In other words, 10 volumes. Recently it occurred to me thatthis seems like an ideal time to step downfrom the role as the UK Co-ordinatingEditor. When the BPS Special Group inCoaching Psychology was launched in 2004,we had aspirational goals, although some ofthem could be more accurately described as

116 International Coaching Psychology Review l Vol. 10 No. 2 September 2015© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1750-2764

Editorial: 10 years, 10 volumes of theInternational Coaching Psychology ReviewStephen Palmer & Sandy Gordon

International Coaching Psychology Review l Vol. 10 No. 2 September 2015 117

Editorial: 10 years, 10 volumes of the International Coaching Psychology Review

fuzzy goals. But we all knew that we wantedto develop the new discipline and professionof coaching psychology. And this leads me tomy next point. Research is of paramountimportance in developing a new scientificfield, yet back in 2004, we lacked suitablejournals to publish coaching-relatedresearch papers. With the go-ahead andsupport of both the BPS SGCP and APSIGCP committees, we set up the ICPR, thefirst international peer-reviewed publicationfor coaching psychology. Over the pastdecade we have seen a rise in the quality ofthe papers and research areas investigated. I thank my Co-Editors, Anthony Grant,Travis Kemp, David Lane, Alex Linley andAlison Whybrow for their hard work on thepublication since 2006 and in particular, theAustralian Co-ordinating Editors, MichaelCavanagh and more recently, Sandy Gordon.However, the ICPR would not exist if it wasnot for the authors and also the reviewers.During this period, Martin Reeves in the BPSoffice has patiently typeset so many articleson our behalf, and Tracy White, our editorialassistant, has supported us on a day-to-daybasis. This month, Alex is also stepping downas an ICPR Co-Editor.

To conclude, my thanks goes to every-body who has been involved in ensuringICPR gets published. I look forward to seeingSGCP and IGCP colleagues at the next SGCP5th European Coaching Psychology Confer-ence 2015 in December. The theme is‘Breaking New Ground’. A great way to endthe year.

As several colleagues have already acknowl-edged Stephen has made an indelible markon the development of the coaching psychol-ogy industry. For many years his passion andleadership have been evident both locallyand internationally and I’m sure willcontinue. I (SG) wish to take this opportu-nity to formally thank him personally for hiskind support and assistance with co-ordinat-ing editorial business and I promise, onbehalf of ICPR readers, that I will ensure heremains ever active as a member of theEditorial Board.

CorrespondenceStephen PalmerCoaching Psychology Unit,Department of Psychology,City University London,Northampton Square,London, UK.Email: [email protected]

Sandy GordonThe University of Western Australia,Perth, Australia.Email: [email protected]

WebsitesSGCP 5th European Coaching PsychologyConference 2015: www.sgcp.eu

The International Congress of CoachingPsychology events: www.coachingpsychologycongress.org

EVIDENCE IS GROWING for the effec-tiveness of executive coaching in organ-isations and yet much of the research

shows an over-reliance of self-reportmeasures rather than investigating theimpact more broadly on managers, peersand direct reports within the organisation,(MacKie, 2014; Page & de Haan, 2014).Multi-source feedback (MSF) or 360-degreefeedback provides the opportunity to exam-ine the impact of executive coaching morebroadly in the organisation and to extendthe analysis of impact beyond the level ofself-report. Multi-source feedback or 360

methodologies are near ubiquitous in lead-ership development programmemes includ-ing coaching approaches and yet they areprimarily used for assessment and awarenessraising purposes rather than as formativeoutcome criteria to assess change after leadership development interventions(Kochanowski, Seifert & Yukl, 2010; Nowack& Mashihi, 2012).

There are several reasons why MSF withina leadership framework are desirabledependent variables in leadership coachingoutcome studies. Self-reports are an unreli-able indicator of change, especially when the


Who sees change after leadershipcoaching? An analysis of impact by rater level and self-other alignment on multi-source feedbackDoug MacKie

Objectives: The objective of this research was to investigate the use of multi-source feedback in assessing theeffectiveness of a strength-based coaching methodology in enhancing elements of the full range leadershipmodel. It also investigated the effects of self-other rater alignment on leadership outcomes after coaching. Design: A between-subject non-equivalent control group design was used to explore the impact of strength-based coaching on transformational leadership behaviours measured in a 360-degree feedback process.Thirty-one executives and senior managers from a large not-for-profit organisation were non-randomlyassigned to either a coaching or waitlist cohort. Methods: The coaching cohort received six sessions of leadership coaching involving feedback on leadershipand strengths, goal setting and strengths development. After six sessions of coaching over three months,cohorts then switched roles.Results: The results showed that participants experienced statistically significant increases in theirtransformational leadership behaviour after coaching and this difference was perceived differentially at alllevels within the organisation but not by the participants themselves. Raters at higher levels in theorganisation were the most sensitive to change. The results also showed that self-other rater alignment wasa significant factor in self-ratings of change over time with those participants who initially over-ratedthemselves, reducing their ratings over time as a consequence. Conclusion: The results suggest that changes in coachee transformational leadership behaviour afterleadership coaching are perceived differentially by rater level within an organisation and that self-other rateralignment is an important moderator of self-ratings over time.Keywords: leadership coaching; strength-based; rater level; multi-source feedback; self-other alignment.

rater is least skilled in that area, (Kruger &Dunning, 1999) and are prone to leniencybias (Fleenor, Smither, Atwater et al., 2010).Secondly leadership coaching by definition,requires an impact beyond the self-report ofthe coachee as the purpose of modifyingtheir behaviour is to have a more transfor-mative impact on those around them in anorganisation (Kochanowski, Seifert & Yukl,2010). Indeed there is significant evidencelinking perceived changes in leaderbehaviour with enhanced engagement anddiscretionary effort in followers, resulting inenhanced business-unit outcomes, (Avolio,2011; Harter, Schmidt & Hayes, 2002). Priorresearch has also found that significantchanges in transformational leadership aftercoaching have been perceived by otherraters with the same organisation but thesestudies have not reported changes by raterlevel, (Cerni, Curtis & Colmar, 2010; O’Con-nor & Cavanagh, 2013). Transformationalleadership is one of the most researchedleadership theories over the last 30 years andhas established significant correlationsbetween increases in transformational lead-ership and objective performance outcomesincluding financial performance, job satis-faction, follower satisfaction, and organisa-tional commitment (Avolio, 2011).

Finally, multi-source leadership ratingscan provide a reliable and valid outcomemeasure that can be compared across stud-ies, a key criterion if different coachingmethodologies are to be compared andcontrasted, (MacKie, 2014). Evidence for thevalidity of other-ratings has been demon-strated in prior research. Atkins and Wood(2002) used assessment centre ratings as theobjective and independent performancecriteria and found that other-raters derivedfrom MSF significantly predicted perform-ance on the assessment centre, as did linemanager ratings alone. However, it is impor-tant to remember that in leadership assess-ment, as in so many job performancecriteria, there is no ‘objective’ measure ofperformance primarily due to criterion defi-ciency, that is aspects of job performance

like team work are not easily amenable toobjective measurement, (Murphy, 2008).

It is important to recognise that evenwithout subsequent leadership coaching,MSF is an intervention in itself, especially ifformally debriefed with the participant(Neiminen et al., 2013). In a meta-analysis of24 longitudinal studies, small but significanteffect sizes in performance were found afterMSF as observed by supervisors and theparticipant’s direct reports (d=0.15), peers(d=0.05) but not self-ratings (d=–0.04),(Smither, London & Reilly, 2005). There isalso some evidence to suggest that raters atdifferent levels focus on different aspects ofthe leader with supervisor ratings beingmore closely correlated with externalperformance criteria (Atkins & Wood, 2002)whilst direct reports (those reportingdirectly into the participant), focus on moreinterpersonal and relational criteria(Nowack, 2009).

Another critical issue in the applicationof MSF to the evaluation of leadershipcoaching interventions is the issue of self-other agreement (SOA) (Fleenor et al.,2010). Given the challenges of self-reportdata, it is not surprising to find that there aretypically modest correlations between selfand other ratings in the existing literature,(Fleenor et al., 2010, Nowack & Mashihi,2012). However, within these discrepancies,there are a variety of interesting sub-groups.Individuals who overrate themselvescompared to other raters are seen to bepotentially at risk of derailing (ie. failing toreach their career apogee) and may be lessreceptive to feedback, (Woo et al., 2008) butthe gap between self and others can also actas a motivator to change, (Atwater & Brett,2005). Individuals who under-rate them-selves when compared to others are poten-tially self-critical and perfectionistic and canbe demotivated by the realisation that othersperceive them to be more effective than theysee themselves, (Nowack & Mashihi, 2012).These somewhat contradictory findings inthe SOA literature suggest the impact ofmisalignment of self-other ratings on coach-


Who sees change after leadership coaching?

ing outcomes would be a useful hypothesisto explore further.

Finally there is a developing bodyevidence of that has specifically examinedperceived changes in MSF after coachinginterventions. Luthans and Petersen (2003)investigated the effects of feedback pluscoaching on a group of 27 managers and 67employees. The study specifically aimed toreduce the self-other discrepancies in MSF.At Time 1 there were significant differencesin the self-other ratings (with self beinghigher) on behavioural and interpersonalcompetency and personal responsibility.However, these discrepancies had all disap-peared at Time 2 after the coaching process.Interestingly the self-ratings had not dimin-ished over time but the other ratings hadcaught up at Time 2. Unfortunately all otherraters were combined into one category so itwas not possible to ascertain the differencesby organisational level. The results alsosuggested an improvement in manager andemployee satisfaction and commitment atTime 2.

Smither et al. (2003) examined whethercoaching could improve the effect of 360-degree feedback in enhancing performance.Of 1202 senior managers who received 360-degree feedback, 404 were selected forsubsequent coaching. Those who partici-pated in coaching were reported to set morespecific goals, solicit more ideas and improvemore in terms of others’ ratings. Howeverdespite some positive changes in goal settingand performance (Effect size, d=0.17) asmeasured by supervisor and direct reportratings (self reports were not analysed andpeer ratings were not significant) in a repeat360 feedback process, only 30 per cent of theoriginal participants participated in thecoaching and the selection criteria for theirinclusion was mixed (some were required toparticipate by their managers) making theresults prone to selection effects and difficultto generalise.

Kochanowski, Seifert and Yukl (2010)investigated the effective of a feedback work-shop plus coaching on the influencing skills

of managers. Thirty managers wererandomly assigned to either workshop aloneor workshop plus telephone coaching. Feed-back was based on the manager’s boss and atleast three direct reports. The results showedthat the coaching group demonstrated asignificant increase on the control group inonly one of the four influencing tacticsassessed (collaboration). However only thesubordinate data was used in the compara-tive analysis so the impact on different raterslevels (e.g. boss, peer or self) remainedunknown. In a study of 469 middlemanagers, Neiman et al. (2013) used a quasi-experimental design to compare the impactof MSF alone and MSF plus five sessions ofexecutive coaching. The results suggestedthat while both groups improved equallywhen rated by direct reports, peers andsupervisors, only managers who had receivedthe coaching improved on self-ratings ofleadership behaviour and effectiveness.

In conclusion, whilst there is growingevidence for the effectiveness of executivecoaching in organisations, the level of thatimpact remains unclear. MSF provides anopportunity to extend the evaluation ofexecutive coaching beyond the reliance onself-report and assess its broader impact inthe organisation. In addition the issue of self-other alignment has potentially significantimplications for coaching evaluation giventhat positive discrepancies may suppress thecoaching effect as the coachees adjust theirratings to align more with other raters. Multi-rater assessment based on reliable and validleadership constructs provides the opportu-nity to track the impact of executive coach-ing as its effects cascade through theorganisation.

Rationale and aimsThe limited number of studies that haveexamined the impact of leadership coachinginterventions by level and considered theimpact of SOA have demonstrated inconsis-tent results and drawn different inferencesmaking conclusions about effectiveness diffi-cult to generalise. This study aims to address


Doug MacKie

these issues in coaching research by specifi-cally investigating the impact of perceivedcoaching outcomes by the level of raterswithin an organisation and investigating theimpact on outcomes of self-other alignment(SOA).

The dependent variable used to assessoutcomes was the full range leadershipmodel (FRLM) that includes transforma-tional, transactional and laissez-faireelements of leadership. This leadershipoutcome provides 360-degree feedback onchanges in leadership behaviour throughoutthe organisation and moves the assessment ofcoaching outcomes beyond the reliance onself-report measures. By focusing on aspecific strength-based coaching methodol-ogy, using a reliable and valid measure oftransactional and transformational leader-ship as the dependent variable and assessingoutcomes by way of a 360-degree feedbackmethodology, this study aims investigate thelevel at which change in leadershipbehaviours after coaching is perceived withinthe organisation and the impact of SOA onleadership outcome ratings after coaching.

HypothesesThe following specific research questionswill be addressed in an attempt to addressthe aims of the study.1. Changes in transformational leadership

behaviour observed after participation ina coaching process will be perceiveddifferentially throughout the organisa-tion. The perception of change in lead-ership behaviours will vary by the level ofthe rater with line managers and directreports reporting most change followedby peers and self-reports.

2. Self-other agreement at Time 1 willimpact subsequent self-ratings of trans-formational leadership. Participants whoover-estimate their MSF ratings ascompared to all others will show atendency to reduce their ratings overtime. Participants who underestimatetheir ratings compared to all others willincrease their ratings over time.

MethodParticipants A total of 31 senior managers (14 male, 17female) were recruited from the same organ-isation in the not-for-profit (NFP) sector.They were all senior managers and leaders inthe Australian arm of a multi-national not-for-profit (NFP) organisation. The average agewas 45 years (range 31 to 62 years). Thisrepresented all available senior mangers fromthe top two levels in the organisation andincluded the executive director and the lead-ership team. A total of 37 individuals wereinvited to participate but six were unable toparticipate due to overseas postings andmaternity leave. Having managerial responsi-bility for a number of direct reports was aprerequisite of participating in the study. Theparticipants were then divided into twogroups – the coaching first group (Cohort 1),and the waitlist first group (Cohort 2). Theprocess of group allocation was not randomas it depended on the availability of the partic-ipants and the preferences of the organisa-tion. All participants gave their writteninformed consent to participate in the study.

RatersRaters were all drawn from the same organi-sation as the participants. They were amixture of line managers, peers, directreports and others in the organisation whodid not fit into the first three categories.Each participant had an average of 9.8, 9.7and 9.6 raters at the three time pointsrespectively. Rater consistency across timewas high with 92.5 per cent and 88.8 per centof the original raters also responding atTime 2 and Time 3. There was no significantdifference between the ratings of originaland original plus new raters at Time 2 and 3on transformational leadership, hence thefull compliment of raters was used in theanalysis. (See MacKie, 2014, for a fulldescription of the rater consistency data.)

Research designThe study utilised a non-equivalent controlgroup design with two cohorts; a Coaching



first group (Cohort 1) and a Waitlist firstgroup (Cohort 2). While cohort 1 wasengaged in the coaching, Cohort 2 acted asthe control group. Cohorts then switch rolesat the mid-point (Time 2). However, becauseCohort 1 had had the coaching interventionat this stage, it was not able to act as an inde-pendent control group for Cohort 2. Eachparticipant received six sessions (nine hours)of strength-based leadership coaching. Thedependent variable was the multi-sourcefeedback on participant’s transformationalleadership behaviour provided by the MLQ360. Each participant had an average of 9.8raters from above, peer, direct report andother levels within the organisation.

CoachesA total of 11 coaches provided their servicespro-bono for the research. They were highlyexperienced practitioners who were mainlyrecruited from the local executive educationdepartment of a prestigious business schooland had been preselected for both psycho-logical mindedness and business acumen.All coaches were self-employed practitionerswho earned a significant part of theirincome from providing executive coachingservices to corporate entities. On averagethey had 12 years of experience providingexecutive coaching in organisations and hadbeen working in organisations for an averageof 28 years. The majority (70 per cent) werequalified at Masters level or above and wereregistered practising psychologists. Eachcoach was trained in the author’s strength-based methodology by way of a half-day train-ing programmeme. This process describedthe underlying rationale for strength-basedapproaches to leadership and provided astructured strength-based coaching manualfor the coach to follow. The induction partic-ularly focused on the identification ofstrengths through interview data, MLQ 360-degree feedback and the Realise 2 inventory(Linely & Stoker, 2012). The Realise 2 fourquadrant model was also used to give thecoaches a format for setting strength-baseddevelopment goals. The induction also

provided the format for strengths develop-ment through the sessional rating ofstrengths awareness, alignment, pairing andutilisation. Each coach provided leadershipcoaching to between one to two participantsper cohort.

ProcedureStrength-based protocol. Each coacheereceived six 90-minute coaching sessions thatfollowed a format articulated in their coach-ing manual. Initially coaches began with astrength-based interview followed by feed-back for the coachee on their MLQ 360report (Bass & Avolio, 1997) and Realise 2Inventory (Linley, Willars & Biswas-Diener,2010). The strength-based interview focusedon their peak experiences and what ener-gised them about their work. The Realise 2questionnaire provided feedback on whatenergised them, where they felt competentand where they had the opportunity to applytheir strengths. This led to structured feed-back on their realised strengths (those thatwere known and utilised), unrealisedstrengths (those that were known but under-utilised), learned behaviours (those thatwere competent but not energising) andweaknesses (where both competence andenergy were low). The MLQ 360 providedqualitative and quantitative multi-rater feed-back on their scores on the full range lead-ership model (FRLM) that includedtransformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles. Coachees were thenrequired to select three goals they would liketo focus on during the coaching; a realisedstrength, an unrealised strength and alearned behaviour or weakness. These goalswere focused on issues that the coachee wasmotivated in addressing and also that hadrelevance for the business. Coachees thentracked their progress on these goals for theremaining five sessions and committed toactions designed to help their goal attain-ment. Coachees also tracked their progresson a sessional basis by reflecting on andrating their strength awareness, alignment,pairing and utilisation in their coaching


Doug MacKie

manual. This study also utilised a measure ofprotocol and manual adherence to investi-gate the link between adherence to thestrength-based approach and subsequentchanges in transformational leadershipbehaviour. (See MacKie, 2014 for furtherelaboration.)

MeasuresEach participant received the Multi-FactorLeadership Questionnaire. The MLQ 360 (Bass& Avolio, 1997) is a 49-item questionnairethat measures nine elements of the fullrange leadership model (FRLM) namelyidealised influence attributes (e.g. Display asense of power and confidence), idealisedinfluence behaviour (e.g. Talk about mymost important values and beliefs), inspira-tional motivation (e.g. Articulate acompelling vision of the future), intellectualstimulation (e.g. Seek different perspectiveswhen solving problems), individualisedconsideration (e.g. Help others to developtheir strengths), contingent reward (e.g.Provide others with assistance in exchangefor their efforts), management by exceptionactive (e.g. Keep track of all mistakes),management by exception passive (e.g. Failto interfere until things become serious) andlaissez-faire (e.g. Avoid making decisions).The inventory also has three measures ofleadership outcomes; extra effort (e.g.Heighten others’ desire to succeed), effec-tiveness (e.g. Lead a group that is effective)and satisfaction (e.g. Work with others in asatisfactory way) (Bass & Avolio, 1997). TheMLQ360 measures all items on a five-pointLikert scale from ‘not at all’ to ‘frequently ifnot always’. Cronbach’s alpha for the maintransformational leadership factor has beenreported as 0.85 (Antonakis et al., 2003) andcriterion validities vary for satisfaction(0.71), effectiveness (0.64) and performance(0.27) (Judge & Piccolo, 2004).

Data analysisRepeated measures ANOVAs (Tabachnick &Fidell, 2007) were calculated using SPSS thatallowed analysis of both within-subject

changes in the dependent variable (DV)over time and between group differences interms of rate of change on the DV. The fivetransformational leadership sub-scales asmeasured by all raters, were aggregated intoone combined transformational leadershipscore, the MLQ 5I (Bass & Avolio, 1997) toprovide an overall index of change. Theseratings were then divided into mean self-ratings for average transformational leader-ship and mean other-ratings for compositetransformational leadership scores by timeto examine the impact of SOA on outcomes.

ResultsHypothesis 1: Changes in transformationalleadership behaviour observed after partici-pation in a coaching process will beperceived differentially throughout theorganisation. The perception of change inleadership behaviours will vary by the level ofthe rater with line managers and directreports reporting most change followed bypeers and self-reports.

There were no significant differencesbetween the two groups at Time 1 on theMLQ 5I composite score at any rater level.The key component of this hypothesis wasthat changes in transformational leadershipwould be observed differentially beyond thelevel of self-report. Consequently an analysisby level of rater was conducted to see whoobserves the changes in participant leader-ship behaviour and whether the organisa-tional level of the observing rater is asignificant factor in observing changes inleadership behaviour.

A repeated measures ANOVA wasperformed to examine the impact on coach-ing on mean transformational leadershipscores over time by rater level. Table 1 clearlyillustrates that in both cohorts the greatestsignificant change and effect size was achievedby the higher-level raters. This suggests thatthose raters working above the participant inthe organisation, for example, their linemanager, were seeing the greatest change inthe participants in terms of transformationalleadership behaviour after their leadership



coaching. For both cohorts, the peer anddirect report level perceived significantchange in participant’s transformational lead-ership behaviour at the p<0.05 level. For thelower level, both groups reported significantlyhigher ratings on transformational leadershipafter participant coaching (Table 1).

It is important to note that there were nosignificant positive changes over time in theparticipants own perceptions of their trans-formational leadership behaviour althoughthere was a positive but non-significant trendin Cohort 2. In Cohort 1 the self-ratings actu-ally declined over time despite all other-raters reporting a positive increase intransformational leadership behaviour. Thismay be due to the lack of SOA at T1 forCohort 1, a hypothesis more fully exploredin the next section. An analysis of the fiveindividual components of transformationalleadership revealed that the only significantdecline in self-ratings was in inspirationalmotivation (IM) in Cohort 1 (F(1,29)=4.781,p=0.040, partial η2=0.179).

Hypothesis 2: Self-other agreement at Time1 will impact subsequent self-ratings of trans-formational leadership. Participants whoover-estimate their MSF ratings as comparedto all others will show a tendency to reducetheir ratings over time. Participants whounderestimate their ratings compared to allothers will increase their rating over time.

In order to examine the impact of self-other alignment on outcomes, a mean otherrater composite score was calculated. Theresults in Table 2 demonstrate that for C1,there was a significant difference in self-otherratings at Time 1 with participants signifi-cantly over-rating themselves compared to allother raters. This discrepancy then disap-peared at T2 when they appeared muchmore aligned and then reappeared in theother direction at Time 3 with participantscontinuing to decrease their self-ratings evenafter the coaching intervention. For Cohort2, there was no initial misalignment betweenself-other ratings and both ratings showedgood alignment over the three time points.

Figure 1 shows that C1 participants beganwith a significantly higher rating than thecombined all other rater group. Thisdiscrepancy then reduces at Time 2 possiblyas a function of increased awareness of thediscrepancy during the feedback process.This may explain why the participant scoreshave decreased after coaching while all otherraters level scores have increased. Thiselevated self-rating was only apparent inCohort 1 and was not apparent in Cohort 2.Receiving the feedback at Time 1 that allother raters view their MLQ scores at a lowerlevel, appears to have driven down the subse-quent MLQ self–ratings even during thecoaching process where all other rater levelsare reporting an increase in transforma-tional leadership behaviour. At Time 3, theSelf-other discrepancy for Cohort 1 has gonethe other way with participants significantlyunderestimating their transformational lead-ership scores when compared to all otherraters.

Figure 1 shows that in contrast toCohort1, Cohort 2 began with participantMLQ ratings much more aligned to all otherraters. Their ratings do not significantlychange between T1 and T2 as they have notyet had the MLQ feedback that is embeddedin the coaching. At Time 3 after the comple-tion of the coaching, their mean MLQ5Itransformational leadership scores remainaligned with all other raters. The resultsfrom Cohort 2 suggest that beginning thecoaching process with a strong SOA is crucialin maintaining this over time. Despite thisalignment, however, the self-ratings inCohort 2 did not show significant changeover time unlike the combined all-othertransformational leadership ratings.

DiscussionThe results demonstrated three significantfindings in the utlilisation of MSF to evaluateoutcomes in leadership coaching. Firstlythere was no significant change in the partic-ipants’ ratings of transformational leader-ship after the coaching intervention.Secondly the change in other-ratings of


Doug MacKie



Table 1: Changes in Mean Transformational MLQ rater scores for Cohort 1 and 2 across Time 1 and Time 3 by rater level.

Time 1 Time 3

MLQ rater M SD M SD F df p Partiallevel η2

Cohort 1 Coaching First

Self (N=14) 2.92 0.37 2.72 0.41 1.503 1,24 .233 .064Higher (N=16) 2.64 0.72 3.17 0.60 4.694 1,30 .039 .144Peer (N=49) 2.55 0.66 2.92 0.63 5.666 1,76 .020 .071Lower (N=56) 2.61 0.75 2.97 0.48 6.452 1,90 .013 .068Other (N=9) 2.69 0.94 2.80 0.61 0.165 1,17 .795 .005

Cohort 2 Waitlist First

Self (N=17) 2.90 0.46 3.05 0.46 0.761 1,31 .390 .026Higher (N=22) 2.81 0.55 3.35 0.54 8.685 1,37 .006 .199Peer (N=51) 2.70 0.62 3.10 0.47 12.937 1,100 .001 .117Lower (N=67) 2.80 0.78 3.11 0.54 5.691 1,117 .019 .047Other (N=12) 2.57 0.93 2.87 0.094 1,13 .765 .008

Note: Repeated Measures ANOVA Within Group Comparison of MLQ5I means between Waitlist first group and Coachingfirst group at Time 1 and Time 3 by rater level. Higher=line manager and lower=direct reports.

Table 2: Self-Other Alignment in Mean Transformational MLQ rater scores for Cohort 1 and 2 across three time points.

Self Other

MLQ rater M SD M SD F df p Partiallevel η2

Cohort 1 Coaching First

Time 1 2.93 0.38 2.60 0.30 15.30 1,14 .002 .541Time 2 2.83 0.43 2.82 0.32 0.02 1,13 .883 .002Time 3 2.72 0.41 2.98 0.25 10.66 1,10 .010 .542

Cohort 2 Waitlist First

Time 1 2.90 0.47 2.75 0.37 1.17 1,17 .294 .069Time 2 2.86 0.51 2.87 0.43 1.283 1,16 .941 .000Time 3 3.05 0.46 3.12 0.26 0.33 1,13 .135 .025

Note: Repeated Measures ANOVA Within Group Comparison of MLQ5I means between Waitlist first group and Coachingfirst group at Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 by rater level. Self=participant, other=all other raters combined.

transformational leadership scores afterleadership are differentially perceived withthose higher in the organisation being mostsensitive to change. Finally participants whoinitially overestimate their leadership scoreswhen compared to all other raters, appear tosubsequently reduce their scores in anattempt to realign with other raters. Thiseffect may be partially responsible for thelack of significant difference in the self-ratings of participants over time.

The lack of changes in self-ratings ofleadership behaviour after leadership coach-ing is unusual and at odds with many of theprevious findings in this area (Grant et al.,2010; Theeboom et al., 2014). There was anon-significant decline in scores over timefor Cohort 1 and a small non-significant

increase in time for Cohort 2. Their self-ratings on transformational leadershipremained very consistent between time oneand two while they were acting as the controlgroup for Cohort 1. After the coaching hadbeen received at Time 3, their self-ratingsdid increase in line with all other levelsrating their behaviour. Given that the major-ity of outcome studies employ only self-report measures, it is interesting to speculatehow many studies may have shown a signifi-cant other-rating change had that data beenavailable. This finding also confirms that self-ratings alone may be an unreliable indicatorof change (Kruger & Dunning, 1993) andprone to under-estimation (Fleenor et al.,2010). There is related evidence to suggestthat 360 feedback can have the effect of


Doug MacKie

Figure 1: Self-Other Alignment in Mean MLQ5I Transformational Leadership scores over time for Cohorts 1 and 2.

lowering subsequent levels of self-rating asthe participant’s awareness is raised abouthow others view them but only if participantsinitially overrate their leadership abilities(Atwater et al., 2000). Other researchershave confirmed that when individuals over-rate their leadership behaviour, subsequentratings can decrease as a function of greaterinsight and feedback (Luthans & Petersen,2003). This suggests that the other-rateralignment effect is more powerful that theself-perceived changes after coaching.

However, there were significant differ-ences in how raters at different levels viewedthe changes in coachee leadershipbehaviour over time. There were also somebetween cohort differences of note that areworth exploring. Cohort 1 (Coaching first)began with a higher self-rating comparedwith their manager, peers, direct reports andother raters. As outlined above, the self-ratings of transformational leadershipbehaviour came down after the coachingwhilst all other levels of raters increased theirratings. The other finding of note in Cohort1 was that the change in rater’s responsesover time was differentially perceived withchange most apparent within raters at thehigher organisational level. Both peers anddirect reports saw significant positivechanges over time in the levels of participanttransformational leadership but the effectsize was lower than in the higher level. Thisis an unusual finding as previous researchhas suggested that direct reports are themost sensitive to change both for their prox-imity to the participant and because theirdata is based on multiple rather than singleobservations (Atkins & Wood, 2002). Analternative explanation is that different raterlevels are rating different qualities in theparticipant with higher raters ratingperformance criteria whilst direct reportsare rating relational factors (Nowack, 2009).

The second cohort (waitlist first) did nothave such an obvious discrepancy betweenself and other raters on the MLQ at Time 1.Their self-ratings on transformational lead-ership remained very consistent between

time one and two while they were acting asthe control group for Cohort 1. Again inCohort 2, the line manager raters showedthe greatest effect size in their ratings ofchanges in transformational leadership inthe participants over time. Given that bothCohorts demonstrated that the line mangerraters saw the greatest amount of changeover time, this seems to be a reliable finding.As almost all the managers were also partici-pants in the coaching research, they couldbe especially attuned to the type of changesin transformational leadership behaviourthat the participants were being rated on.Peers and direct reports also reported signif-icant levels of change in transformationalleadership but again the effect size was not asgreat as that of the higher group. Given thatself-ratings are prone to a variety of self-serv-ing biases that can both promote an inflatedsense of self-performance and restrict accessto corrective feedback (Dunning et al.,2003), this further emphasises the impor-tance of the trends in the other rater data.

The third critical finding is that self-othermisalignment in ratings at Time 1 (in thiscase overestimation in Cohort 1) appears totrigger an attempt by the participant torealign their scores with all others. Thiseffect seems more powerful than the coach-ing effect and has the impact of drivingdown self-ratings over time. This is consistentwith a general trend in multi-source feed-back that participant self-ratings becomemore accurate (that is more aligned with theratings of others) over time as their aware-ness of the ratings of others increases, (Atwa-ter et al., 2000; Atwater, Brett & Charles,2007). However, in this case for Cohort 1they are most aligned with other raters atTime 2 and then diverge in the oppositedirection at Time 3 as they continue tounderestimate their scores when comparedto all others, possibly due to overcompensat-ing for their initial over-estimation at Time 1.

Practical implicationsThere are a number of practical implicationsthat can be derived from this study. Firstly it



again questions the veracity of self-reportand strongly suggests future coachingoutcome studies should employ a multi-raterformat to assess change. Secondly it suggeststhat change is perceived differentially bylevel within the organisation with thosehigher in the organisation being especiallysensitive to change, particularly if thoseraters are also participants in the coachingprogramme This again confirms the impor-tance of line manager support and aware-ness of the coaching process and the goalstherein. Finally this study suggests that theimpact of overestimating self-scores whencompared to all others may have the conse-quence of driving down scores over time andthis effect may mask the impact of the coach-ing process that is perceived by other raters.

Limitation of the studyThe study employed a non-equivalentbetween-subjects controlled design thatutilised a control group to assess the impactof a leadership coaching intervention ontransformational leadership behaviours. Itwas not possible to randomly assign subjectsto each cohort as the availability of partici-pants as the logistical needs of the organisa-tion took precedence. Despite thisnon-randomisation, however, there was nosignificant difference between the twocohorts at Time 1 suggesting the allocationof participants did not unduly influence thestudy. However, the between-subjects designonly allowed the first Cohort to be fullycontrolled as at Time 2 when the two cohortscrossed over, cohort one had already had theintervention and could no longer functionas an independent control group.

Secondly, the participant sample size wasrelatively small and the loss of 15 per cent ofthe participants who dropped out during thecourse of the study, could reduce the general-isability of the study. A larger participantsample size would help to address this issueand permit further investigation of the influ-ence of coachee variables in coachingoutcomes. However, it is worth noting that thetotal number of other raters for Cohort 1 and

Cohort 2 were 131 and 152 respectively.Thirdly, the absence of a definitive analyticaltechnique in the literature to assess theimpact of SOA, (Fleenor et al., 2010) mayhave limited further analysis of the impact ofthis discrepancy on Cohort 1. Finally the factthat the coaching was provided pro bono,could have impacted negatively on thecommitment of the coaches to the coachingprocess. These effect sizes may, therefor,e bean underestimate of the potential changespossible. However, this issue may be counter-acted by possible positive effects of thecoaches’ participation in the author’sstrength-based coaching methodology induc-tion programme. The fact that this study wasconducted in a NFP organisation may limit itsgeneralisability but the organisation did havea standard corporate structure and HRprocesses and despite being an NFP, there wasa very strong focus on financial accountabilityand evaluating return on investment.

ConclusionMSF is increasingly utilised in the evaluationof leadership and executive coaching. Thisstudy confirms its validity as a criticaloutcome measure by illustrating that self-report may not always be sensitive to change,change is perceived differentially within thehost organisation with different stakeholdergroups reporting different perceptions ofchange over time and that misaligned SOAcan subsequently inhibit leadership self-ratings especially in the case of those whoinitially over-estimate their leadership capac-ity. It confirms the need for coachingoutcome research to focus beyond self-reportto include the level at which others perceivechange (Barling, 2014). Future coachingresearch needs to routinely incorporate MSFas an outcome criterion and analyse resultsby level within the organisation to confirmthe novel finding that higher raters are moresensitive to change. The issue of SOA couldbe further explored with the incorporationof a performance criteria independent of themulti-rater data to test the effects of poorSOA on participant performance.


Doug MacKie

The AuthorDr Doug MacKieCSA Consulting,320 Adelaide Street,Brisbane, Australia.

CorrespondenceDr Doug MacKieEmail [email protected]



ReferencesAntonakis, J., Avolio, B.J. & Sivasubramaniam, N.

(2003). Context and leadership: An examinationof the nine-factor full-range leadership theoryusing the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261–295.

Atkins, P.W. & Wood, R.E. (2002). Self-versus others’ratings as predictors of assessment center ratings:Validation evidence for 360-degree feedbackprogrammes. Personnel Psychology, 55, 871–904.

Atwater, L.E., Brett, J.F. & Charles, A.C. (2007). Multi-source feedback: Lessons learned and implica-tions for practice. Human Resource Management,46(2), 285–307.

Atwater, L.E. & Brett, J.F. (2005). Antecedents andconsequences of reactions to developmental 360-feedback. Journal of Vocational Behaviour,66(3), 532–548.

Atwater, L.E., Waldman, D.A., Atwater, D. & Cartier,P. (2000). An upward feedback field experiment:Supervisors’ cynicism, reactions, and commit-ment to subordinates. Personnel Psychology, 53,275–297.

Avolio, B.J. (2011) Full range leadership development (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Barling, J. (2014). The science of leadership: Lessons fromresearch for organisational leaders. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1997). Full range leadershipdevelopment: Manual for the Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden Inc.

Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J. & Kruger, J.(2003). Why people fail to recognise their ownincompetence. Current Directions in PsychologicalScience, 12, 83–87.

Fleenor, J.W., Smither, J.W., Atwater, L.E., Braddy,P.W. & Sturm, R.E. (2010). Self-other ratingagreement in leadership: A review. The LeadershipQuarterly, 21(6), 1005–1034.

Grant, A.M., Passmore, J., Cavanagh, M.J. & Parker,H.M. (2010). The state of play in coaching today:A comprehensive review of the field. InternationalReview of Industrial and Organisational Psychology,25, 125–167.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. & Hayes, T.L. (2002).Business-unit-level relationship betweenemployee satisfaction, employee engagement,and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journalof Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268.

Judge, T.A. & Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformationaland transactional leadership: A meta-analytic testof their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 89, 755–767.

Kochanowski, S., Seifert, C.F. & Yukl, G. (2010).Using coaching to enhance the effects ofbehavioural feedback to managers. Journal ofLeadership & Organisational Studies, 17(4),363–369.

Kruger, J. & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled andunaware of it: How difficulties in recognisingone’s own incompetence lead to inflated self–assessments. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 77, 1121–1134.

Linley, A., Willars, J. & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010).The strengths book. Coventry: CAPP Press.

Linley, A. & Stoker, H. (2012). Technical manual andstatistical properties for Realise2. Coventry: Centreof Applied Positive Psychology.

Luthans, F. & Peterson, S.J. (2003). 360-degree feed-back with systematic coaching: Empirical analysissuggests a winning combination. Human ResourceManagement, 42, 243–256.

MacKie, D.J. (2014). The effectiveness of strength-based executive coaching in enhancing fullrange leadership development. A controlledstudy. Consulting Psychology Journal. Practice andResearch, 66, 118–137.

Murphy, K.R. (2008). Explaining the weak relation-ship between job performance and ratings of jobperformance. Industrial and OrganisationalPsychology, 1(2), 148–160.

Nieminen, L.R., Smerek, R., Kotrba, L. & Denison, D.(2013). What does an executive coaching inter-vention add beyond facilitated multi-source feed-back? Effects on leader self-ratings and perceivedeffectiveness. Human Resource Development Quar-terly, 24(2), 145–176.

Nowack, K.M. & Mashihi, S. (2012). Evidence-basedanswers to 15 questions about leveraging 360-degree feedback. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 64(3), 157.

Nowack, K.M. (2009). Leveraging multi-rater feed-back to facilitate successful behavioural change.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,61(4), 280.

Page, N. & de Haan, E. (2014). Does executive coach-ing work? The Psychologist, 27(8), 582–586.

Smither, J.W., London, M., Flautt, R., Vargas, Y. &Kucine, I. (2003). Can working with an executivecoach improve multi-source feedback ratingsover time? A quasi-experimental field study.Personnel Psychology, 56, 23.

Smither, J.W., London, M. & Reilly, R.R. (2005). Doesperformance improve following multi-sourcefeedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis,and review of empirical findings. PersonnelPsychology, 58(1), 33–66.

Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multi-variate statistics (6th ed.). London: Pearson.

Theeboom, T., Beersma, B. & van Vianen, A.E.(2014). Does coaching work? A meta-analysis onthe effects of coaching on individual leveloutcomes in an organisational context. The Jour-nal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1–18.

Woo, S.E., Woo, S.E., Sims, C.S., Rupp, D.E. &Gibbons, A.M. (2008). Development engage-ment within and following developmental assess-ment centers: Considering feedback favorabilityand self-assessor agreement. Personnel Psychology,61(4), 727–759.


Doug MacKie

Special Group in Coaching Psychology (SGCP)

UK Co-ordinating Editor for theInternational Coaching PsychologyReview (ICPR)Editor for The CoachingPsychologist (TCP)The SGCP is seeking to appoint at least two Chartered Members of theBritish Psychological Society who are Coaching Psychologists with a PhDor Professional Doctorate and have experience in both research andpractice to take on the role of UK Co-ordinating Editor for the ICPR andEditor of TCP from 1 December 2015. Both publications focus on thetheory, practice and research in the field of coaching psychology. The roleof the Editor involves managing and developing the publications in linewith the SGCP strategic plan. The roles will start on 1 November 2015with a shadowing period, before fully taking over the role on 1 December 2015.

For further information and a Statement of Interest form, please contact Annjanette Wells, Member Network Manager, [email protected] or call 0116 252 9515 between 10.00 am and 3.00 pm.

Completed forms and documentation should be received by Friday 2 October 2015.

EACH ERA has its own leadership theorythat develops in response to the needsof the time and the interests of both

practitioners and researchers, and the lead-ership theory of our epoch is AuthenticLeadership (Avolio & Walumbwa, 2014). Toget some sense of why this may be, we needonly to briefly review some 21st centurybusiness governance so far.

The high profile corporate scandalsstarted in 2001 with Enron’s joint CEO’staking the corporation to bankruptcy with ashareholder loss of $74bn. Their accountingfirm Arthur Anderson was also found guiltyof misrepresentation which led to the loss of85,000 of their own jobs. A year later the tele-coms giant WorldCom inflated companyassets leading to 30,000 job losses and an$180bn loss. The following year saw the Tyco

scandal and more recently, in 2008, thefinancial services firm Lehman Brotherswent bankrupt after hiding $50bn of toxicloans. Once again aided by their auditorsErnst Young, this resulted in the biggestbankruptcy in US history (www.accounting-degree.org). These high profile examples ofcorporate management may well havecontributed to the keen interest now beingtaken in Authentic Leadership, by both prac-titioners (George & Simms, 2007) andresearchers (Avolio, Luthans & Walumbwa,2004).

This interest has led to scientific develop-ment of the construct of Authenticity(Kernis & Goldman, 2006, and Avolio et al.,2004) but as yet there has been no researchinto understanding how leaders developauthenticity or authentic leadership. That


Authentic Leaders are… Conscious,Competent, Confident, and Congruent: A Grounded Theory of Group Coachingand Authentic Leadership DevelopmentTony Fusco, Siobhain O’Riordan & Stephen Palmer

Introduction: This paper explores and merges two important fields of coaching; Group Coaching andAuthentic Leadership Development (ALD). It develops a theory of group coaching and builds this into aconceptual and evidence-based method of ALD. Design: Four authentic leadership coaching groups were conducted over an 18-month period. Each groupconsisted of five or six senior leaders and were run once a month over a three-month period. After a three-month gap, recorded semi-structured interviews were conducted with all participants to capture the learningand behaviour change that these leaders had experienced as a result of the group-coaching programme. Results: A Grounded Theory approach was applied to the analysis of monthly diary and final interview datawhich resulted in a two-part theory. Firstly, how the process of a group-coaching approach to ALD works, andsecondly, what the output of this approach is in terms of individual leadership. A model was developedcomprising four core concepts of authentic leadership along with seven sub-categories of key leadership skills.Conclusion: This research brings together the two key areas of group coaching and leadership developmentand contributes to the field of leadership coaching by offering both a model and a method of ALD. It offers an underpinning theory of each and introduces a model of authentic leadership based on the coreconcepts of conscious, competent, confident and congruent leadership.Keywords: leadership coaching; group coaching; coaching psychology; leadership development; authenticleadership; executive coaching; grounded theory.

Why the need for Authentic Leadership in the 21st century?

was the aim of the research reported here.Firstly, we set out to develop a theory of howauthentic leadership is developed, andsecondly, to understand in what way thattranslated into leadership skill. Firstly, let usconsider the roots of the concept of authen-ticity and how this relates to authentic lead-ership.

AuthenticityThe word itself authentes or authento trans-lates into variations around the theme ofbeing self-made reflected in the definitiongiven to it by various Western philosophers.Kierkegaard (1846), for example, talkedabout being the true-self one was meant to beand not following the lead of the crowd.Heidegger (1927) of not living immersed inthe ‘They’ and Sartre (1966) described it asthe absence of self-deception. More recently,Brumbaugh (1971) describes authenticity asthe ability to make individual choices and totake responsibility for them and Harter(2002) as owning one’s own experience ofthoughts, emotions and beliefs. Here onecan see the seeds of the definition by Kernis(2003) that paved the way for the recentscholarly work on authenticity, and whodescribes it as ‘the unobstructed operation ofone’s true or core self’ (p.1). It was Kernis andGoldman (2006) who developed a multi-component construct of Authenticity whichin turn laid the foundation for the models ofAuthentic Leadership we discuss later. Theyargue that authenticity is made up of fourrelated but separate components: awareness;unbiased processing; behaviour; and relationalorientation. Awareness – relating to the self-knowledge of one’s own emotions, cogni-tions, beliefs and motives. Unbiased processing– meaning accuracy and objectivity withregards positive and negative self-relevantinformation. Behaviour – based on the previ-ous two and, therefore, genuinely self-congruent, and a Relational orientation –characterised by openness, honesty andsincerity in one’s relations with others. Thisframework laid the conceptual foundationfor the scientifically developed and validated

models of Authentic Leadership that were tocome, and today many of the current defini-tions of Authentic Leadership have theirroots in this work.

Authentic Leadership? Avolio, Luthans and Walumbwa (2004)describe Authentic Leaders as ‘individualswho know who they are and what they think andare perceived by others as being aware of their ownvalues, moral perspective, knowledge andstrengths’ (p.4). Walumbwa et al. (2008)define authentic leadership as ‘a pattern ofleader behaviour… of greater self-awareness, aninternalised moral perspective, balanced processingof information, and relational transparency’(p.94). This second definition builds on theKernis model of Authenticity describedabove and was developed by Walumbwa andassociates (2008) as a four-componentmodel of Authentic Leadership as a higher-order, multidimensional construct. This wasthen validated and operationalised throughtheir Authentic Leadership Questionnaire.

The need for a research-based approachto the development of AuthenticLeadershipThere is a growing body of research clearlydemonstrating the organisational benefits ofAuthentic Leadership (Table 1). Ratings ofAuthentic Leadership have been shown topositively relate to a broad range of vitalbusiness factors, for example organisationalclimate and commitment, communicationand knowledge sharing, job-satisfaction andwork engagement, even individual, team andoverall company performance and produc-tivity. This growing research evidence under-scores the importance of understanding howwe develop Authentic Leadership and indi-cate the importance of providing anevidence-based method of Authentic Lead-ership Development (ALD). This researchrepresents one such attempt. But beforediscussing a scientific approach to ALDspecifically, let us consider the science of theleadership development market more gener-ally.


Tony Fusco, Siobhain O’Riordan & Stephen Palmer

It is estimated the US spend over $10bn a year on leadership development(O’Leonard, 2010). However, there existsvery little research into the field of leader-ship development (Avoilio & Luthans, 2006;Day, 2009) and even less into ALD specifi-cally (Avolio, 2014). Day, Harrison andHapin (2000) note that most leadershipdevelopment research does not actuallyinvestigate whether the leader changes interms of their thinking about leadership ortheir style of leadership. Yukl (2006) alsocriticises the field for a lack of interventionsactually based on a theory-led process ofleadership development. It is curious thatsuch a large market has grown historically onsuch little theoretical or empirical evidence.

Avolio (2009) believes this area to be oneof the most important frontiers in both thescience and practice of leadership. He says‘the way we are currently developing leaders inmost organisations is typically accidental, by luckand happenstance’ (p.722). He calls for scien-tists involved in the field of leadership devel-opment to work with leaders to help thembecome more practitioner-scientists. That is,to understand what constitutes research-driven and evidenced-based practice, allow-ing them to make more discerning choices

when investing in their own leadershipdevelopment. He also considers however,that leadership development being one ofthe least researched areas within the scienceof leadership, actually offers the field anopportunity ‘…this omission is a huge opportu-nity for creating and validating what we havecalled authentic leadership development modelsand methods’ (p.722). Concluding that lead-ership development interventions based onwell-validated models and methods willprovide a more authentic basis for develop-ing authentic leaders.

We believe the research presented in thispaper offers such an authentic basis for lead-ership development in that it represents thefirst attempt to develop an evidence-basedand empirically supported model andmethod of ALD.

MethodThe research method used in this study wasGrounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967)which was chosen because the aim of theresearch was to develop a conceptual modelof ALD. Glaser and Strauss developedGrounded Theory as an approach to gener-ate new theory as opposed to the more typi-cal scientific approach designed to test


Authentic Leaders are… Conscious, Competent, Confident and Congruent

Table 1: Authentic Leadership outcome research.

Authors Focus of Research

Clapp-Smith, Vogelgesang & Avey (2009) Trust in leadership

Wong & Cummings (2009) Trust in leadership

Walumbwa, Hartnell & Christensen (2011) Communication climate and knowledge sharing

Jensen & Luthans (2006) Follower job-satisfaction and organisational commitment

Giallonardo, Wong & Iwasiw (2010) Follower citizenship and work engagement

Wong, Laschnger & Cummings (2010) Follower citizenship and work engagement

Wong & Cummings (2009) Follower job performance

Walumbwa, Luthans, Avey & Oke (2011b) Group creativity

Hannah, Walumbwa & Fry (2011) Team productivity

Toor & Ofori (2009) Psychological well-being

Hmieleski, Cole & Baron (2011) Overall company performance

existing theory. Although a qualitativemethod of research, the original method ofGrounded Theory developed by Glaser andStrauss rests firmly on a positivist epistemol-ogy. The assumption is that sociological andpsychological relationships exist objectivelyin the world and are waiting to be discoveredthrough the systematic investigation of data.An investigation that involves the systematiccoding and categorising of the data andidentifying causal relationships betweenthem, allowing new theories to emergedirectly from that data rather than trying toforce extant theory onto it. There iscurrently very little evidence base in the liter-ature about either group coaching or actualmethods of ALD so the aim of this researchwas to bring the two together in a systematicmanner and to try and understand both theprocess and the outcome of this form ofALD. It was for this reason that theGrounded Theory method was deemedappropriate for this research. It should benoted however, that where data was clearlyand consistently pointing towards an existingconcept or idea we included this to help withtheoretical coding, for example, the ideas ofGroup Cohesion (Yalom, 1995) and Psycho-logical Safety (Schein, 1993). This is a tech-nique endorsed by Glaser (2005) at theadvanced coding stage as it can add explana-tory power and assist in theoretical integra-tion (Birks & Mills, 2011).

ProcedureThe coaching approach used in this researchwas a group coaching format where selectedsenior leaders came together to form anAuthentic Leadership Coaching Group facil-itated by the author. The format of thecoaching was as follows.

Day 1: The PastAfter introductions and group contractingeach participant is asked to draw an in-depthlifeline detailing the significant events thatthey believe formed and informed their livesto date. They are asked to share how theybelieved these events had shaped their

values and beliefs and how these in turntranslate into their leadership principles andphilosophy. After presenting their ‘story’they are then asked questions by each groupmember in turn who have been given rudi-mentary tuition in the principle of coaching,that is, open questions, challenges, observa-tions and feedback being permissible but notadvice-giving. The role of the group is tohelp deepen the individuals thinking abouttheir leadership career to date and thelessons they have derived from it.

Day 2: The PresentBetween the first and second day each indi-vidual receives a personality profile that givesthem an insight into their Temperament andhow this informs their leadership approach;Tactical, Logistical, Strategic or Diplomatic(Keirsey, 1998). They present a synopsis oftheir reports to the group sharing examplesfrom their leadership practice. Once againthe coaching by the group is designed tohelp the individual reflect on their leader-ship through this conceptual lens and raisetheir awareness of their strengths, weak-nesses, blind-spots, etc.

Day 3: The FutureBefore day three each person is asked toundertake a behavioural task or experimentthat will help their growth as a leader basedon the discoveries of day one and two. Onceagain they are coached through this experi-ence by the group. Finally they are asked tosynthesis everything they have learnt and areasked to consider how they want the futureof their leadership to look, what they want toachieve and what legacy they want to build.

The groups convened one day a monthover a three-month period and the datapresented in this report is based on theoutput of four groups run over an 18 monthperiod, with a total of 21 participants. Thedata comes from two sources. Firstly, amonthly Reflective Log that was sent to eachparticipant within one week of day one, twoand three respectively. These were unstruc-tured and participants were asked to record



their personal experience of each day.Secondly, recorded interviews took placethree months after the last session. Thesewere semi-structured interviews based onthree levels of evaluation often used incorporate Management and Leadershipdevelopment interventions: 1 – Learning; 2 – Behaviour Change; and 3 – PerformanceImprovement (Kirkpatrick, 1975).

ParticipantsPurpose sampling was used to select poten-tial participants, all of whom were inter-viewed by the author prior to being invitedto join a group. Inclusion criteria for partici-pation in a group included:l A motivation to explore themselves and

their personal approach to leadership.l The ability to access and articulate their

own inner thoughts and emotions.l The ability to offer others sensitive and

constructive feedback.l The ability to accept feedback from

others constructively.The sample population were all senior lead-ers from within private and public organisa-tions and they had all worked with theauthor previously as either a coaching clientor a leadership training delegate. On thisbasis they were assessed and deemed appro-priate candidates for the intense nature ofthe work that small group coaching entails.A wide variety of sectors and industries wererepresented including; Energy, Manufactur-ing, Finance, Professional Services, Healthand Social Care. Typical leadership rolesheld by participants included; Chief Execu-tive, Managing Director, Head of Engineer-ing, Head of Safety, Head of Quality, Head ofCommercial Services, IT Director, HR Direc-tor, Area Manager and Business Manager.N=21: Male=12, Female=9. Age: 37 to 56.

All of these were robust and healthy indi-viduals who were given a full briefing as towhat to expect in a group coaching format,which had the requisite British PsychologicalSociety ethical approval, and the fundamen-tal differences they were to expect from themore usual forms of leadership development

they may have experienced during theircareers.

ResultsFigure 1 illustrates the conceptual modelthat emerged from this research. The modelis split into two sections, the process and theoutcome, and data analysis from each will belooked at in turn as it came from differentsources, the Reflective Logs and therecorded interviews.

The processThe Reflective Logs were analysed as soon asthey were received a week after each session.Log instructions were kept unstructured soas not to lead the participants reporting inany particular direction, that is, they wereasked simply to report on any personalinsights or observations they made duringthe session. As each line was then coded itbecame apparent these real-time logs wereproducing an on-going narrative of how thegroup work was evolving for the participants.What the key factors were for them and howthey were reacting to them. For example, itbecame apparent very early on that thesocial structure of the group was a positivething as illustrated by emerging codes suchas, positive anticipation and the witnessing of selfand others. These were in turn abstracted intoa category of – Group Cohesion. This cohe-sion in turn led to a feeling of personal secu-rity that enabled participants to activelyengage in the process, as demonstrated bythe emergent codes of emotional support andnormalising, which contributed to a secondprocess category of – Psychological Safety.These conditions then allowed participantsto undertake the self-exploration and learn-ing that was key to the group coaching andillustrated by such codes as: exploring motiva-tions; emotional exploration; unexpected self-learn-ing; expanding awareness; taking stock; andtaking control. These codes then became thecategories of; Self-Reflection and Self-Explo-ration; Self-Learning and Re-Learning; Self-Reappraisal and Realignment.





Figure 1: Model of Authentic Leadership Development.

The process of changeThe active processes involved in changewithin the group coaching process appearedto be split into two categories of: GroupConditions; and Group Process. Group Condi-tions in turn consist of two sub-categories;Group Cohesion and Psychological Safety, asillustrated in Figure 2.

Group CohesionProperties: Positive Anticipation/Positive Experience/Being Witnessed/Witnessing Others

Group Cohesion seemed to be thebedrock upon which all further individualand group work was to take place. This hasalready been recognised as an importantcomponent of successful group-psychother-apy (Burlingame, Fuhriman & Johnson2001; Drescher, Burlingame & Fuhriman,2012; Yalom, 1995). It seems likely that thiscondition was successfully and consistentlyfostered by the use of purposive sampling. Inalmost complete contrast to RandomisedSampling, this method selects participantson quite explicit inclusion criteria explainedin the Procedure section above. What mightbe considered as an inherent bias in thismethod of subject selection actuallycontributes to its efficiency (Tongco, 2007),

with the result that each group gelled veryquickly which was imperative in this timelimited intervention. Most important of all,this sense of cohesion facilitated the next keystep in the overall process, and our next cate-gory of Psychological Safety.

In-vivo examples:P3 – ‘The easy going format generated good teamspirit from the outset. The highly participativesessions worked well and enabled people to ‘bed in’to the event.’P2 – ‘Yet again, the group session was incrediblysupportive, enlightening and very encouraging.This, in itself, is one of the tremendous features ofthe programme.’P11 – ‘Great to meet, gain understanding of,build a level of trust and achieve a degree of cama-raderie within the group.’

Psychological SafetyProperties: Emotional Support/Feeling Safe/NormalisingIf cohesion is the group’s bedrock thenpsychological safety is the individuals. Again,this phenomena is already accepted as animportant factor within group therapy(Rogers, 1951), but we are now also comingto understand its potential importance in



Figure 2: Group Conditions.

group coaching as well (Fusco, O’Riordan &Palmer, 2014). From the examples below weget a sense of what this actually means toparticipants.

In-vivo examples:P9 – ‘Felt ‘safe’ in divulging my life story. I soonrealised we were all in the same boat and quicklyfelt comfortable and easily able to be open.’P17 – ‘I felt that the participants worked welltogether and we soon felt happy sharing ourthoughts and views.’P4 – ‘I think the group itself gelled very well and,therefore, it gives, for me, a comfortable environ-ment to be honest and explore.’

The Group ProcessStrictly speaking this is the sum of the partic-ipant’s individual process, so we abstract itout and talk of it as an overarching group-process. These three properties of the groupprocess are all interlinked and appear torepresent a hierarchical process as describedbelow and outlined in Figure 3.

Self-Reflection and Self-ExplorationProperties: Questioning oneself/Exploring Motivation/Emotional ExplorationThe first stage of the group process is that itfacilitates an individual’s introspection. Ifgroup-cohesion and psychological safetyhave been successfully established it appearsthe individuals are then prepared, willingand able, to undertake deep reflective think-ing. This is best illustrated by some in-vivodata.

In-vivo examples:P8 – ‘On reflection I find myself asking the ques-tion ‘Who am I?’This is drawing upon my newfound self-awareness and looking inwards andsearching for values, meaning and self-identity.’ P22 – ‘I look forward very much to the next sessionas a way of thinking a bit deeper about some of mypast professional and personal experiences.’P19 – ‘Had a strong but very positive sense ofbeing in uncharted territory.’



Figure 3: Group Process and Group Conditions.

Self-Learning and Re-LearningProperties: Self-Understanding/Unexpected Self-learning/Expanding AwarenessFollowing reflection and exploration comevarying degrees of furthered self-insight andlearning. This can take many forms includ-ing intra-personal learning, both cognitiveand emotional, and inter-personal learning,both behavioural and relational. Some ofthese insights appear genuinely new to anindividual and some appear as if they arebeing re-learnt having been once forgottenor otherwise put from everyday consciousthought. Again, we get an insight into thislearning from in-vivo data.

In-vivo examples:P5 – ‘A strange but clear realisation that either,I’ve changed or been trying to fit into a style thatperhaps wasn’t really me. Very enlightening torealise how comfortable your own authentic stylecan be. Feels a bit like re-learning a language youonce knew.’P14 – ‘After the first day I had a long think aboutme as a person not just as a manager. However itdid make me realise that how I am as a manageris very much also mirrored in how I am as aperson.’

Self-Reappraisal and RealignmentProperties: Self-Management/Taking Stock/Taking ControlThe final group process and one that seemspredicated upon the previous two is a signif-icant internal shift that seems to represent a‘self-recalibration’. This takes place firstinternally as an adjustment to how individu-als see the world and themselves within it,which is then invariably followed by externaland overt changes. These cover a broadspectrum of behavioural and relationalchanges but they represent a natural changebased upon the reflection and learning thathas taken place prior to this stage. So whatindividuals appear to achieve is significantand enduring psychological, emotional andbehavioural development that remains longafter the group-intervention has concluded.

In-vivo examples:P20 – ‘Being part of this Group is proving to bevery inspiring and motivating. It’s influencing theway I approach, not just leadership but manyaspects of my life.’P10 – ‘The process of investigating my ownvalues, personality traits and temperament, andthen directly linking these to a personal referencefor authentic behaviour, has had a deeply motivat-ing influence on me.’P6 – ‘It encourages you to focus on your ownauthenticity and gives you courage and confidenceto think and do things in your own way. It’shaving a profound and constant effect on myeveryday thoughts and approach to life.’

Authentic Self-DevelopmentThis research seems to demonstrate thatAuthentic Self-Development is either anecessary precursor or an integral elementof Authentic Leadership Development. Thiswould seem to make sense as to be true tooneself in the pursuit of leadership, would ofcourse mean having a genuine understand-ing of that true self. The road to such under-standing can take many forms but the groupcoaching described here seems to be oneparticularly potent approach. This is possiblybecause identity is often considered to besomething that we find reflected back to usfrom others, or that we find in comparisonand contrast to others. This is something weexplore further in the Discussion.

The outcome of changeThe second part to the model focusses onseven key outcomes that emerged and thefour Core Concepts of our proposed model ofAuthentic Leadership that encapsulates them.

Recorded semi-structured interviewswere undertaken with each participant threemonths after the last group session to assessthe outcome of the group coaching. Theinterviews were based around three levels ofevaluation typically used in corporate learn-ing and development that evaluate; Learn-ing, Behaviour Change and PerformanceImprovement. The rationale for using this as



a form of evaluation is that it focusses theinterviewee on linking their learning fromthe group coaching to actual behaviourchange and linking this in turn to improvedperformance or business benefit. Withineach of these three categories intervieweesreported on anything they considered rele-vant. Transcription and coding of the inter-views generated seven categories that arepresented and defined below. We havechosen to give each category a definitionbased on its main properties to make themmore descriptive and theoretically dense.

Category 1 – Self-Understanding and Self-Management – self-awareness that fosters greaterself-control and mastery. This category indicatesincreased cognitive, emotional and motiva-tional awareness. It also includes an increasein the effective self-regulation in each ofthese domains that such understanding canengender, for example, gaining greaterinsight into established behaviour patternsor potential alternatives. P12 – ‘I think there have been some significantchanges really which I don’t think will changebecause it hit deeper. It feels very personal and itshowed me something personal about me and howI lead.’P3 – ‘I think I feel more confident about my ownability and more calm. I can’t really think of abetter word to describe it, but less worried and morein control I guess.’

Category 2 – Management Mindfulness –considered and deliberate execution of manage-ment duties. This category indicates a morethoughtful approach to the functional taskof management. One example might bethinking more carefully about a task of dele-gation. Not just what to delegate, but to whoand why and how?P18 – ‘I’ve created an atmosphere and a situationwhere I’m able to do a much better quality of think-ing and delivering that part of my job. So thefundamental quality of thought process andoutput is just better.’P8 – ‘I’m not sure how much my behaviour haschanged yet but certainly how I go about things inmy head has changed, so I would hope in thecoming months and years people will be able to seethis in improved performance.’

Category 3 – Understanding of Others –appreciation and understanding of the styles andbehaviours of others. This category indicates agreater understanding of a leader’s interper-sonal domain. This may include colleaguesand clients but is particularly pertinent tothe people they lead. P13 – ‘It dawned on me that there is a place for allof those different styles and that one is not neces-sarily better than the other. I guess in the past Imade the assumption that everyone functions in apretty similar way.’ P22 – ‘I now recognise that a breadth of humanitycan be successful in managing information or



Figure 4: Authentic Self-Development.

delivering outcomes. I knew this hypothetically butto be confronted with it with other people wasanother thing altogether.’

Category 4 – Flexible and Effective Interac-tions with Others – ability to adapt to the stylesand behaviours of others. This category is theoperationalising of the previous category. Itis when an individual takes new understand-ing of their interpersonal domain and usesthis to inform new and more effective ways ofcommunicating and relating to others. P15 – ‘I’m trying to change the way I interact withpeople, a bit less phone and a bit more going out.I’m trying to invite people to talk to me on anemotional level if that’s what’s important to them.’P8 – ‘I now understand that relationships are theglue that holds people together and are instrumen-tal in creating a shared purpose.’

Category 5 – Leadership Capacity & Proac-tivity – active and resilient approach to leadershipresponsibilities. This category indicates anincrease in an individual’s ability to managetheir workload and also an increase inresilience as they do so. Without actually

teaching new management skills as such, itappears the process of deep self-reflectionremoves intrinsic blockers that in turnenables an individual to engage more fullyand effectively in their work.P9 – ‘Looking back I thought I was doing aphenomenal job before but I think this has nowtaken things to a completely different level and hasbeen hugely beneficial for me and those around me.’P1 – ‘My boss has talked about me being hersuccessor and actually, now from a behaviouralchange point of view, I kind of see that as adistinct possibility. I still think there’s a number ofhurdles that would have to be overcome but I don’tsee them now as absolute blockers. Actually, now Isee them just as hurdles that can be got over by myown performance.’

Category 6 – Leadership Confidence andClarity – confident and focussed leadership. Thiscategory indicates a more purposefulapproach to the role of leadership itself,when individuals are beginning to look lessat the technical management aspects of theirrole and more assuredly at the point andpurpose of their own leadership.



Figure 5: Sub-Categories.

P16 – ‘I’m much clearer of why I’m doing whatI’m doing. I am much, much clearer on what I need to do to be successful in the leadership roleI’m doing, both in terms of my own team and alsoin terms of support to my own leadership team.’P12 – ‘I’m much clearer on personal leadershipand responsibility than I ever was before whichmakes it much easier to enjoy the positive and morechallenging aspects of the day’s work.’

Category 7 – Strategic Orientation – broadand long-term focus on strategic leadership goals.This category indicates an increased capacityto turn the previous category into strategicaction. It is taking an increase in leadershipconfidence and clarity of purpose and trans-lating it into important long-term goals. Thegroup coaching offers no training in strate-gic thinking or planning but, as with theothers categories this is one that emergesclearly and consistently.P14 – ‘I think how I manage my staff now isbetter… which means I have a lot more time to dothe corporate stuff that I avoided a bit. It all freesme up to do the strategic stuff, spending time doingthe looking-up stuff rather than the organising-down stuff.’P6 – ‘I started to form the new team of which I ama member and said – let’s really get the strategyright in terms of what we are here to do. Let’s getthe programme and schedule of activities right sowe know what steps we’re going to take to deliverthat strategy and then let’s put in place the rightmachinery, behaviours and culture to deliver thoseactivities to drive that strategy.’

Developing and synthesising the above cate-gories it became apparent that they relate toeach other in various ways. For example, anincreased understanding of others can helpan individual interact more effectively withthem. An increase in leadership clarity andconfidence can in turn improve strategicleadership. On this basis we propose afurther level of abstraction to just four coreconcepts within Authentic Leadership,presented in Figure 6. For example, aConscious approach to leadership wesuggest would include both sub-categories of

Self-understanding and Management Mind-fulness. Competent leadership would involveEffective Interactions with Others and Lead-ership Capacity and Proactivity. Congruentleadership would include Self-understand-ing and Self-management and Confidentleadership would include Leadership Confi-dence and Clarity but also Strategic Leader-ship. These can be summarised as a:Competent leader that is skilled and abled; aConfident leader that is assertive and self-assured; a Conscious leader that is deliberateand intentional; and a Congruent leaderthat is clear and consistent.

DiscussionThe theory of ALD group coachingdescribed above offer us two main areas fordiscussion. Firstly, we will discuss the processof change facilitated by the group coachingand secondly the output of change achievedby this coaching format.

The process of changeIn conducting this research with four groupsover 18 months it is our view that the effec-tiveness of the group coaching approach toALD is due, in large part, to the opportunityit affords participants to work on the devel-opment of an authentic self within a socialcontext. Firstly, we argue that if an individ-ual’s goal is to be an authentic leader it issafe to presume this must be predicatedupon an authentic self. Secondly, if this self isformed in contrast and comparison to others,as argued in social psychology, it is its socialstructure that makes the group coachingprocess unique. This is certainly an aspectthe participants appear to value according tosuch feedback as – ‘you learn about yourselffrom others’, ‘there’s a significant impact fromlearning about others impressions of you’, ‘I feltvalidated by the other participants’ and ‘othersmade me believe I was worthy as a leader’.

The scientific study of the ‘self’ beganwith James (1890) who introduced two keydifferent aspects of the self; both as subjectand object, self-as-knower and self-as-known.This refers to the unique human capacity for



reflexive thinking allowing a person to taketheir own self as the object of consciousthought and attention. This may be some-thing fundamental to the success of almostany form of self-development, but the appar-ent efficacy of the group coaching approachto authentic self-development suggests thereis something in it that adds to this process ofself-reflection. Something that is an addedfeature or facet present within the groupformat over and above the more usual dyadcoaching. One possible theory we propose isthat this form of coaching affords partici-pants the opportunity to work in parallelwith both their intra-personal self and theirinter-personal self.

A contemporary and emerging explana-tion of the concept of self, one that seems tobe generating some consensus, is that the selfoperates at two simultaneous levels and isboth an organised dynamic cognitive-affective-action system and an interpersonal self-construc-tion system (Mischel & Morf, 2003, p.23). Thiswould support the idea that it is the groupparticipant’s ability to operate in both ofthese domains, interchangeably and simulta-

neously, that represent its unique activeingredient. If it is the case that self-construc-tion is wholly or partially rooted within inter-personal processes (Hoyle, 1999; Markus &Cross 1990), then it would follow that theself-reappraisal and realignment that takesplace within ALD group coaching is alsofacilitated by this interpersonal context.Mischel and Morf (2003) suggest thatconstruction of the self-system takes place asa person interacts with their social world andthat during this life-long process ‘…identity,self-relevant goals, values…are built, maintained,promoted and protected’ (p.29). Such identity,goals and values are, of course, all keyelements in the development of both anauthentic self and an authentic leader.

Along with James other Social theoristshave introduced ideas that may providefurther insight into the social functioning ofthe coaching group. For example, the theoryof Symbolic Interactionism (George Mead1934), argues ‘…it is at the level of human inter-action and interpersonal relationships that thefabrication of the self arises’ (Elliot, 2008, p.29).The idea is that the self is fluid not fixed and



Figure 6: Core Concepts of Authentic Leadership.

is a project that the individual actively buildsand develops throughout their biographicaltrajectory in the social and interpersonalcontext in which it is embedded. If the self isnot fixed and is actively constructed within asocial context, then the coaching group maybe a particularly fertile environment for suchpersonal change and development to occur,where an authentic sense of self can beexplored, reappraised and realigned.

Another idea of potential use is theconcept of the reflected-self introduced byCooley (1902), who coined the term ‘thelooking-glass self’. Cooley also believed thatthe self develops in the social environmentin which it is embedded. He argued that thewhole concept of self cannot be separatedfrom social influences and that the self isactually built by assimilating and reflectingthe appraisals of others. In Cooley’s view, aperson incorporates into their own self-concept, the observations they make of otherpeoples view of them, and they develop a selfthat is congruent with those views. Shouldthis be the case, then this would furtherexplain why the social and interpersonalnature of the coaching-group helps partici-pants re-evaluate and re-calibrate their self-concepts.

The structure and format of the groupcoaching encourages a breadth and depth ofpersonal feedback absent from most leader-ship development training including one-to-one coaching. As Yalom (1995) asserts aboutgroup psychotherapy, it is one thing to tryand deny the group leaders feedback, as theyare the ‘hired help’, but it is very difficult todeny direct feedback from a group of peersthat have no other agenda than to help youincrease your own self-learning and aware-ness. In Cooley’s terms, it must be extremelydifficult to sit opposite five other lookingglasses and deny their reflections, particu-larly if they are coherent and consistent.

Consistent feedback on the processclearly indicates that group participantsgreatly value the opportunity to sit down anddiscuss, on a deeply personal level, mattersthat have a relevance and resonance with

them as individual leaders. It is an opportu-nity rarely afforded in most leadership devel-opment interventions. To reflect on anddiscuss, their past, present and futuredomains in a focussed and facilitated envi-ronment often has profound impact. Thismay well also be the case in a two-way conver-sation with a companion, colleague orcoach, but if we do indeed find ourselves,even partially, in comparison and contrast toothers, then to have these discussions in thepresence of others can be quite literally self-changing.

The outcome of changeThe tangible performance-based outputgenerated by the group coaching is cate-gorised under our four proposed coreconcepts of Authentic Leadership;Conscious, Competent, Confident andCongruent. Within each of these are sevencategories which we shall review here. Thefirst consistent and emergent category welook at is Strategic Orientation which reflectsthe increased capacity for strategic leader-ship reported by many participants. This,despite the fact that at no point in theprocess, were participants exposed to anyteachings in strategy or strategic thinking.We have observed that, rather than skilldevelopment, it seems that the group coach-ing effectiveness lies in its ability to removeobstacles to actual skill deployment. Thissupports the fundamental coaching tenetthat insights, skills and solutions very muchreside in the individual and it is a case ofhelping them access these resources. This isalso witnessed in the next category of Leader-ship Capacity and Proactivity. The processseems somehow to increase an individual’sreserves and resilience. Many participantsreport taking on much more work yet feelingeven more positive and in control at thesame time. We suggest that this category ispredicated on the category of LeadershipConfidence and Clarity. Participants reportconsiderable surges in confidence as a resultof the group work. They feel confident totake on increased responsibilities and



appear to do so with a much greater clarityof the purpose of their leadership role. Thisis related to the category of ManagementMindfulness in that it appears to engender amore focussed and deliberate approach totheir management duties generally. Theprocess also seems to achieve change thatpositively impacts on how individuals workwith their colleagues, in terms of IncreasedEffective and Flexible Interactions and anImproved Understanding of Others. Theyreport having much greater understandingof colleague’s behaviours and motives whichin turn gives them more tolerance and flexi-bility in dealing with them. Finally, we cometo the category of Self-Understanding and Self-Management that perhaps underpins all ofthe above and bring us back to the ancientadmonition suggested to guide AuthenticLeadership Development – ‘know thyself’.This reflects the depth of self-relevant workdescribed above and the increases in effec-tive self-regulation which this allows. All ofthese categories manifest in differentconstellations and to different degree withineach individual. However, the seven cate-gories account for all of the behaviourchange and performance improvement thatresulted in the 21 leaders participating in thegroup coaching and can be encapsulated inour proposed over-arching model of Authen-tic Leadership, that is; Conscious, Compe-tent, Confident and Congruent leadership.

Assumptions, limitations andrecommendations If what you discover depends very much onwhat you are looking for (Dey, 1999), it isimportant in the name of researcher reflex-ivity to make explicit some of the assump-tions that guided this research. A firstassumption is that Authentic Leadership isindeed a noble goal. That a leader, who hasa clearer understanding of their inner self,will lead more effectively. They will haveincreased clarity and conviction which willpositively influence their leadership.Secondly, and in agreement with Erikson(1959), we believe that personal authenticity

is relative and not absolute and, therefore,assume it is something that can be devel-oped. Thirdly, we assumed that coaching,and specifically group coaching, might beone possible way to achieve this growth inpersonal and authentic leadership. Althoughthe research was designed and undertakenwith all of these assumptions in the back-ground, it is important to state that the workin the foreground was clear of assumptionson what may be found. Indeed, this is why aGrounded Theory approach was chosen, todiscover only theory that both emerged fromand was grounded in the data (Willig, 2008).There was no idea if group coaching wouldactually help develop authentic leaders andif it did, there was no idea of how it would,but we believed from a positivist stance thatif it did, Grounded Theory would uncoverboth the what, and the how.

Two limitations that could be addressedare the use of sampling and generalisability.The intense nature of small group coachingmeans it is not a suitable method of develop-ment for everyone. In large classroom styleleadership programmes a delegate canparticipate as much or as little as they wish.This is not the case in small group coachingwhere each participant has to engage in theprocess in a full and frank manner. If oneindividual refuses to participate, this wouldinevitably have an adverse impact on thework the rest of the group can do and thewhole process would break down. Thismeans participants have to be chosen in acareful and considered manner which inturn makes generalisability all but impossi-ble. However, this does mean the group’seventual composition creates the two funda-mental group conditions that form the foun-dation of our entire model – PsychologicalSafety and Group Cohesion. However, onerecommendation for future studies might beto attempt a randomised control study, toassess the impact of an open group formatversus an invite-only format. This would helpidentify and better understand the contra-indicators to inclusion in a group and theimpact these have. Another recommenda-



tion for future research may be to investigatefurther any hierarchical relationship ormediating factors between the seven cate-gories of performance improvement. Thismay help both individual leaders and spon-soring organisations make better informeddecisions about participation.

ConclusionThe research presented here we believerepresents the first attempt at an evidencedbased approach to ALD, offering both amodel and a method of ALD and anexplanatory theory of both. As such, wethink it represents a valuable contribution toboth the field of leadership coaching andgroup coaching. Through Grounded Theorywe were able to understand better the groupcoaching process and develop four overarch-ing concepts of Authentic Leadership;Conscious, Competent, Confident andCongruent. We suggest it is possibly theparallel process that holds the key to theeffectiveness of the group format, enablingthe participants to work at both the intra andinter personal levels of experience, exploringand developing their self-concept in thesocial context that is unique to this form ofcoaching. Finally, by introducing socialtheory, such as the concept of the social-selfand the reflected-self, we are better able tounderstand how this relatively new form ofcoaching is uniquely placed to developAuthentic Leadership.

The AuthorsTony Fusco, Siobhain O’Riordan & Stephen PalmerCoaching Psychology Unit,City University,London.

CorrespondenceTony Fusco2 The Tudor,Wells Road,Great Malvern,Worcestershire, WR14 4RH.Email: [email protected]



Avolio, B.J. (2010). Pursuing authentic leadershipdevelopment. In N. Nohria & R. Khurana, (Eds.),Handbook of leadership theory and practice(pp.739–768). Cambridge: Harvard BusinessSchool Publishing Corporation,

Avolio, B.J., Luthans. F. & Walumbwa, F.O. (2004).Authentic Leadership: Theory building for veritableand sustained performance. Lincoln, NE: GallupLeadership Institute.

Avolio, B.J. & Luthans. F. (2006). High impact leader:Moments matter in authentic leadership development.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Avolio, B.J. & Walumbwa, F.O. (2014). Authenticleadership theory, research and practise: Stepstaken and steps that remain. In D.V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership & organisations.New York: Oxford University Press.

Birks, M. & Mills, J. (2001). Grounded theory: A practi-cal guide. London: Sage.

Brumbaugh, R.B. (1971). Authenticity and theoriesof administrative behaviour. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 16, 108–112.

Burlingame, G., Fuhriman, A. & Johnson, J. (2001).Cohesion in group psychotherapy. Psychotherapy,38(4), 373–379.

Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesand, G.R. & Avey, J. B.(2009). Authentic leadership and positivepsychological capital: The mediating role of trustat the group level of analysis. Journal of Leadership& Organisational Studies, 15, 227–240.

Cooley, C.H. (1902). Human nature and the social order.New York: Scribner’s.

Day, D.V. (2000). Leadership development: A reviewin context. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581–613.

Day, D.V., Harrison, M.M. & Hapin, S.M. (2009).Integrative approach to leader development: Connectingadult development, identity and expertise. New York:Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines forqualitative inquiry. London: Academic Press.

Drescher, S., Burlingame, G. & Fuhriman, A. (2012).Cohesion: An odyssey in empirical understand-ing. Small Group Research Journal, 43, 4.

Elliot, A. (2010). Concepts of the self. Cambridge: PolityPress.

Erikson, E.H. (1956). The problem of ego identity.Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 4,56–121.

Fusco, T., O’Riordan, S. & Palmer, S. (2014). Human-istic authentic leadership development. CoachingPsychology International, 7(1), 11–16.

George, W. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscoveringthe secrets to creating lasting value. San Francisco:Jossey Bass.

George, W. & Simms, P. (2007). True North: Discoveryour authentic leadership. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Giallonardo, L.M., Wong, C.A. & Iwasiw, C.L. (2010).Authentic leadership of preceptors: Predictor ofnew graduate nurses’ work engagement and jobsatisfaction. Journal of Nursing Management, 18,993–1003.

Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery ofgrounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.New York: Aldine.

Glaser, B.G. (2005). The grounded theory perspective III:Theoretical coding. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Hannah, S.T., Walumbwa, F.O. & Fry, J. (2011). Lead-ership in action teams: Team leader andmembers authenticity, authenticity strength andperformance outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 64,771–801.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. & Hayes, T.L. (2002).Business-unit-level relationship betweenemployee satisfaction, employee engagementand business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journalof Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279.

Heidegger, M. (1927). Being and time. Translation ofJ. Macquarrie & E.S. Robinson (1962), Sein undZeit. New York: Harper & Row.

Hmieleski, K.M., Cole, M.S. & Baron, R.A. (2011).Shared authentic leadership and new ventureperformance. Journal of Management, 38,1476–1499.

Hoyle, R.H., Kernis, M.H., Leary, M.R. & Baldwin,M.W. (1990). Selfhood: Identity, esteem, regulation.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jensen, S.M. & Luthans, F. (2006). Entrepreneurs asauthentic leaders: Impact on employees’ atti-tudes. Leadership & Organisation Development Jour-nal, 27(8), 646–666.

Keirsey, D. (1998). Please understand me II: Tempera-ment, character, intelligence. Del Mar, CA:Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.

Kierkegaard, S. (1946). The present age (trans. A. Dru, 1962). New York: Harper & Row.

Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1975). Evaluating training programs.San Francisco Tata: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

Kernis, M. H. (2003). Towards a conceptualisation ofoptimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14,1–26.

Kernis, M.H. & Goldman, B.M. (2006). A multi-component conceptualisation of authenticity:Theory and research. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38,283–357. San Diego: Academic Press.

Luthans, F. & Avolio, B.J. (2003). Authentic leader-ship development. In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton& R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organisational schol-arship (pp.241–258). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.



References

Markus, H. & Cross, S. (1990). The interpersonal self.In L.A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality:Theory and research. New York: Guilford Press.

Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self and society: From thestandpoint of a social behaviourist. Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.

Mischel, W. & Morf, C.C. (2003). The self as a psycho-social dynamic processing system: A meta-perspective on a century of the self in psychology.In M.R. Leary & J.P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook ofself and identity (p.23). New York: Guilford Press.

O’Leonard, K. (2010). The corporate learning factbook2009: Benchmarks, trends and analysis of the UStraining market. Oaklands, CA: Bersin & Associ-ates.

Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centred therapy. London:Constable & Co. Ltd.

Satre, J.P. (1966). The age of reason. New York: A.A. Knopf.

Schein, E.H. (1993). How can organisations learnfaster? The challenge of entering the greenroom. Sloan Management Review, 34(2), 85–92.

Tice, D.M. & Wallace, H.M. (2003). The reflectedself: Creating yourself as (you think) others seeyou. In M.R. Leary & J.P. Tangney (Eds.), Hand-book of self and identity (p.91). New York: GuilfordPress.

Toor, S.-u.-R., Ofori, G. & Arain, F.M. (2009). Authen-tic leadership style and its implications in projectmanagement. Business Review, 2(1), 31–55.

Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J., Gardener, W.L., Werns-ing, T.S. & Peterson, S.J. (2008). Authentic lead-ership: Development and validation of a theorybased measure? Journal of Management, 34–89.

Walumbwa, F.O., Hartnell, A.L., Ayree, S. & Chris-tensen, C.A. (2011). Fostering creativity in workgroups: Authentic leadership, communication climate,and knowledge sharing. Paper presented at theAcademy of Management Annual Meetings. San Antonio, TX.

Walumbwa, F.O., Luthans, F., Avey, J. & Oke, A.(2011b). Authentically leading groups: Themediating role of positivity and trust. Journal ofOrganisational Behaviour, 32, 24–43.

Willig, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research inpsychology. New York: McGraw Hill, Open Univer-sity Press.

Wong, C.A. & Cummings, G.G. (2009). The influenceof authentic leadership behaviours on trust andwork outcomes of health care staff. Journal ofLeadership Studies, 3, 6–23.

Wong, C.A., Laschnger, H.K.S. & Cummings, G.G.(2010). Authentic leadership and nurses’ voicebehaviour and perceptions of care quality. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 889–900.

Yalom, I.D. (1995). The theory and practice of grouppsychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.



EXECUTIVE COACHING is an emerg-ing profession, and quickly growing as abig business. The International Coach-

ing Federation (ICF) (2012) reported thatcorporations are, in fact, investing almost $2billion a year in coaching services globally.An increasing number of businesses areusing coaches to help in areas that includetalent management, leadership, executivepresence and transition development.

Since coaching services typically requirea significant investment, organisations nowspend significantly more time matchingtheir executive clients with coaches based onvarious selection criteria. These organisa-tions believe that getting the appropriatecoach-client match at the beginning of thecoaching engagement increases the likeli-hood of achieving client goals. CorporateHuman Resources (HR) partners are taskedwith developing standardised coach-clientmatching criteria to select the best coachesfor their clients based on criteria theyconsider important for success. These HRpartners may or may not be coaches them-selves, and their coaching experience andtraining varies. Typically executives in theorganisations approach HR partners withspecific coaching needs. The HR partners

then select coaches they believe will be agood match. They often set the selectioncriteria and manage the appropriation ofcoaching services for an organisation byselecting three or four prospective coachesand presenting them to their executiveclient for a final selection. Executivescommonly select coaches by consideringfactors such as executive experience, gender,nationality, credentials, certification, refer-rals, industry or professional experience,academic accreditation and subject matterexpertise(Blake-Beard et al., 2011; Gray,Ekinci & Goregaokar, 2011a, 2011b).

Numerous research studies on executivecoaching consider the selection criteria usedto match coaches to their clients (Baron &Morin, 2009; Gray et al., 2011a, 2011b; Stew-art et al., 2008). Matching executives tocoaches is intrinsically difficult, since thereare so many variables to consider whenselecting a coach for a specific need. Match-ing appropriately and establishing a mean-ingful relationship between client andcoach-practitioner is critical to achievingsuccessful outcomes. Interestingly, theseexisting studies appear to contain deficien-cies or do not consider the impact variousselection criteria have on a client’s goal


Walking a mile in an executive’s shoes:The influence of shared client-coachexperience on goal achievementAlex T. Chinn, James P. Richmond & John L. Bennett

Objectives: To evaluate the relationship between shared industry or professional experience and client goalachievement. Design: An exploratory, quantitative approach was taken to survey the degree to which shared experienceinfluenced the client’s coach selection decision and the impact on client goal achievement.Results: Findings suggest no correlation between the coach’s professional or industry experience as clientselection factors and the degree of client goal achievement.Conclusions: Matching based upon shared subject matter expertise may prematurely eliminate coaches whomight have been an ideal fit. Keywords: coaching; client; matching; goal achievement; professional experience; industry experience;selection criteria.

achievement. There appears to be a lack ofresearch pointing to why various selectioncriteria are chosen and ultimately how theeffectiveness of those criteria is assessedagainst outcomes, if assessed at all.

We believe that coaching consumers’beliefs of how to match executives withcoaches differ based on where they land ona continuum. At one end of the continuumis the non-subject-matter-expertise position, andat the other end is the subject-matter-expertiseposition. To define these two terms, the non-subject-matter-expertise position holds thatcompetent coaches can help clients achievetheir goals regardless of the coach’s back-ground, gender, credentials, and profes-sional or industry affiliation. On theopposite end of the spectrum, someonetaking the subject-matter-expertise positionbelieves that to effectively help a client, thecoach must have direct knowledge of aparticular subject pertaining to the client’sfield of expertise. The validity of holding aposition on either end of the continuumremains largely unknown because of the lackof empirical studies.

According to Underhill et al. (2013), theprimary coach-client selection criteria organ-isations currently use to match coaches andclients include the coaches’ experience andskills, ability to build rapport and trust, expe-rience with specific leadership challenges,congruence with the company’s culture andbusiness experience. Studies such as this onehelp clarify criteria clients use to selectcoaches. In addition, the study raises ques-tions about the relationship between selec-tion criteria and goal achievement. Theexisting literature has a paucity of empiricaldata regarding the actual relationshipbetween specific coach-client selection crite-ria and goal achievement. We sought tobetter understand the impact professionaland industry experience as selection criteriahad on goal achievement, if any.

This research study is presented in fivesections. The first section introduces thecontext, purpose and significance of thestudy. The second section presents the litera-

ture review of over 35 peer-reviewed periodi-cals and several texts informing the threeframeworks that emerged to enlighten thisstudy. These frameworks included: (a)Coaching Distinctions and Definitions; (b)Non-Subject Matter Expertise and SubjectMatter Expertise Continuum; and (c) GoalAchievement Predictors. The third sectionpresents the methodology, including selec-tion of participants, instrumentation, datacollection and analysis. The fourth and fifthsections present the study’s findings and thediscussions of those findings, includingimplications for further research and conclu-sions.

Literature reviewCorporate coaching practice leaders believethat if they optimally match their executiveswith coaches, their efforts will generatesuccessful outcomes. A systematic approachto the literature review was taken, utilising asnowballing approach (Creswell, 2013;Maxwell, 2005). First, keywords were identi-fied to use as search terms to query the rele-vant journal publication databases. Once apublication germane to the study’s centralthemes was discovered, it was included in theliterature review and further research wasconducted using the publication’s refer-ences until the theme was exhausted. Thetimeframe examined ranged from 2000 topresent. Three frameworks emerged fromthe literature review: (a) Coaching Distinc-tions and Definitions; (b) Non-SubjectMatter Expertise and Subject Matter Expert-ise Continuum; and (c) Goal AchievementPredictors.

Coaching Distinctions and Definitions Clients who say they want coaching andselect coaches to help them achieve theirgoals may, in fact, want consulting or acombination of coaching and consulting. A number of authors have provided ‘notabledefinitions on executive coaching’ (Bennett& Bush, 2014, p.14). The definitions ofcoaching vary greatly based upon the source.According to the ICF, there is a clear distinc-


Alex T. Chinn, James P. Richmond & John L. Bennett

tion among coaching, consulting, mentoringand counseling (ICF, 2008). Some coachingdefinitions lean more towards the coach’sadopting a subject-matter-expertise-orientedstance, whereas other coaching definitionslean more towards a non-directive, non-subject-matter expertise approach. The defi-nition of coaching for this research utilisesthe ICF’s (2008) concept of ‘partnering withclients in a thought-provoking and creativeprocess that inspires them to maximise theirpersonal and professional potential’ (p.1).The definition of consulting for this researchutilises Bennett and Bush’s (2014) definitionof consulting: ‘A helping relationship thatcan be formal or informal and is establishedfor the purpose of providing expertise, skills,and/or a process for the client’ (p.367). Thedefinition for coach-clientmatch is the pairingof a coach to client for the purposes of acoaching engagement. The definition forprofessional experience is specific and uniqueexperience that pertains only to a group ofindividuals who make a living plying thesame trade or craft, for example, attorneys,doctors, Certified Public Accountants. Incontrast, the definition of industry experienceis broader, which refers to experiencepertaining to a group of individuals in thesame general area of work, for example,health care, education, banking and finance.

Some researchers suggest that coachingskills are not enough and that certain non-coaching experience is necessary to thrive incoaching today. McLean (2012) defined acoach as ‘a trusted role model, advisor, wiseperson, friend, mensch, steward or guidewho works with emerging human and organ-isational forces to tap new energy purpose,shape new visions and plans and to generatedesired results’ (p.4). McLean (2012)suggests coaches may also need subjectmatter expertise, familiarity with the client’sindustry and systems thinking. Stern (2004)described coaching as a method that entailsworking with executives one-on-one ‘to helpthem learn how to manage and lead and toassist them to establish, structure, plan for,and lead the executives’ organisation’

(p.154). The coach must be experienced inthe client’s business in order to successfullycoach the client. As this position sees execu-tive coaching as merely a component withina larger, consultative intervention and that acoach must lead, Stern’s concept of coachingalso falls on the subject-matter-expertise endof the continuum.

Yet other researchers suggest that coach-ing skills alone are enough to meaningfullyimpact outcomes. Ellinger, Hamlin and Beat-tie (2008) conducted a meta-analysis of 36definitions of coaching to ultimately evolve aunified definition that defined coaching as ahelping, non-directive, facilitative or collabo-rative process. Witherspoon and White(1996) described coaching as ‘facilitating(literally, ‘to make easy’) more than toinstruct’ (p.125). Witherspoon does notappear to suggest that subject matter expert-ise a necessary or desirable attribute.

The Non-Subject Matter Expertise and SubjectMatter Expertise ContinuumAs noted earlier, we believe that coachingconsumers differ in their beliefs of how tomatch executives with coaches based onwhere they land on a continuum betweennon-subject-matter-expertise and subject-matter-expertise positions. On one end of the contin-uum, the non-subject-matter-expertiseposition is a purist perspective that maintainsthat coaches do not need to share theirclient’s subject knowledge expertise to facili-tate goal achievement. Although central toconsulting, the non-subject-matter-expertiseposition posits that direct experience in thatsame discipline, field or industry is unlikelyto be a necessary requirement for a coach tobe effective. This position may even suggestthat similar experience may at times becounterproductive. Jarvis (2004) argued thatit is not necessary for coaches to have thesame subject matter expertise as the client:‘While the coach should have a sound knowl-edge of business, their real contribution istheir ability to help individuals learn anddevelop’ (p.33). Jarvis (2004) further statedthat some commentators think hiring


Walking a mile in an executive’s shoes

a coach with specific experience can becounterproductive, because the client losesthe advantage of having someone who isneutral and objective. Grant (2005)suggested that ‘although the coach needsexpertise in facilitating learning throughcoaching, the coach does not necessarilyneed a high degree of personal experiencein the client’s chosen area of learning’ (p.2).Grant emphasised coaching is about helpingclients create change so they can reach theirpotential. Riddle, Zan and Kuzmycz (2009)suggested that to be effective, coaches do notneed to have walked in the same shoes as theexecutives. By having done so, coaches couldbe tempted to use a more directive approachin providing a solution based upon previousexperience rather than facilitating clients indevising their own solutions. Riddle et al.(2009) argued that ‘there is still no evidenceshowing that a coach’s background andexperience are substantially related to thatcoach’s effectiveness’ (p.21).

At the other end of the continuum, thesubject-matter-expertise position maintainsthat a coach needs to have subject knowl-edge similar to the client’s to facilitate goalachievement. Many researchers value thecoach’s having significant expertise in theclient’s industry. Kombarakaran et al. (2008)reported that clients considered their‘coaches were highly knowledgeable aboutthe company culture and business (86 percent)’, and indicated the clients werepleased with their coaches, in part, due tothis factor (p.87). However, no mention wasmade as to what impact this factor had ongoal achievement. According to Underhill etal. (2013), one of the top 10 most importantcriteria in selecting a coach was experiencein the client’s industry. According to Kauff-mann and Coutu (2009), some coachesbelieve ‘experience working in a similarsetting’ and ‘experience coaching in a simi-lar setting’ are important when purchasingcoaching services (p.19). Finally, Stevens(2005) proposed that coaches need to havesome conceptual understanding of theclients’ industries and professional context

to be effective in helping clients achievetheir goals.

Researchers on each end of the contin-uum have strong opinions as to whether ornot subject matter expertise is needed incoaching to successfully achieve outcomes.However, the debate will continue and addi-tional research will be needed.

Goal Achievement PredictorsThe literature examines a number of factorscurrently used in an attempt to predictcoaching success. De Haan et al. (2013)identified ‘active ingredients’ in predictingcoaching effectiveness, suggesting the over-all working alliance, client self-efficacy,coaching techniques and the strength of thecoaching relationship. Grant (2014) foundthat the most powerful predictor of coachingsuccess was a ‘goal-focused coach-client rela-tionship’ followed by ‘autonomy support’,and the extent to which the coaching rela-tionship was similar to an ‘ideal coach-clientrelationship’ (pp.26–27).

Results show that when the coach-clientmatching criteria is based on ‘professionalbackground, including education andprofessional training’, the relationship doesnot mediate superior client outcomes(Boyce, Jackson & Neal, 2010, p.6). Boyce etal. (2010) did not elaborate as to what ismeant by past work experience and profes-sional training, and it is unclear if they areoperationally defining those items to includeprofessional and industry experience.

McGovern et al. (2001) identified severalfactors impacting coaching effectiveness: thequality of the coach-client relationship, ‘thestructure of the process’, ‘regularly sched-uled meetings’, the ‘flexibility of meetings’,role playing, off-site meetings, ‘quality offeedback’, ‘quality of assessment’, ‘partici-pant’s commitment’, manager support andthe coach’s sitting in on the client’s staffmeetings (pp.4–6). However, how the coach’ssubject matter expertise, or lack thereof,affected coaching outcomes was absent.

Scoular and Linley (2006) used personal-ity to predict goal achievement, reporting



that different coach-client Myers-Briggs TypeIndicator (MBTI) temperaments produced astatistically significant higher outcome scorefor the coaching client, that is, the coach’stemperament profile (SP, SJ, NJ or NT)differed from the client’s. Stewart et al.(2008) used the Five Factor Model toexplore the relationship between personalityand the application of learning from coach-ing to the workplace. They found that‘despite being significant, the magnitude ofthe observed correlations between personal-ity and coaching success were relatively low’(p.39). Stewart et al. (2008) suggested thatfactors other than personality, such as theclient, coach, and work environment factors,may play a greater role in coaching success.Stewart et al. (2008) also suggested thatpersonality may play a moderating role onthese factors and cautioned against match-ing based upon personality until furtherresearch is conducted. However, this posi-tion conflicts with the findings of Thompsonet al. (2008); ‘Matching the right coach tothe right client is associated with highersuccess rates. Matching people according toexpertise and personality seem to be boththe best and most commonly used strategies’(p.24).

Apart from personality, in the closelyrelated field of mentoring, other researchersexamined the impact of shared race betweenclient and coach. Blake-Beard et al. (2011)examined the impact that shared mentorand protégé race and gender had onacademic outcomes and found that thesefactors did not affect academic outcomes.

As shown, there is a great deal of litera-ture related to selection criteria as a predic-tor of successful coaching outcomes.However, none directly linked shared coach-client professional or industry experience togoal achievement.

MethodologyThis quantitative study examined the rela-tionship between the coach’s professionalexperience and the coach’s industry experi-ence, as selection factors, and the degree of

client goal achievement. Also examined wasthe extent to which clients consider coaches’professional and industry expertise whenmaking a decision as to who should coachthem, as well as whether expertise affectedcoaching outcomes.

This study included a continuum inwhich the non-subject-matter-expertise posi-tion maintains that a coach does not need toshare the client’s professional or industryexperience in order to facilitate client goalachievement. Conversely, the subject-matter-expertise position maintains that a coachdoes need to share the client’s professionalor industry experience in order to facilitateclient goal achievement. In this study, weexplore two hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: Professional experienceH0: There is no correlation between thecoach’s professional experience, as a clientselection factor, and the degree of client goalachievement.H1: There is a correlation between thecoach’s professional experience, as a clientselection factor, and the degree of client goalachievement.

Hypothesis 2: Industry experienceH0: There is no correlation between thecoach’s industry experience, as a client selec-tion factor, and the degree of client goalachievement.H1: There is a correlation between thecoach’s industry experience, as a client selec-tion factor, and the degree of client goalachievement.

We created a cross-sectional instrumentcompromised of 14 survey questions, basedupon our hypotheses and demographic crite-ria. The survey included three continuousquestions (Likert scale of 5 to 1) and 11 cate-gorical (multiple-choice, radio button andY/N) questions, which was piloted to ensureface validity. Since we believed coaches wouldbe biased towards the non-subject-matter-expertise position, a question was included todifferentiate coaches from non-coaches in



order to test this assumption. Goal achieve-ment was not specifically defined, as we weremore concerned with whether or not a linkbetween selection criteria and goal achieve-ment existed, rather than what types of goalswere achieved. The survey populationcomprised respondents aged 21 or older whowere recipients of coaching, or coaches whohad received coaching. Each respondent wasrequired to have achieved goals as a result ofthe coaching.

We sent invitational emails to targetorganisations, to coaches in our network,and to our coaching clients. Subsequently,the target organisations sent invitations onour behalf to their coaches, who in turninvited their clients to participate. The invi-tation included a link to SurveyMonkey®allowing participants to respond anony-mously.

The survey generated 215 responsesduring a three-week collection period in2014, with 206 responses meeting all thestudy criteria. We analysed the data usingMicrosoft Excel and Minitab. Cronbach’sAlpha was calculated to determine internalconsistency of the survey. Following thiscalculation, the research hypotheses weretested using correlation analyses, and thenwe performed Effect Size analyses basedupon industry demographics.

FindingsA literature review of relevant research intocoach-client matching and selection factorsidentified a gap. This quantitative researchstudy investigated the relationship betweenthe coach’s professional experience and thecoach’s industry experience, as client selec-tion factors, and the degree of client goalachievement. A summary of the pertinentdemographic survey results can be found inTable 1. Caucasian males and females overthe age of 41 were the dominant respon-dents in the survey results. A majority of therespondents selected their coach as opposedto being assigned a coach, chose to workwith an external coach, and had previouslyworked with a coach. Slightly more emphasis

was placed on shared professional experi-ence (56 per cent) as selection criteria asopposed to industry experience (33 percent).

This survey found that 84 per cent of therespondents had worked with an externalcoach. When working with an externalcoach, the assumption is that a client mustmake selection criteria decisions to find thebest match. Eighty-two per cent of therespondents selected their coaches asopposed to having coaches assigned to them.By selecting their coaches, the clients had toentertain selection criteria, whether at aconscious or subconscious level. Bluckert(2006) suggests an important Gestaltconcept known as Creative Adjustment, inwhich a person tries to do her best, nomatter what the circumstances, to meet herneeds, overcome challenges and reach herobjectives. Clients choose their coachesbased upon their definition of coaching,their agenda and where they fall on the Non-Subject Matter Expertise and Subject MatterExpertise Continuum.

Respondents were asked if professionalor industry experience were selectionfactors, and to what degree, to provide flexi-bility in instances where professional orindustry experience was not a significantfactor. This approach allowed for the possi-bility that a client purposely selected a coach,largely due to that coach not sharing thesame professional/industry experience.Thefindings show there was no correlationbetween the degree to which the coach’sprofessional experience influenced theclient’s decision to work with the coach andclient goal achievement. Twenty per cent ofthe respondents answered that the coach’sprofessional experience was not a factor intheir decision to select that coach; however,in terms of goal achievement, the responsesranged from ‘to some degree’ to ‘to a verylarge degree’. In contrast, 18 per cent of therespondents answered that their coach’sprofessional experience influenced theirdecision to work with that coach ‘to somedegree’, and their goal achievement ranged





Table 1: Demographic responses to survey.

Question

Last time receivedcoaching?

First time working with acoach?

External vs. InternalCoach?

Selected Coach orAssigned a coach?

Professional experience afactor in selectiondecision?

Degree Professionalexperience factored intocoach selection decision?

Industry experience afactor in selectiondecision?

Degree Industryexperience factored intocoach selection decision?

Degree coaching goalsachieved?

Top 5 industries

Gender

Age

Race

Are you a coach?

Response 1

3 months orless (37%)

Not first timeworking with acoach (62%)

External Coach(84%)

Selected theircoach (82%)

Professionalexperience afactor (56%)

To no degree(21%)

Industryexperience afactor (33%)

To no degree(41%)

To no degree(1%)

Health care(9%)

Male (48%)

21–30 (4%)

Chose not toanswer (2%)

Yes (47%)

Response 2

3 to 6 months(9%)

First timeworking with acoach (38%)

Internal Coach(16%)

Coach assigned(18%)

Professionalexperience nota factor (44%)

To a littledegree (4%)

Industryexperience nota factor (67%)



Education(10%)

Female (51%)

31–40 (18%)

Hispanic (2%)

No (53%)

Response 3

6 months to ayear (11%)

To some degree(20%)

To some degree(20%)

To some degree(24%)

Banking andFinance (12%)

Chose not toanswer 1%)

41–50 (33%)

Asian (3%)

Response 4

1 to 3 years(26%)

To a largedegree (32%)



Other (16%)

51–60 (29%)

Black orAfricanAmerican (6%)

Response 5

>3 years (17%)

To a very largedegree (12%)

To a very largedegree (12%)

To no degree(1%)

Consulting(23%)

61–70 (14%)

White (86%)

Response 6

>70 (1%)

from ‘to some degree’ to ‘to a very largedegree’. Further, a combined 29 per centanswered that the coach’s professional expe-rience influenced their decision to work withthat coach either ‘to a large degree’ or ‘to avery large degree’, and their responses togoal achievement ranged from ‘to somedegree’ to ‘to a very large degree’. Refer to

Table 2. The results are no different for bothprofessional and industry experience. A simi-lar result was found when Chi-square testswere performed. Results showed there wasno relationship between the degree thecoach’s professional experience as a factor in selecting the coach and the degree of goal achievement (p=0.671). The second

Chi-square test showed there was no rela-tionship between the degree the coach’sindustry experience as a factor in selectingthe coach and the degree of goal achieve-ment (p=0.349). The results in Table 2 wouldsuggest that regardless of the degree towhich the coach’s shared professional expe-rience was a factor in the client’s coach selec-tion decision, the client achieved her goals.At a macro level, there appears to be nocorrelation between the degree to which thecoach’s professional experience influencedthe client’s decision to work with the coachand client goal achievement. However, bystratifying the data into subsets, the datawould suggest that in some cases, to someclients, the coach’s professional experiencedid influence the client in selecting thecoach. This finding suggests there could besome connection to goal achievement.

To determine Cronbach’s Alpha, multi-item scale questions 6, 8, and 9 were used,with the 5 item multi-item scale ranging from‘1 – To no degree’, ‘2 – To a little degree’, ‘3– To a small degree’, ‘4 – To a large degree’,and ‘5 – To a very large degree’. Cronbach’sAlpha, a measure of internal consistency andreliability, was found to be 0.95, indicating ahigh degree of reliability.

Correlation analysesTesting Hypothesis 1: Professional experienceHypothesis number one was not supported.At a significance level 0.05, the PearsonCorrelation was –0.038 and p=.603, failing toreject the null hypothesis. Therefore, therewas no statistically significant correlationbetween the degree to which the coach’sprofessional experience influenced theclient’s decision to work with the coach andclient’s goal achievement.

Testing Hypothesis 2: Industry experienceHypothesis number two was not supported.At a significance level 0.05, the PearsonCorrelation was –0.020 and p=.791, failing toreject the null hypothesis. Therefore, therewas no statistically significant correlationbetween the degree to which the coach’sindustry experience influenced the client’sdecision to work with the coach and client’sgoal achievement.

A stratification of the data was performedfor shared professional experience. Forrespondents who answered ‘yes’ theircoach’s professional experience was a factorin their coach selection decisions, a correla-tion analysis was performed, regressing thedegree shared professional experience influ-



Table 2: Percentage breakdown of goal achievement.

To what degree did you achieve your coaching goals?

If your coach’s professional 1 – To no 2 – To a 3 – To some 4 – To a 5 – To a very Grand experience was a factor in your degree little degree degree large degree large degree Totaldecision to select your coach,to what degree did that experience influence your decision to workwith your coach?

1 – To no degree 0.0% 0.05% 3.9% 8.2% 7.2% 19.9%

2 – To a little degree 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.4% 0.5% 3.9%

3 – To some degree 0.0% 0.0% 4.3% 11.1% 2.9% 18.4%

4 – To a large degree 0.0% 1.0% 8.2% 14.5% 5.3% 29.0%

5 – To a very large degree 0.0% 1.0% 3.4% 7.7% 7.7% 19.8%

(Blank) 0.5% 0.5% 3.4% 2.9% 1.9% 9.2%

Grand Total 0.5% 2.9% 24.2% 46.9% 25.6% 100%

enced the client’s selection decision againstthe degree of goal achievement. At a signifi-cance level of 0.05, the Pearson correlationwas –0.0003 with p=.98. There was no statisti-cally significant correlation between thedegree to which the coach’s professionalexperience influenced the client’s decisionto work with the coach and client’s goalachievement. Refer to Table 3.

In addition, a further stratification of thedata for shared industry experience wasperformed. For respondents who answered‘yes’ their coach’s industry experience was afactor in their coach selection decision, acorrelation analysis was performed, regress-ing the degree shared industry experienceinfluenced the client’s selection decisionagainst the degree of goal achievement. At asignificance level of 0.05, the Pearson Corre-lation was 0.017 with p=.892. There was nostatistically significant correlation betweenthe degree to which the coach’s industryexperience influenced the client’s decisionto work with the coach and client’s goalachievement.

ResultsA review of relevant research into coach-client matching and selection factors identi-fied a gap. This quantitative research studyinvestigated the relationship between thecoach’s professional experience and thecoach’s industry experience, as client selec-tion factors, and the degree of client goalachievement.

The study’s findings present potentiallyfar reaching implications. The correlationanalysis revealed that there was no correla-tion between: (1) the coach’s professionalexperience as a client selection factor and

the degree of client goal achievement; and(2) the coach’s industry experience as aclient selection factor and the degree ofclient goal achievement. The fact that nocorrelations were found seemingly supportsthe non-subject-matter-expertise positionthat a coach does not need to share theclient’s professional or industry experiencein order to facilitate client goal achievement.These findings challenge the subject-matter-expertise position that a coach does need toshare the client’s professional or industryexperience in order to facilitate client goalachievement. Consequently, advocates of thesubject-matter-expertise position mightneedlessly invest resources in the client-coach matching process by trying to matchtheir clients with coaches who share profes-sional or industry experience. If companiesexclude or include coaches based uponprofessional or industry experience, thesecompanies may make a matching error bynot allowing clients to make an informedchoice. This process may prematurely elimi-nate coaches who might have been an idealfit for the client. Perhaps the issue is not asdichotomous as the correlation results wouldindicate; maybe it is not a question of eitherone or the other, but rather a question ofboth. One of the limitations with a simpleregression analysis is the lack of visibility intothe frequency of occurrences for specificcombinations of responses.

For industry experience versus goalachievement, a similar pattern emerges.Thirty-five per cent of the respondentsanswered that the coach’s industry experi-ence was not a factor in their coach selec-tion; however, in terms of goal achievement,the responses ranged from ‘to some degree’



Table: 3 Results of hypothesis tests.

Hypothesis Level of R-Squared p valueSignificance

1 0.05 –0.038 0.603

2 0.05 –0.020 0.791

to ‘to a very large degree’. In contrast, 17 percent of the respondents answered that thecoach’s professional experience influencedtheir decision to work with that coach ‘tosome degree’, and their goal achievementranged from ‘to some degree’ to ‘to a verylarge degree’. Further, a combined 26 percent answered that the coach’s industryexperience influenced their decision to workwith that coach either ‘to a large degree’ or‘to a very large degree’, and their responsesto goal achievement ranged from ‘to somedegree’ to ‘to a very large degree’. Refer toTable 4. The results in Table 4 suggest thatregardless of the degree to which the coach’sshared industry experience was a factor inthe client’s coach selection decision, theclient goals were achieved. These resultswould suggest that shared coach-clientprofessional or industry experience do notpositively or negatively predict goal achieve-ment. The results suggest there is no rela-tionship between shared coach-clientprofessional or industry experience and goalachievement.

There was a fairly even split of non-coaches (53 per cent) to coaches (47 percent) responding to the survey. Interestingly,74 per cent of the coaches indicated that the

coach’s professional experience influencedtheir decision to work with that coach. Thisresult runs counter to the researchers’assumption that coaches-as-clients wouldadhere more to the non-subject-matter-expertise position and be less likely to beinfluenced by their coach’s professionalexperience.

LimitationsThere were several limitations to this study.First, due to the brief, four-month timeconstraint for the entire study, a deliberatetrade-off decision was made to shorten thesurvey length in the attempt to increase theparticipant response rate. Had the surveybeen lengthier, perhaps more precise androbust results could have been obtained.Second, this research survey did not inquireabout the client’s coaching agenda. If theclient’s agenda was extraordinarily industryspecific, likely the respondent would havesought out a coach with shared professionalor industry experience. Conversely, if theclient’s agenda was more generic, for exam-ple, developing executive presence, therespondent would likely have been indiffer-ent to selecting a coach with or withoutshared professional or industry experience.



Table 4: Industry experience versus goal achievement.

To what degree did you achieve your coaching goals?

If your coach’s industry 1 – To no 2 – To a 3 – To some 4 – To a 5 – To a very Grand experience was a factor in your degree little degree degree large degree large degree Totaldecision to select your coach,to what degree did that experience influence your decision to workwith your coach?

1 – To no degree 0.0% 1.0% 8.2% 14.5% 11.1% 34.8%

2 – To a little degree 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 5.3% 1.4% 7.7%

3 – To some degree 0.0% 0.5% 3.9% 10.6% 2.4% 17.4%

4 – To a large degree 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 7.2% 2.9% 15.5%

5 – To a very large degree 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 3.9% 5.3% 10.6%

(Blank) 0.0% 1.0% 4.8% 5.3% 2.4% 14.0%

Grand Total 0.0% 2.9% 24.2% 46.9% 25.6% 100%

This factor may have materially impacted thesurvey results. Third, due the deliberatequantitative design of the study, as opposedto a mixed methods approach, no qualitativefollow-up was done that might haveexplained the reasons behind participants’responses. Thus, the study’s findings onlyreveal the lack of the relationship betweenshared coach-client industry or professionalexperience and goal achievement but notthe reasons as to why.

Future researchFirst, an additional study replicating thesame findings would support the validity,reliability and repeatability of thisresearch.Second, a mixed methods study,comprising an initial quantitative compo-nent followed by a qualitative component,would disclose why respondents answeredthe way they did. The purpose of this studywould be to ascertain which coach selectioncriteria lead them to select their coach; whatthe client agenda was, and how the selectioncriteria lead to goal achievement. Addition-ally, it would be interesting to understandwhy coaches-as-clients answered in a mannerconsistent with the subject-matter-expertiseposition by responding that their coach’sprofessional or industry experience influ-enced the coach selection. A third sugges-tion for further research would be toconduct a forced-pairing experiment tocompare the goal achievement scores ofclients matched with coaches who sharedprofessional or industry experience against agroup who did not share their coaches’professional or industry experience.

ConclusionThere are three major implications stem-ming from this study that impact executivecoaches, clients, HR partners and third partycoach-client matching services. First, thestudy produced statistically significant find-ings to suggest there is no correlationbetween the coach’s professional experience

or the coach’s industry experience, as selec-tion factors, and the degree of client goalachievement.

Second, by further stratifying the data byindustry demographics, a few interestingphenomena regarding the effect size analysisresults became clear. When comparingindustries against each other in terms ofeffect size, the results suggested certainindustries have higher goal achievementthan others. Third, the results suggest thatthere is no relationship between sharedcoach-client professional or industry experi-ence and goal achievement.

The use of shared professional and indus-try experience to match coaches and clientsby coaches, clients, HR partners and thirdparty coach-client matching services tomaximise goal achievement is not supportedby research. Continuing to use these criteriawithout a direct connection to goal achieve-ment seems an expensive and limitingendeavour, perhaps even to the detriment ofoptimal outcomes. The continuing chal-lenge appears to be identifying the appro-priate selection criteria that will driveoptimal goal achievement. The client’sindustry, agenda, and other unknown factorsmay be influential variables. The gravitas ofthe issue is clearly recognised by stakehold-ers across the board. Future research willilluminate the path and surely provide moreanswers on this quest for the perfect coach-client fit.

The AuthorsAlex T. Chinn, James P. Richmond & John L. BennettMcColl School of Business,Queens University of Charlotte,1900 Selwyn Avenue, Charlotte, NC 28274, United States.

CorrespondenceJohn L. BennettEmail: [email protected]



Bluckert, P. (2006). Psychological dimensions of executivecoaching. London: Open University Press.

Baron, L. & Morin, L. (2009). The coach-coacheerelationship in executive coaching: A field study.Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(1),85–106. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20009

Bennett, J.L. & Bush, M.W. (2014). Coaching forchange. New York: Routledge.

Blake-Beard, S., Bayne, M.L., Crosby, F.J. & Muller,C.B. (2011). Matching by race and gender inmentoring relationships: Keeping our eyes onthe prize. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 622–643.doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01717.x

Boyce, L.A., Jackson, R.J. & Neal, L.J. (2010). Build-ing successful leadership coaching relationships:Examining impact of matching criteria in a lead-ership coaching programme. Journal of Manage-ment Development, 29, 914–931.doi:10.1108/02621711011084231

Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and researchdesign: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.).Los Angeles: Sage.

de Haan, E., Duckworth, A., Birch, D. & Jones, C.(2013). Executive coaching outcome research:The contribution of common factors such as rela-tionship, personality match, and self-efficacy.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,65, 40–57. doi:10.1037/a0031635

Ellinger, A.D., Hamlin, R.G. & Beattie, R.S. (2008).Coaching, HRD, and OD: Towards three ‘silo’fields of practice or a single ‘unified’ profession?Online Submission. ERIC, EBSCOhost (accessed 2 August 2014).

Grant, A.M. (2005). What is evidence-based execu-tive, workplace and life coaching? In A.M. Grant,M. Cavanagh & T. Kemp (Eds.), Evidence-basedcoaching (Vol. 1, pp.1–12). Bowen Hills, QLD:Australian Academic Press.

Grant, A.M. (2014). Autonomy support, relationshipsatisfaction and goal focus in the coach-coacheerelationship: Which best predicts coachingsuccess? Coaching: An International Journal ofTheory, Research and Practice, 7(1), 18–38.doi:10.1080/17521882.2013.850106

Gray, D.E., Ekinci, Y. & Goregaokar, H. (2011a). A five-dimensional model of attributes: Someprecursors of executive coach selection. Interna-tional Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(4),415–428.

Gray, D.E., Ekinci, Y. & Goregaokar, H. (2011b).Coaching SME managers: Business developmentor personal therapy? A mixed methods study.International Journal of Human Resource Manage-ment, 22(4), 863–882.doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.555129

International Coaching Federation (2012). ICF globalcoaching study: Executive summary. Lexington, KY:International Coaching Federation. Retrievedfrom: http://icf.files.cmsplus.com/includes/media/docs/2012ICFGlobalCoachingStudy-ExecutiveSummary.pdf

Jarvis, J. (2004). Coaching and buying coaching services.London: CIPD.

Kauffman, C. & Coutu, D. (2009). The realities ofexecutive coaching. Harvard Business Review: HBRResearch Report, 1–25.

Kombarakaran, F.A., Yang, J.A., Baker, M.N. &Fernandes, P.B. (2008). Executive coaching: It works! Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice andResearch, 60(1), 78–90.doi:10.1037/1065-9293.60.1.78

Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An integrative approach (2nd ed., Vol. 41). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McLean, P. (2012). The completely revised handbook ofcoaching. A developmental approach. Santa Barbara,CA: Hudson Press.

McGovern, J., Lindemann, M., Vergara, M., Murphy,S., Barker, L. & Warrenfeltz, R. (2001). Maximis-ing the impact of executive coaching. ManchesterReview, 6(1), 2001. http://www.evolve-coach-ing.com/uploads/ManchesterReview_Maximis-ing_Impactof_Exec_Coaching.pdf

Riddle, D., Zan, L. & Kuzmycz, D. (2009). Issues andobservations – five myths about executive coach-ing. Leadership in Action, 29(5), 19–21.

Scoular, A. & Linley, P.A. (2006). Coaching, goal-setting and personality type: What matters? The Coaching Psychologist, 2, 9–11.

Stern, L. (2004). Executive coaching: A working defi-nition. Consulting Psychology Journal, 56, 154–162.

Stevens, J.H. (2005). Executive coaching from theexecutive’s perspective. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 54, 274–285.

Stewart, L.J., Palmer, S., Wilkin, H. & Kerrin, M.(2008). The influence of character: Does person-ality impact coaching success? International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring,6(1), 32–42.

Thompson, H.B., Bear, D.J., Dennis, D.J., Vickers, M.,London, J. & Morrison, C.L. (2008). Coaching: A global study of successful practices. Retrieved 29 June 2008, from: American ManagementAssociation website:http://www.amanetorg/research/pdfs/i4cp-coaching.pdf

Underhill, B., McAnally, K., Bastian, C, Desrosiers, E.,Golay, L. & Tuller, M. (2013). Executive coachingindustry research. CoachSource. Retrieved from:http://www.coachsource.com/research



References

T THE HEART OF INTERVIEWINGis an interest in understandingpeoples’ experience and the mean-

ing they make of it (Knox & Burkard, 2009,p.2) and the value of qualitative interviewingin coaching psychology research is widelyrecognised (de Haan & Nieß, 2012; Greif,2007). While researchers may believe thattheir interviews are free of prejudice andpresupposition, the wording of a questioncan inadvertently influence an interviewee’srecall and response (Loftus, 1975). Forexample, in a study of coaching outcomestwo questions were asked about the

perceived benefits of the programme and‘this may have inadvertently precludedparticipants from identifying unhelpfulaspects of the coaching programme.’ (Grant,2013, p.19).

While O’Broin and Palmer (2010) usedsemi-structured Repertory Grid interviewsbased on Personal Construct theory, theirwording is drawn from existing evidence-informed literature (p.125). Many of theirprobe questions contain strong researchermetaphors (e.g. ‘handle a rupture’) andpresuppositions (e.g. ‘how important is thecoach-client relationship to outcome?’,


Using Clean Language to explore thesubjectivity of coachees’ experience and outcomesSusie Linder-Pelz & James Lawley

Objectives: This paper aims to contribute methodologically and substantively to understanding how coacheesexperience and evaluate coaching. First, we explore the use of ‘Clean Language’ as a phenomenologicalapproach to coaching research, including the eliciting and analysing of data into findings and insights forcoaches and coach trainers (Tosey et al., 2014, p.630). Second, we explore the nature of events, effects,evaluations and outcomes reported by coachees after a single coaching session.Design: Three coaches accredited in the same coaching methodology each delivered a single session to tworandomly allocated coachees. The coachees were subsequently interviewed twice using Clean Language, inperson two days after the coaching and by telephone two weeks later.Methodology: The transcribed follow-up interviews were analysed by an expert in Clean Language (thesecond author), using a form of thematic analysis within a realist/essentialist paradigm (Braun & Clarke,2006, p.85).Findings: The interviews elicited detailed information on many aspects of coaching without the interviewerintroducing any topics. Coachees’ events, effects and evaluations happened during the coaching session,between that session and the first interview, and during the two weeks between the first and second interviews.Coachees emphasised coaches’ style of repeating back, pacing, setting goals and questioning, maintainingthe focus of the session, confronting and challenging, as well as their responsiveness (or lack of it). Increasedself-awareness was mentioned by all coachees. Outcomes occurring after the session were maintained twoweeks later, at which time new outcomes were also reported. Conclusions: Clean Language Interviewing supplements and extends existing methods of phenomenologicalinterviewing and data coding. The study yielded nuanced findings on the coach behaviours that led coacheesto give favourable versus unfavourable evaluations, with implications for coaching psychologists with regardin particular to coaches’ ability to calibrate and respond to coachees’ ongoing evaluation of the coaching, thepace of the session and how the timing of coachees’ feedback affects the findings.Keywords: Clean Language Interviewing; phenomenological research; coachees’ experience; coachingoutcomes; coach training; coaching evaluation.

A

p.143). This last statement presupposes acausal link between the relationship and theoutcome; it also presupposes that the link isimportant. The interviewee is, therefore,more likely to answer within this specifiedframe – whether or not they held this beliefbeforehand.

Passmore (2010) used a semi-structuredinterview method centred around six prede-fined themes (p.51). Unfortunately he doesnot give examples of the precise wording ofthe additional prompts and questions askedto stimulate interviewees to respond, so wecannot know whether the interviewer intro-duced questions whose syntax inadvertentlyled or constrained the interviewee’s answers.This could cast doubt on the authenticity ofthe data.

‘The coaching psychologist … needs tobe aware of the effects of different questionsand the most appropriate timing for each’(Hieker & Huffington, 2006, p.48). ‘Eventhe subtlest instantiation of a metaphor (viaa single word) can have a powerful influence[and furthermore] the influence of themetaphorical framing effect is covert: peopledo not recognise metaphors as influential’(Thibodeau & Boroditsky, 2011, p.1).‘People’ in this context includes both inter-viewer and interviewee.

Clean Language was developed from theclinical work of David Grove (Grove &Panzer, 1989) and extended into other areassuch as management development, organisa-tional change and education (Lawley &Tompkins, 2000). By paying careful atten-tion to their language, researchers canminimise undesired influence and unin-tended bias during all stages of research –design, data gathering, analysis and report-ing (Van Helsdingen & Lawley, 2012). Inparticular, Clean Language can refine inter-viewing by minimising the introduction ofresearchers’ metaphors and constructs(Tosey et al., 2014).

The Clean Language interviewing (CLI)method fits within a phenomenologicalmethodology (Owen, 1989; Tosey, 2011;Worth, 2012) which addresses widely recog-

nised difficulties in the process of exploringand explicating a person’s self (Greif, 2007,p.223). CLI is also grounded in NLP-basedmodelling (Tosey & Mathison, 2010) behindwhich are constructivist and systemicassumptions (Linder-Pelz, 2010, pp.81–82).The intent of Clean Language is akin to thepractice of ‘bracketing’ in other phenome-nological research; it is an attempt tosuspend prior knowledge or belief about thephenomenon under study (Tosey et al.,2014, p.633; Vansickel-Peterson, 2010, p.56).

A comparison with the establishedphenomenological method InterpretivePhenomenological Analysis (IPA) is instruc-tive. Both CLI and IPA aim to explore andunderstand meaning-making. With IPA theresearcher is active in interpreting the partic-ipant’s experiences; by contrast CLI aims tofacilitate interviewees by restricting inter-viewer interpretation, impositions or effectsespecially because ‘individuals may havedifficulties reporting what they are thinkingor/and they may not want to self-disclose’(Gyllensten & Palmer, 2007, p.170). WhileCLI restricts interviewer influence it doesnot eliminate it; the interviewer is still select-ing aspects of the interviewee’s descriptionto focus on, the Clean Language questions toask and how to ask them.

Clean Language also offers an alternativeto the semi-structured interview methodwhich explicitly centres on themes (Braun &Clarke, 2006, p.94; Passmore 2010, p.51). Bybeing more attuned to the individual inter-viewee rather than following the same pathfor all respondents, Clean Language canenhance rapport and mitigate against thepossibility that findings may misrepresentparticipants’ authentic responses (Tosey etal., 2014, p.641). The adherence to a strictprotocol prevents the interviewer from intro-ducing into the conversation content orleading questions such as, ‘Have you everexperienced something that felt like a“critical moment” … an exciting, tense orsignificant moment?’ (de Haan et al., 2010,p.8). This ensures that the descriptionsobtained are sourced exclusively in the inter-


Susie Linder-Pelz & James Lawley

viewee’s personal vocabulary and experi-ence. However, Clean Language is notappropriate where the interviewer is aimingto co-create meaning (Tosey et al., 2014,p.641).

One application of Clean Languageinterviewing is to facilitate interviewees todescribe ‘what’ and ‘how’ they evaluate anexperience (Lawley & Tompkins, 2011). Itcan address what Hall (2013) calls ‘evalua-tive vagueness’ where researchers often onlyget the ‘bottom line’ of a person’s evalua-tions and do not know the criteria by whichthe person made those judgments. HenceCLI could be used by coaching psychologistswho want to better understand how coacheesevaluate coaching (de Haan et al., 2011).

Research questionsThe two research questions addressed in thispaper arise from the potential of CLI toexplore in detail how coachees evaluate.1. Does Clean Language interviewing of

coachees about their experience andevaluation of coaching yield insights forcoaches and trainers of coaching?

2. What events, effects and outcomes,during and after a single coachingsession, do coachees use to evaluatecoaching?

MethodologyThis paper reports on part of a mixedmethod study which triangulated the viewsof coaches, coachees and a coach trainer/expert with regard to single coaching ‘break-through’ sessions (Lawley & Linder-Pelz,2014). Six new/naive volunteer coacheeswere randomly assigned to one of three prac-tising coaches certified in the same coachingmethodology. Convenience and purposivesampling was used via a request from thelead researcher to colleagues and acquain-tances. Each coachee participated in a singlecoaching session and two subsequent CleanLanguage interviews, all of which wererecorded. The participants were unknown tothe coaches and the interviewer.

The coaching method adopted was Meta-Coaching, a goal-oriented coachingmethodology based explicitly on cognitive-behavioural psychology (Linder-Pelz & Hall,2008). We chose this method because Meta-Coaches are trained and assessed in specific,benchmarked competencies as a require-ment for certification (Hall, 2011; Linder-Pelz, 2014). There is no unanimity as towhether coaching method plays a part ineffectiveness (Grant et al., 2010); neither isthere unanimity regarding what specificbehaviours constitute competency in coach-coachee relationship skills such as listening(Passmore & Fillery-Travis, 2011). Hence it isreasonable to expect that studying a singlecoaching method would reduce the variabil-ity compared to using coaches with differentapproaches and requiring different expertsto assess their competencies.

Expecting within-coach variability as wellas between-coach variability – and givenresource constraints – we recruited threecoaches and six coachees in order to explorewhether or not coaching skills related to thecoachees’ experiences and evaluations.

We developed protocols for selecting andbriefing coaches and coachees as well as fordata collection and for the analysis of theClean Language interviews. These are available at: www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/350/.

The coachesThe three coaches had demonstrated coach-ing competency, having been certified by theMeta-Coaching benchmarking system(Linder-Pelz, 2014). The core Meta-Coach-ing skills are listening, supporting, question-ing, meta-questioning, inducing states andgiving and receiving feedback (Hall, 2011).All coaches were women aged in their 30sand 40s, running their own practices withpaying clients and active in Meta-Coachtraining and mentoring programmes. Theirtask was to conduct a single 90 minute Meta-Coaching session with two randomly allo-cated coachees.


Using Clean Language to explore the subjectivity of coachees’ experience and outcomes

CoacheesGiven that there would be variability in ages,genders and prior experience of changework, we recruited six coachees. Theycomprised a convenient and purposively-selected group of volunteers who met ourcriteria of: (1) having no prior experience ofMeta-Coaching; (2) having something mean-ingful they wanted to change in their life; (3)not currently seeing a coach, psychologist orpsychotherapist; and (4) never having beendiagnosed with a major psychological distur-bance. All were aged from mid-30s to early60s, five were women, three had had previ-ous coaching or counselling and two hadsome prior experience of NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) on which Meta-Coaching is based. The topics they chose towork with included health, building abusiness, confidence at work, self-worth, arelationship concern and managing money.All gave informed consent to the recordingand use of their interviews on the conditionof anonymity. Although small, the samplesize was sufficient for the purpose of investi-gating the value of the CLI method andexploring the resultant findings (Tosey et al.,2014, p.634).

ProceduresThe coaching sessions all took place on thesame day in an office setting that was not anyof the coaches’ work premises. The firstinterviews using Clean Language took placein person two days after the coaching sessionand lasted, after preliminaries, for between37 and 51 minutes. The second interview, bytelephone, was two weeks later and tookbetween 10 and 22 minutes. All interviewswere audio-recorded and transcribed.Coachees were informed that their coachwould not be privy to anything said in theinterviews.

Clean Language InterviewsUsing Clean Language as an interviewmethodology meant that the intervieweraimed to not introduce any topic or contentinto the conversation, ensuring that the

descriptions obtained were sourced exclu-sively in the interviewee’s personal vocabu-lary and experience.

Analysing the interviewsThe method of analysis (see Appendix)followed the stages of thematic analysis:familiarisation with the data, generatinginitial codes, searching for themes, thenreviewing, defining and naming themes(Braun & Clarke, 2006, p.87). However, anew method was employed in Stage 2,‘generating initial codes’, where the analystdistinguished between items that were‘events’, ‘effects’, ‘outcomes’ and ‘evalua-tions’ from each coachee’s perspective. An ‘event’is a description of what happens during thecoaching session, an ‘effect’ is the impact onthe coachee during the session, an‘outcome’ is an effect that happens after thesession and an ‘evaluation’ involves thecoachee making a favourable orunfavourable assessment of the experience.We prefer the terms ‘favourable’ (expressingapproval) and ‘unfavourable’ to ‘positive’and ‘negative’ because the former retain thesense of being the interviewee’s preferencesrather than an external observer’s assump-tions. Our findings show that favourableevaluations are not necessarily tied to benefi-cial outcomes and unfavourable evaluationsdo not necessarily result in adverseoutcomes.

Examples from two coachees on the sametopic of ‘coach neutrality’ illustrate the datacoding:

I liked the way that she stayed veryneutral [favourable EVALUATION ofEVENT]. It was soothing, calming[favourable EVALUATION of EFFECT].If I did drop a bomb [or] say somethingthat was quite personal [EVENT], Icouldn’t see it anywhere on her face or inher speech. She wasn’t moved in any way[EVENT]. I appreciated that [and]didn’t feel judged [favourable EVALUA-TION & EFFECT].



I admire that … she could maintain thatneutrality [favourable EVALUATION ofEVENT] … But I will say on the otherhand … I did feel like there was a lack of rapport in that sense [unfavourableEVALUATION of EFFECT].

The coachee’s evaluation – and whether it isfavourable or unfavourable – can be explicitor implicit. In the first example above, ‘I liked’ and ‘I appreciated’ clearly indicatefavourable evaluations, while ‘soothing andcalming’ and ‘didn’t feel judged’ imply afavourable evaluation because it is a ourassumption that the coachee considers thesequalities to be desirable.

The detailed analysis was undertaken bythe second author and can be considereddependable (Mays & Pope, 1995, p.112) ortrustworthy (Sousa, 2014, p.213; Worth,2012, p.70) because of adherence to proto-cols, adequacy of data, audit trail and therepeated reflexive discussions between theanalyst and the first author. The Appendixshows the systematic steps taken by theanalyst, which could be replicated by some-one else trained in the method.

Findings The identified events, effects, outcomes andevaluations of the coaching were separatedinto five time frames, depending on whenthe interviewees reported they occurred: atthe beginning of the session, throughout thesession, towards the end of the session, in thefirst two days after the session (i.e. before thefirst interview) and in the two weeks betweenthe first and second interviews.

The findings are presented in order oftime frame and are illustrated with quotesselected from all six coachees. These find-ings need to be considered in the context ofthe interviewees’ overall assessment of theircoaching; we show elsewhere that allcoachees evaluated their session highly andthat their numerical ratings and verbalreports shed further light on how they evalu-ated the effects (Lawley & Linder-Pelz,2014).

Beginnings of sessionsFour of the six coachees referred inunfavourable terms to coach behaviouroccurring in the first 30 minutes of thecoaching session. Words were repeated backtoo often, the overall pace was too fast or tooslow and the manner of goal setting toodirect. However, only one of these coacheessaid that the disliked behaviour affected thefinal evaluation.

Repeating back words and managing the pace ofthe sessionThese four coachees found the manner andfrequency with which their words wererepeated back at the beginning of thesession ‘irritating’, ‘just constant’, ‘distract-ing’ or ‘a bit repetitive’. However, thecoachees reported that after 20 to 30minutes their coaches did more than simplyreflect what was said; the coaches were‘listening for what was going on underneath’and ‘had the thread of where I was going’,which received favourable evaluations.

Three of these four coachees also did notappreciate the speed of the beginning of thesession. It either ‘went at a very rapid pace’or was ‘a little bit slow’. One coachee wasthinking: ‘Come on, let’s move on and talkabout something’. Again, the opinion ofthese coachees changed as the coachingsession progressed.

Goal settingThree coachees had difficulties with theircoach’s approach to goal setting. Beingasked, ‘What do you think we can achieve?’was for one coachee ‘very difficult because I don’t like to commit myself on a path.’Similarly, another ‘didn’t want to pre-emptthe endpoint; I wanted to go on the journeyand find out where the endpoint was.’ Whena third coachee was asked, ‘If there was onething that could change your life, yourworld, for the next year, what would that be?’the coachee thought, ‘Wow, that’s a big ques-tion; it set some expectations that I felt like I wasn’t sure I lived up to.’ However, overall,these three coachees all evaluated their



sessions highly, sometimes achieving morethan they had expected.

Throughout the sessionThere were six commonalities – occurring atvarying times during the session – thatcoachees indicated contributed to their eval-uations: their increase in self-awareness, thecoaches’ style, responsiveness, questioning,maintenance of focus and confronting orchallenging. Five coachees mentioned allthese factors while the sixth coacheementioned five of the factors.

Self-awarenessIncreased self-awareness was mentioned byall coachees and was described variously as‘greater awareness’, ‘realisation’, ‘insight’,‘aha moment’, ‘self-discovery’ and ‘lookingat myself in the mirror’. While the kind ofexperience appears similar, what coacheesfound revealing varied widely: ‘patterns’, therelevance of ‘events in my life’, ‘why I’vedone things and why I haven’t’, ‘getting apayoff from the problem behaviour’, ‘thingsthat are not working for me’ and ‘having theexperience of imagining myself without thehang-ups’.

Some recognised these moments as turn-ing points; for others they contributed moregenerally. One coachee used words associ-ated with self-awareness 31 times in the firstinterview while another realised in the twoweeks after the session that even increasedself-awareness ‘can have a downside too; I was not aware of the limitations that thoseother people placed on my behaviour until I developed this heightened awareness’.

Coach styleThe interviewees recognised the relation-ship-building qualities their coaches exhib-ited. There were numerous commentshighlighting coach qualities. One from eachinterviewee is presented here:

Very engaging, natural, warm, sincere;Saw me as a whole person; Made me feel extremely at ease; Comfortable with whatever was said;

Neutral throughout the whole session;Sympathetic, not judgemental.

The effects were: You could be yourself;A sense of being listened to for what wasgoing on underneath;Not embarrassed;Like talking to someone at a coffee shop;Not feeling judged;Trust and could bare your soul.

Even though one coachee ‘…reallygenuinely liked that style of coaching; betterthan the other stuff I got which was rubbishcrap coaching’, there was repeated concernthat ‘… because [the coach] was being soneutral, I did feel like there was a lack ofrapport. Maybe I did hold myself back… I don’t know whether that would havechanged the outcome.’

Coach responsiveness All coachees commented on how the coachresponded to key things that did (or did not)happen; four remarked when it worked welland all six remarked when it didn’t. Forexample:

It was really pertinent to me that thecoach picked up that that was reallyimportant to me and chose to go withthat. [The coach] highlighted certain wordsthat I wasn’t paying that much attentionto. She was paying a lot more attention tothe way that I framed things, which basi-cally just led me on that path to the end.

In addition, all coachees commented ontheir coach’s lack of responsiveness at onetime or another and found it unhelpful.

When I’m feeling vulnerable that I’mputting myself out there … I need otherpeople to validate that that’s ok. [It]ended up feeling a bit condescending.

She was asking me questions that I wouldgenerally want to think about before Igave an answer and I didn’t feel I had theopportunity to give it as much thought.



Sometimes I got stuck in ruts … I wouldhave liked [it] slightly more structured incertain parts.

QuestioningAll six coachees mentioned the style of ques-tioning. Most appreciated the quality of thequestions and the skill in asking those ques-tions:

Her questions forced me to look at myself;

The simplicity [of] the wording, the ques-tions, everything was quite basic; the tonewas really soothing, calming, which mademe respond the same way.

However, one coachee said that at times the‘questioning was too open in style’ andanother found it ‘a bit repetitive’.

Maintaining focusFive coachees valued the coaches’ ability tomaintain the purpose or focus of the sessionand bring their attention back to what wasimportant. ‘I had lost the link and [thecoach] brought it back’. When anothercoachee had ‘run out of steam’, the coach‘somehow managed to get it back on totrack’. Another talked of how in other coach-ing, ‘they have flitted right across my life’,while this coach ‘kept me really glued on theone path… I found that really awesome’.

Confronting and challenging Coachees were clearly sensitive to the degreeand style of challenging since it was directlyaddressed by five of them, sometimes instrong terms. The very first words of twocoachees in their interviews were, ‘It wasquite confronting’ and ‘Very confronting;she challenged me on just about everything I said.’ They all, however, appreciated thevalue of the challenge. Sometimes thishappened at the moment of challenge: ‘[It]actually stopped me there in my tracks and I had to rethink whether my behaviour actu-ally was giving me a payoff and that’s thepoint in the session where there was achange’. Sometimes appreciation of thechallenge happened after the session. On

reflection two weeks later, an intervieweesaid: ‘I realised perhaps the questions wereframed deliberately to turn the wholeprocess back on myself, I guess akin to look-ing at myself in the mirror and staring at it.’

By contrast, one coachee would haveliked more challenge. ‘I stayed in story forquite a long time. And the story was a bitsafe.’ The coach needed ‘to butt in’ and ‘getme out of story’.

Ending of sessionsAll six coachees had something to say abouthow their coach ended the session and, inparticular, the setting of tasks or ‘home-work’. While one interviewee commented onwhat worked (‘I left the session having devel-oped a strategy to be able to deal with thatconflict, which was extremely beneficial’)most focussed on what didn’t work and whatthey would have preferred instead. To givetwo examples:

[The coach] wanted to really nail medown. But in my heart it was still like ‘I may or may not do that. I’ll promiseyou I’ll do it today but in my head I don’tknow that I can’.[The task] didn’t deal with the reality, thepracticality [of life]. If we [had] talked abit more about what obstacles might getin my way for actually doing it, I wouldhave been more clear at the time aboutwhat else I was going to do.

This matches previous findings thatcoachees had mixed responses to takeawaytasks. Passmore (2010, p.55) suggests thatwhere the task was reflective, coacheesexpressed value in the task; more action-orientation tasks were less valued. WhilePassmore links the variability to manage-ment seniority, our findings suggest theremay be other, more general, factors involved.

Outcomes after the coachingAn outcome in coaching is an effect thathappens after the session. Every coachingsession in this study had beneficial outcomesand, at minimum, these were maintained forthe next two weeks. By that time, five of the





Table 1: Some beneficial and adverse outcomes reported by interviewees as havinghappened after the coaching session.

Beneficial outcome Illustrative quote

In sleep and dreams The first night [after the session] I slept like a log … which is something I don’t do. …I remembered the dream vividly. [It] was about a catharsis, a cleansing, an emptying – that to me was something significant.

Reduced ‘negative’ [The problem] doesn’t send shivers through my body any more.feelings

Increased ‘positive’ Something has shifted that has allowed me to be more confident.feelings and thoughts

Taken action Now that I’ve actually done some action, that helps. I’m happy.

Increased motivation Before it was a chore, and now it was like ‘Ok, I’ll wake up early and I’ll do this’.

Developing new I am trying to develop strategies to deal with those changes, and that’s strategy an ongoing process.

Change in attitude I was just much more open-minded towards what the options were.

New desired outcome Because I have that clarity from that coaching session, other things have come up and now I want more clarity.

New behaviour I am treating [my husband] differently.

Increased awareness I use that awareness [from the coaching session] to help me to act rather than react.

Adverse outcome Illustrative quote

Concern change By the time I walked out of [the coaching session] I had no doubt in my would not last mind that that’s locked in, [but] it’s floating at the moment.

Increase in ‘negative’ The downside is that I have become far more aware of a lot of other feelings things which are causing frustration.

six coachees could also report new beneficialoutcomes. Of the 38 outcomes described asoccurring after the coaching session, 36 werereported as beneficial and two adverse. A selection is given in Table 1.

Changes in outcomesAt the first interview, two days after thecoaching, four coachees reported experienc-ing beneficial outcomes, one reported botha beneficial and an adverse outcome, andone reported that the beneficial effect of thesession had been maintained with no furtheroutcomes noticed.

At the second follow-up interview twoweeks later, three interviewees reported expe-riencing further beneficial outcomes and twoothers said that the beneficial outcomesreported two weeks earlier were maintained(although one of these had also experienceda new adverse outcome). The sixth intervie-wee said that there had been no change sincethe first interview. Table 2 summarises foreach interviewee the changes in outcomesexperienced after the coaching session.

Table 2 shows five different profiles ofoutcome changes among the six coachees.This diversity highlights the individuality ofthe responses coachees can experience inthe two weeks following a coaching session.

Discussion Interviewer as researcherThis study included processes that mighthave affected the outcomes (de Haan &Duckworth, 2013, p.12). Given the secondauthor was both interviewer and analyst, heminimised ‘over involvement’ due to hisdual roles (Allmark et al., 2009, p.7) and thepossible influence on coachees’ responses ofbeing interviewed (Brannick & Coghlan,2007; Shamai, 2003) by explaining to inter-viewees the purpose of the interviews andsticking closely to the Clean Language inter-viewing protocol. At the end of the secondinterview, the interviewer asked eachcoachee to comment on the interviews them-selves. Three mentioned the extra value theyreceived over and above the coaching: ‘Itgave different insight into what was goingon’, ‘It added another layer of reinforce-ment about what had happened in thecoaching session’ and ‘That is probablywhere I really did crystallise that idea’.Clearly we could not avoid some ‘intervieweffect’, namely, that the interview inevitablyprompted some new sense-making.

Issues of rigourTo check the ‘cleanness’ of the interviews,we invited nine experienced CleanLanguage practitioners and researchers,working in teams, to give each of the inter-viewer’s questions and statements a

‘clean-ness rating’ (classically clean, contex-tually clean, mildly leading or strongly lead-ing). The tabulated results were used toarrive at an overall assessment for each inter-view. The reviewers found that, on average,the interviewer contributed 50 questions orstatements in each interview, 40 of whichwere classically or contextually clean, eightmildly leading and two strongly leading.While this was not quite as ‘clean’ as otherClean Language-based research (Tosey et.al., 2014), the reviewers concluded that theinterviews substantially adhered to the CLIprotocol and were, therefore, fit for thepurpose of this research.

The research approach and analysis werecongruent with the research questions (Passmore & Fillery-Travis, 2011, p.80).While the aim of the study was to investigateCLI as a means to explore coachees’ experi-ences of coaching rather than to draw gener-alisable conclusions, our findings may havesome validity or transferability for contextsof ‘proximal similarity’ (Polit & Beck, 2010,p.1453), such as other goal-oriented coach-ing practices to which coachees bring health,career, business and relationship concerns.As a study that analyses the data according toconceptual themes, it provides some‘evidence-for-practice’ despite being limitedby a lack of diversity in the sample (Daly etal., 2007, p.43).



Table 2: Summary of changes in outcomes reported by each interviewee after the coaching.

Coachee Two days after coaching Two weeks after coaching

1 Beneficial effect of session maintained Beneficial effect of session maintained with no further outcomes with no further outcomes

2 Beneficial outcome + Adverse outcome More beneficial outcomes

3 Beneficial outcomes Beneficial outcomes maintained + Adverse outcome

4 Beneficial outcomes Beneficial outcome maintained

5 Beneficial outcomes More beneficial outcomes

6 Beneficial outcomes More beneficial outcomes

As explained earlier, the analysis andinterpretation of the interviews can beconsidered trustworthy because of thedesign, protocols, adequacy of data, audittrail and repeated reflexive review of theanalysis. That said, trustworthiness will beenhanced (or not) when similar studies areundertaken by other Clean Language inter-viewers and analysts. While longitudinalstudies of three months or more may in prin-ciple be preferable, it is worth consideringthat the extra lapsed time may make it diffi-cult for coachees to separate the effects of asingle session from other things thathappened in the meantime.

Addressing the research questionsQuestion 1. The first research questionasked whether Clean Language interviewingof coachees about their experience and eval-uation of coaching yields insights forcoaches and trainers of coaching.

This paper reports many insights anddemonstrates CLI is useful for understand-ing coaching through the subjective lens ofthe coachee (de Haan et al., 2011, p.25).This suggests that existing evaluationmethods can be supplemented andextended through the use of CLI and thecoding of first-person accounts into events,effects, outcomes and evaluations.

Question 2. The second research questionasked what events, effects and outcomes –during and after a single coaching session –coachees used to evaluate coaching,

We found that coachees evaluated coachingin terms of relational events and effects. Manyother researchers have shown that the coach-ing relationship is a key factor in determin-ing how coachees perceive the outcome ofcoaching (de Haan & Duckworth, 2013).Relationship factors include trust, bond,engagement, collaboration and workingalliance (O’Broin & Palmer, 2010, p. 139);the present study supports and fleshes outthe association between working allianceand coachees’ outcomes (O’Broin & Palmer,

2010, p.137). The reports by coachees in thisstudy confirm the importance of such rela-tionship factors. Coachees said they wereunfavourably affected by their coaches’behaviour when:

Repeating coachee words back was over-done;The pace of the coachee was misjudged;Goal setting was too direct;Responsiveness to changes in thecoachee’s internal state was lacking; andTasking was inappropriate.

In addition, our findings indicate thatcoachees’ evaluation of the coaching wasfavourably influenced when coaches wereable to:

Display relationship qualities;Facilitate coachee’s self-awareness andinsights;Ask high-quality questions;Maintain the focus of the session;Respond to what was, and was not,happening; andChallenge and confront appropriately.

These findings confirm previous researchrelating to the value of increased self-aware-ness (Froese et al., 2011; Greif, 2007;Shamai, 2003), being challenged and theprovision of reflective space (Seamons,2006). It also supports the evidence thatboth challenge and support are needed foreffective coaching (Passmore & Fillery-Travis, 2011, p.81).

However, we did not find a single aspectof the coaching which every interviewee eval-uated the same way. There were always excep-tions – too much or too little self-awareness, toomuch or too little challenge, too much or too littlegoal setting. This suggests that while theseaspects are important, so is how they appliedat the time to the individual coachee.Coaches need to balance being engaging andbeing neutral, putting the coachee at easeand challenging them, not judging andconfronting, having a chat at a coffee shopand focusing on outcomes, and so on.

In all cases, the benefits accrued duringthe coaching sessions were maintained oradded to in the following two weeks.



However, the pattern of these post-sessionoutcomes showed no consistency (Table 2).It seems each coachee follows their own pathand it would be difficult to predict, on thebasis of what happened during the session,what additional changes will occur aftercoaching.

Implications for coach practice and trainingThe importance of recognising phenomenarelated to the beginning, middle and endstages of a coaching journey (de Haan &Nieß, 2012, p.12) also seems to apply to asingle coaching conversation. Coach train-ings may need to address coaches’ ability tocalibrate and respond to coachees’ ongoingevaluation of the coaching, the pace of thesession and how the timing of coachees’feedback affects the findings.

Much of the coachees’ feedback seemedto be about calibration and responsiveness.O’Broin and Palmer (2009) have docu-mented the theoretical basis for bond, taskand collaboration in the coaching allianceand the cognitive-behavioural dynamicsthereof. Using skills of calibration (Linder-Pelz, 2010, p.22; Tompkins & Lawley, 2011)coaches can, for example, get clues that thecoachee wants less repeating back, wants thepace to change or has had an insight.Responsiveness is the ability to then act effec-tively. Together, calibration and responsive-ness form a complex competency thatinvolves noticing shifts in coachee behaviourand language, gauging his or her internalstate and evaluations, creating questionsrelated to those calibrations and tracking thedirection of the session – all without allowingone’s own internal commentary, interpreta-tion or mind-reading to override thecoachee’s experience.

More time and attention could be allo-cated in coach trainings to the ending stageof coaching sessions, in particular to how toformulate takeaway tasks appreciated by thecoachee. Time needs to be given to collabo-ratively designing these tasks.

Passmore (2010, p.49) asks what coachingpsychologists need to learn to be effective.

The present study suggests that they need tolearn how coachees evaluate coaching and tocalibrate coachees’ in-the-moment responsesso that their interventions are moreinformed by what their coachees regard asimportant. Coaches need to be aware thatthey can be considerably out of step withtheir coachees in terms of the pace at thebeginning of the session, their degree ofconfrontation and their suggestions for take-away tasks.

What happens after a session is a vitalaspect of the value of the coaching. Giventhat most of the coachees in this study saidthey benefitted from the review of their eval-uations during the follow-up interviews,coach training could support coaches tolearn how to seek this kind of informationmore directly; this can be done during thefirst coaching session when coach andcoachee do not know each other well, and insubsequent sessions.

Further researchClean Language interviewing techniquescould provide researchers with moredetailed accounts of coachees’ experiencesof difficult-to-define aspects of coachingsuch as ‘balancing challenge and support’,‘stimulating problem-solving’, ‘effectivecommunication’, ‘staying focused’ (Pass-more, 2010) and the association between‘working alliance’ and coachee outcomes(O’Broin & Palmer, 2010, p.137).

A research methodology similar to theone described in this paper could beemployed to establish coachee evaluations ofsecond and subsequent coaching sessions. Itcould also be used in a longitudinal study tolook at how coachees perceive the outcomesof coaching after a series of coachingsessions has ended.

In addition, the use of video coupled withcoachee accounts of a session could shedlight on the clues that a session is or is notworking well for the coachee. In a similarway, coaches’ experience of the coachingprocess could be investigated.



While further study is needed, the poten-tial of CLI as a method for evaluatingcoachees’ experience has been demon-strated. Ongoing qualitative studies like thiswill enable the coaching profession to learnfrom exceptions to the coaching experienceas well as from averages and generalisation.

The AuthorsDr Susie Linder-Pelz Independent researcher and director ofGood Decisions, Sydney.Email: [email protected]

James Lawley Independent researcher and partner in The Developing Company, LondonEmail: [email protected]



ReferencesAllmark, P., Boote, J., Chambers, E., Clarke, A.,

McDonnell, A., Thompson, A. & Tod, A.M.(2009). Ethical issues in the use of in-depth inter-views: Literature review and discussion. ResearchEthics Review, 5, 48–54.

Brannick, T. & Coghlan, D. (2007). In defense ofbeing ‘native’: The case for insider academicresearch. Organisational Research Methods, 10(1),59–74.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analy-sis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3(2), 77–101.

Daly, J., Willis, K., Small, R., Green, J., Welch, N.,Kealy, M. & Hughes, E. (2007). A hierarchy ofevidence for assessing qualitative healthresearch. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1),43–49.

de Haan, E., Bertie, C., Day, A. & Sills, C. (2010).Critical moments of clients of coaching: Towardsa ‘client model’ of executive coaching. Academy ofManagement Learning & Education, 9.4, 1–31.

de Haan, E., Culpin, V. & Curd, J. (2011). Executivecoaching in practice: What determines helpful-ness for clients of coaching? Personnel Review,40(1), 24–44.

de Haan, E. & Duckworth, A. (2013). Signalling anew trend in executive coaching outcomeresearch. International Coaching Psychology Review,8(1), 6–19.

de Haan, E. & Nieß, C. (2012). Critical moments in acoaching case study: Illustration of a processresearch model. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 64(3), 198–224.

Froese, T., Gould, C. & Barrett, A. (2011). Reviewingfrom within: A commentary on first- and second-person methods in the science of consciousness.Constructivist Foundations, 6(2), 254–269.

Grant, A.M. (2013). The efficacy of executive coach-ing in times of organisational change. Journal ofChange Management (ahead-of-print), 1–23.

Greif, S. (2007). Advances in research on coachingoutcomes. International Coaching PsychologyReview, 2(3), 222–249.

Grove, D.J. & Panzer, B.I. (1989). Resolving traumaticmemories: Metaphors and symbols in psychotherapy.New York: Irvington Publishers Inc.

Gyllensten, K. & Palmer, S. (2007). The coachingrelationship: An interpretive phenomenologicalanalysis. International Coaching Psychology Review,2(2), 168–177.

Hall, L.M. (2011). Coaching mastery: Meta-Coachingmodule III, 2011 edition, certification training forACMC credentials. Grand Junction, CO: Neuro-Semantic Publications.

Hall, L.M. (2013). Evaluative vagueness in the coachingcontext. Message posted to E-Group for CertifiedMeta-Coaches, 9 January.

Hieker, C. & Huffington, C. (2006). Reflexive ques-tions in a coaching psychology context. Interna-tional Coaching Psychology Review, 1(2), 46–55.

Knox, S. & Burkard, A.W. (2009). Qualitativeresearch interviews. Psychotherapy Research,19(4–5), 566–575.

Lawley, J. & Linder-Pelz, S. (2014). ‘Evidence-based’ onwhat? Exploring coach, coachee and expert evaluationsof coaching. Manuscript submitted for publica-tion.

Lawley, J. & Tompkins, P. (2000). Metaphors in mind:Transformation through Symbolic Modelling.London: The Developing Company Press.

Lawley, J. & Tompkins, P. (2011). Clean EvaluativeInterviewing. Retrieved 16 November 2014, from:www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/317/

Linder-Pelz, S. (2010). NLP coaching: An evidence-basedapproach for coaches, leaders and individuals.London: Kogan Page Limited.

Linder-Pelz, S. (2014). Steps towards the benchmark-ing of coaches’ skills. International Journal ofEvidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 12(1),47–62.



Linder-Pelz, S. & Hall, L.M. (2008). Meta-Coaching:A methodology grounded in psychologicaltheory. International Journal of Evidence BasedCoaching and Mentoring, 6(1), 43–56.

Loftus, E.F. (1975). Leading questions and theeyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7,560–572.

Mays, N. & Pope, C. (1995). Rigour and qualitativeresearch. British Medical Journal, 311, 109–112.

O’Broin, A. & Palmer, S. (2009). Co-creating an opti-mal coaching alliance: A cognitive behaviouralcoaching perspective. International CoachingPsychology Review, 4(2), 184–194.

O’Broin, A. & Palmer, S. (2010). Exploring keyaspects in the formation of coaching relation-ships: Initial indicators from the perspective ofthe coachee and the coach. Coaching: An Interna-tional Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 3(2),124–143.

Owen, I.R. (1989). Beyond Carl Rogers: The work ofDavid Grove. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 4,186–196.

Passmore, J. (2010). A grounded theory study of thecoachee experience: The implications for train-ing and practice in coaching psychology. Interna-tional Coaching Psychology Review, 5(1), 48–62.

Passmore, J. & Fillery-Travis, A. (2011). A criticalreview of executive coaching research: A decadeof progress and what’s to come. Coaching: AnInternational Journal of Theory, Research andPractice, 4(2), 70–88.

Polit, D.F. & Beck, C.T. (2010). Generalisation inquantitative and qualitative research: Myths andstrategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies,47, 1451–1458.

Seamons, B.L. (2006). The most effective factors in exec-utive coaching engagements according to the coach, theclient, and the client’s boss. (PhD), Saybrook Grad-uate School and Research Center, California.(UMI Dissertations Publishing 3206219).

Shamai, M. (2003). Therapeutic effects of qualitativeresearch: Reconstructing the experience of treat-ment as a by-product of qualitative evaluation.The Social Service Review, 77(3), 455–467.

Sousa, D. (2014). Validation in qualitative research:General aspects and specificities of the descrip-tive phenomenological method. QualitativeResearch in Psychology, 11, 211–227.

Thibodeau, P.H. & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphorswe think with: The role of metaphor in reason-ing. PLoS ONE, 6(2), 16782.doi: 10.1371/Journal.

Tompkins, P. & Lawley, J. (2011). Calibrating whetherwhat you are doing is working – or not. Retrieved 16 November 2014, from:www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/308/

Tosey, P. (2011). ‘Symbolic Modelling’ as an innovativephenomenological method in HRD research: The work-life balance project. Paper presented at the 12thInternational Conference on HRD Practice andResearch across Europe, University of Glouster-shire, 25–27 May.

Tosey, P. Lawley, J. & Meese, R. (2014). Elicitingmetaphor through Clean Language: An innova-tion in qualitative research. British Journal ofManagement, 25(3), 629–646.

Tosey, P. & Mathison, J. (2010). Exploring inner land-scapes through psychophenomenology: Thecontribution of neuro-linguistic programming toinnovations in researching first-person experi-ence. Qualitative Research in Organisations andManagement, 5(1), 63–82.

van Helsdingen, A. & Lawley, J. (2012). ModellingShared Reality: Avoiding unintended influencein qualitative research. Kwalon: Journal of theNetherlands Association for Qualitative Research,1(3). Retrieved 16 November 2014, from:www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/328/

Vansickel-Peterson, D.L. (2010). Coaching efficacy withacademic leaders: A phenomenological investigation.Open Access Theses and Dissertations from theCollege of Education and Human Sciences.Paper 87. University of Nebraska, Lincoln.Retrieved 16 November 2014, from:http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsdiss/87

Worth, S-A. (2012). An exploration of coaching womentowards authenticity in the workplace: A heuristic studywith women in academia. (DCM), Oxford BrookesUniversity. Retrieved from:www.brookes.ac.uk/go/radar. Available from Oxford Brookes UniversityResearch Archive and Digital Asset Repositorydatabase.



AppendixMethodology of present study compared with Braun and Clarke’s phases of Thematic Analysis (2006).

Braun & Clarke’s Analysis of Clean Language InterviewsThematic Analysis 2006, p.87

1. Familiarise yourself with data. For each interview: Read and re-read to get general sense of each interviewee’s perspective. Noted how individuals expressed themselves and organised their experience, especially through metaphor.

2. Generate initial codes. For each interview:Coding interesting features in a Modelled the sentences of each interviewee separately, systematic fashion across the highlighting events, effects, outcomes and ‘favourable’entire data set, collating data or ‘unfavourable’ evaluation statements relevant to each code. (Tompkins and Lawley 2010, Lawley & Tompkins, 2011).

3. Search for themes. For each interview:Collating codes into potential a. Co-located ‘data extracts’ into clusters (‘candidate’) themes, gathering for each interviewee by:all data relevant to each potential – repetition (same words)theme. – restatement (same idea said in a different way)

– inherent logic (e.g. cause-effect)– sequence (when what happened).b. Added remainder of examples to ‘unallocated cluster’.c. Allocated ‘candidate theme’ names for clusters.

4a. Review Themes – Level 1 Across all data extracts:Checking if the themes work in a. Co-located examples of similar themes relation to the coded extracts (retain source of each quote).

b. Reviewed examples in ‘unallocated clusters’ for new clusters or allocated to an existing cluster.c. Retained remainder of examples in global ‘unallocated cluster’.

4b. Review Themes – Level 2 Across themes: a. Reviewed themes for ‘internal homogeneity’ – removed examples that no longer ‘fit’ and reallocated. b. Reviewed themes for ‘external heterogeneity’ – combined or split clusters that covered the same or different themes.c. Reviewed interviews to check original context and look for missed or misallocated data items.

5. Define and name themes: Across themes:Ongoing analysis to refine the a. Organised implicit structure inherent specifics of each theme, and the (e.g. the five time-frames of coachee evaluations)overall story the analysis tells, b. Defined ‘prevalence’ criteria for an ‘acceptable theme’ generating clear definitions and (e.g. example from at least three of the six interviewees).names for each theme. c. Settled on names for selected themes.

6. Produce Report Wrote up results with reference to research questions.

FOR THE LAST TWO DECADES wehave been witnessing unprecedentedgrowth of the coaching industry. Many

organisations invest in coaching pro-grammes. It seems, however, that the pace ofgrowing evidence of the added value ofcoaching that should come from research,does not yet match the speed of the imple-mentation of coaching programmes. Conse-quently many organisations aim to gathertheir own evidence about the effectiveness ofthese programmes to justify the return oninvestment. The London Deanery is onesuch organisation.

The London Deanery established aCoaching and Mentoring service for doctorsand dentists in London in 2008. The coacheswere trained by an established leadershipcoaching provider and their performancewas assessed at the end of the training. Theoutcome of the service was measured by indi-

vidual feedback from the service users.However, it was viewed that although thisprovided some data on how the service wasperforming, it was not sufficient to identifyany performance changes in the recipients.The service was publicly funded thus it wasimportant that it should be properly evalu-ated to ensure value for money. Preliminarywork looking at the literature evaluating thebenefits of coaching and mentoring did notreveal an established methodology forconducting such a review. The OxfordBrookes team of researchers won a biddingprocess for the research based on theirproposals for developing novel methodolo-gies for the evaluation of the service. Theaim of the study was to establish whether themeasures selected could identify changes inthe performance and attitudes of doctorsundergoing the coaching intervention, sinceultimately the purpose of the programme is


Evaluating a coaching and mentoringprogramme: Challenges and solutionsTatiana Bachkirova, Linet Arthur & Emma Reading

Objectives: This paper describes an independently conducted research study to develop appropriate measuresand evaluate the coaching/mentoring programme that the London Deanery had been running for over fiveyears. It also aims to explore specific challenges in the evaluation of a large-scale coaching programme andto suggest new solutions.Design: The challenges to evaluation included the need to use established but also context-relevant measuresand the need for a rigorous but also pragmatic design that took into account a number of practicalconstraints. Overall it was a mixed method research design consisting of a within-subject quantitative studywith support of a qualitative grounded theory methodology conducted in parallel. Method: The selected measures for the quantitative part of the study included employee engagement, self-efficacy and self-compassion. An additional questionnaire SWRQ (Specific Work-Related Questionnaire)was developed as the result of a qualitative investigation with stakeholder representatives. It included a self-estimation by the coached clients of the extent to which they could attribute each change to the coachingreceived rather than any other factor. The qualitative part of the study included interviews with stakeholdersand the analysis of responses to an open question in the SWRQ.Results: 120 (78 per cent) of matched responses pre- and post-coaching were analysed and seven stakeholdersinterviewed. The results of the quantitative and qualitative analysis show improvement in all chosen scales.The analysis also shows that coaching was a major contributor to these changes.Conclusions: The paper argues for the development of additional methods in outcome research on coachingprogrammes that are aligned with the main principles and philosophy of coaching as a practice.Keywords: Coaching; evaluation of coaching; outcome research.

to improve the effectiveness of doctors anddentists for the benefit of the patient.

It appears that the London Deanery taskis not dissimilar to questions asked by manyHRD practitioners. However, as Lawrenceand Whyte (2014) recently argued, thesepractitioners ‘have not yet collectively identi-fied a satisfactory approach to evaluating theefficacy of coaching’ (2014, p.6). This is notsurprising because the problem of measur-ing the impact of organisational interventionis not new: it has been actively discussedsince Kirkpatrick’s (1977) methodology forevaluating training programmes (e.g. Ely etal., 2010) but it is still debated, particularlyin relation to the evaluation of training(Passmore & Joao Velez, 2014). Kirkpatrickadmitted that it is extremely difficult, if notimpossible, to evaluate certain programmesin terms of the results (1977) because of thenumerous factors influencing the outcomes.Other authors continue to echo this conclu-sion (de Haan & Duckworth, 2012; Ely et al.,2010). A financial addition to Kirpartick’smethodology – ROI (Return on Investment)has been particularly critiqued in relation tocoaching with recent conclusions that arenot dissimilar to Kirpatrick’s premise (deHaan & Duckworth, 2012; De Meuse, 2009;Grant, 2012, 2013; Passmore & Fillery-Travis,2011; Theeboom et al., 2013).

The evaluation of coaching programmesis considered to be even more difficult thanthe evaluation of training programmes (deHaan & Duckworth, 2012; Ely et al., 2010;Grant, 2012). The problems are exacerbatedby a number of factors, such as the diversityof outcomes of coaching compared to therelatively fixed expectations of training; thehighly individual approach of the coach,which prevents more explicit knowledge ofthe process; the confidentiality thatsurrounds specific details of the goals andconsequent outcomes.

On the other hand, as coachingprogrammes tend to be expensive thereappears to be a stronger need to justify suchexpenditure, particularly in the publicsector. Therefore, in spite of the additional

costs involved in undertaking a full-scaleresearch study on assessing the effectivenessof a coaching programme, the LondonDeanery chose this option. However, suchevaluations face similar issues and obstaclesas large-scale outcome research projects onorganisational interventions (De Meuse etal., 2009; Passmore & Fillery-Travis, 2011;Theeboom et al., 2013), particularly the useof established paradigms. If traditional posi-tivist methodologies are considered as thegold standard of evaluation, there is adanger that the complexity of coachinginterventions may be overlooked (de Haan& Duckworth, 2012; Ely et al., 2010). Thispaper explores how some specific challengesof the evaluation of a large-scale coachingprogramme were addressed and will suggesta methodology that is more in line with thephilosophy of coaching. This will bediscussed together with the results of theactual evaluation.

Literature reviewWhile recognising that there are widerdebates on the evaluation of organisationalinterventions (for example, Passmore & JoaoVelez, 2014), this literature review is onlyfocused on the evaluation of effectiveness ofcoaching programmes. Typically this litera-ture addresses three main themes: (a) issuesof evaluation in principle depending on themain stakeholders; (b) most acceptablemethodologies of evaluation; and (c)specific measures of evaluation.

In relation to the general issues of evalua-tion Grant (2013) suggests that we need tostart with a question: ‘who is interested inevaluation – and why’ (2013, p.15). The firstgroup concerned with this question is thecoaches. On the one hand they wish coach-ing to be seen as effective for marketingpurposes; on the other hand, they are inter-ested in improving their practice. Purchasersof coaching ask the question of whethercoaching works because they want to know ifcoaching is cost-effective. Both coaches andpurchasers seem to have vested interests inthe results of evaluation. In comparison,


Tatiana Bachkirova, Linet Arthur & Emma Reading

researchers and academics are well placed toexplore the effectiveness of coaching usingrigorous research methods and are inter-ested in developing evidence-based practicefor coaching (Briner, 2012; Fillery-Travis &Lane, 2006; Passmore & Fillery-Travis, 2011).However, they are probably more thanothers aware of many difficulties in applyingscientifically respected methods to research-ing coaching practice (Drake, 2009; Ellam-Dyson, 2012; Ely et al., 2010; Grant, 2012).

One of the main problems is that manyof these research methods require signifi-cant oversimplification of the nature ofpractice. Coaching is a complex interventioninfluenced by the interplay of differentfactors such as the client’s attitude, coach’sskill, coach/client relationship, all of whichare subject to complex dynamics affected bycontextual issues (de Haan & Duckworth,2012; Ely et al., 2010). In addition if coach-ing is sponsored by an organisation it is diffi-cult to establish who the main provider ofinformation about the effectiveness ofcoaching should be: the client, the coach,the purchaser of the service or those on thereceiving end of the changes that are madeby the client. In terms of more specific issuesvarious authors also question a typicalassumption that coaches from differentbackgrounds, training and styles deliver thesame type of coaching and whether it ispossible to treat coaching as a homogeneousintervention, allowing general conclusionsto be drawn about its effectiveness (Thee-boom, 2013).

In terms of acceptable methodologies of eval-uation the literature confirms again multipleissues with different methodologies. It isaccepted that there are certain advantagesand disadvantages in each methodology.Grant (2013) differentiates as rigorous threetypes of outcome studies with an indicationof potential issues associated with them: l Case studies that can provide valuable

descriptive data but do not allow gener-alised evaluations or the comparison ofresults between different coaching inter-ventions.

l Within-subject outcome research whichallows comparison of the impact ofcoaching on a group of individuals. Thegroup is assessed before and after thecoaching interventions. This is the mostcommonly used study design in the liter-ature and can provide valuable quantita-tive data of change, but causation cannotbe attributed only to coaching.

l Between-subject and RandomisedControlled Studies, which are consideredby some to be the ‘gold standard’ partic-ularly in medical research. Although theycan measure change and relate it to theintervention, the utility of these designsfor studying coaching is contested (deHaan & Duckworth, 2012; Greif, 2009;Passmore & Fillery-Travis, 2011) due toproblems with delineating a controlgroup, maintaining the ‘blind’ conditionand constructing ‘placebo’ interventions.Uses of self-coaching, peer-coaching or‘waiting list’ are considered practicalissues in terms of implementation in rela-tion to coaching studies (Franklin &Doran, 2009; Greif, 2009; Hicks, 1998;Williams, 2010).

The traditional research literature on evalu-ations typically associated with a positivistparadigm, focuses on searching for generalrelationships between a small number ofdiscrete variables across wide varieties ofcontext. However, these contexts, from aconstructionist’s point of view, have a largeimpact upon these relationships (Fishman,1999: 235). Without consideration ofcontext the findings of such studies may leadto conclusions that are so generic that theirpractical value becomes questionable (deHaan & Duckworth, 2012; Grief, 2007; Orlin-sky et al., 1994).

It is not surprising that some researchcommunities resist the idea that only onenotion of research is recognised as science:the one identified with modernistic posi-tivism. It has been argued that there areother meanings of science, for example, asdisciplined, critical, reflective thought thatcompares and contrasts evidence, arguing


Evaluating a coaching and mentoring programme: Challenges and solutions

for alternative interpretations or explana-tions of a particular phenomenon (Cronin &Klimoski, 2011; Fishman, 1999). In coachingresearch Grant (2013) argues, ‘an evidencebase per se does not purport to prove that anyspecific intervention is guaranteed to beeffective, nor does it require that a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial is held asbeing inevitably and objectively better than aqualitative case study approach’ (2013, p.3).This means that the evaluations of coachingcould be approached from differentresearch paradigms (pragmatism, contextu-alism, interpretivism) and may benefit frommixed designs. For example, it can includeretrospective questionnaires validated bytraditional positivist procedures (Passmore,2008), but also include new instruments thatwere developed with considerations offactors such as the type of coaching, theorganisational level of the coachee, thespecific objectives and context of eachcoaching engagement (De Meuse et al.,2009; Ely et al., 2010).

The theme of specific measures that couldbe used for evaluation of coaching is not aneasy one either. According to Fillery-Travisand Lane (2006) before we can ask whethercoaching works we must ask why it is beingused. A fundamental difficulty of coachingoutcome research is the extreme hetero-geneity of issues, problems and goals, whichcan be picked out as themes in differentcoaching interventions. This could becompared with therapy where it is possible tooffer general indicators of the quality ofservice such as subjective well-being, symp-tom reduction and life functioning (e.g.Mental Health Index, Howard et al., 1996).In coaching, however, it is difficult to identifythe outcome measures applicable to thewhole range of coaching interventions(Greif, 2007, p.224). Grant (2013) providingmany examples from the vast range of issuesaddressed in coaching, concludes that thereis an almost endless list of applications. Themajority of these outcomes are difficult toquantify. This is why sometimes the targetoutcomes are selected because they can be

measured, rather than because they areappropriate for individual clients or reflectthe nature of coaching (Easton & Van Laar,2013).

Often practitioners create a battery ofmeasures, which might reflect the context ofthe study, their priorities and those of theirclient or organisation commissioning theevaluation. A combination of measures orindicators can sometimes help to avoid over-simplification with an intention to worktowards meeting a particular target that ismeasured (Easton & Van Laar, 2013). Greif(2007), for example, proposes generalmeasures (degree of goal attainment andclient satisfaction with coaching) andspecific measures such as particular socialcompetences; performance improvementand self-regulation. The choice of thesemeasures has to be justified by the theoriestested in the independent research or by thepractical needs of the organisation commis-sioning the evaluation.

Overall, there is recognition in the litera-ture that outcome research and evaluationof effectiveness of coaching face significantchallenges. Therefore, there is a need forpragmatic and creative approaches to thistask, which could assure rigour as the resultof competent inquiry.

Methodology of the projectThis project was designed as a pragmaticinquiry requiring mixed methods(Tashakkori & Teddli, 2010) with a largeproportion of the data, as requested by theclient, of a quantitative nature using qualita-tive data to construct a questionnaire andfurther inform the results.

The quantitative element of the studyaimed to establish whether the coaching andmentoring provided by London Deanerypractitioners had an impact on clients bycomparing their scores from Time 1 (pre-coaching) and Time 2 (post-coaching)online measures. In this project the LondonDeanery was interested in two variables,which are theoretically related to the indi-vidual change process and were considered



by them as relevant for the situation:employee engagement and self-esteem. Togive a fair representation of the aspect ofself-esteem the researchers suggested twomeasures: self-efficacy and self-compassion.

Selected measuresSchaufeli and Bakker (2003) describeEmployee Engagement as a positive, fulfilling,work-related state of mind that is charac-terised by vigour, dedication and absorption.Research over the past ten years has shownthe importance of this concept in relation tounderstanding key organisational outcomes,such as low turnover (Schaufeli & Bakker2004), high organisational commitment(Demerouti et al., 2001), and customer-ratedemployee performance (Salanova, Agut &Peiro, 2005). This has a potential to providean indirect relationship between the effectof coaching and ‘customer-rated’ employeeperformance as well as reduced turnoverand increased organisational commitment.Employee engagement is also negativelyrelated to burnout, which was particularlyimportant to the London Deanery

The Oxford Brookes University teamused a typical instrument for measuringemployee engagement, the Utrecht WorkEngagement Scale (Schaufeli & Bakker,2003). This scale consists of 17 items, six ofwhich measure Vigour, six measure Absorp-tion and five measure Dedication. Vigour ischaracterised by high levels of energy andmental resilience while working, the willing-ness to invest efforts in one’s work andpersistence even in the face of difficulties.Dedication refers to being strongly involvedin one’s work and experiencing a sense ofsignificance, enthusiasm, inspiration, prideand challenge. Absorption is characterisedby being fully concentrated and happilyengrossed in one’s work, whereby timepasses quickly and one has difficulties withdetaching oneself from work (Schaufeli &Bakker, 2003).

The scale consists of seven points from0=Never had this feeling, 1=almost never, a few times a year or less, 2=rarely, once

a month or less, 3=sometimes, a few times amonth, 4=often, once a week, 5=very often, afew times a week, to 6=always, every day. Themean scale score of the three subscales iscomputed by adding the scores on theparticular scale and dividing the sum by thenumber of items of the subscales involved. A similar procedure is followed for the totalscore.

Perceived Self-Efficacy refers to beliefsabout one’s competence to deal with chal-lenging encounters and the ‘belief in one’scapabilities to organise and execute thecourses of action required to produce givenattainments’ (Bandura, 1997, p.3). It is clearwhy this concept is related to beneficialcoaching and mentoring outcomes. There isnow a large body of research that supports arelationship between measures of perceivedself-efficacy and performance (Stajkovic &Luthans, 1998).

Self-Efficacy was measured using theGeneralised Self-Efficacy Scale, GSE(Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). Cross-cultural research has been carried out whichconfirms the validity of this scale, showingconsistent evidence of associations betweenperceived self-efficacy and other psychologi-cal constructs (e.g. health behaviours, well-being, social cognitive variables and copingstrategies (Luszczynska, Scolz & Schwarzer,2005).

The 10 items are scored using a four-point scale: 1=not at all true, 2=hardly true,3=moderately true and 4=exactly true.Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995) found thatthe internal consistency varied acrosscultures but ranged from .78 to .91 andconcluded that it was very satisfactory,considering that the scale only has 10 items.Scherbaum et al. (2006) used Item ResponseTheory to test the GSE Scale and found thatit works best for individuals with average orbelow average levels of GSE. The GSE Scaleis less precise at above average levels of GSE.

As low self-esteem has been frequentlyassociated with negative social comparisonsand internalised self-judgments, Self-Compas-sion (Neff, 2009) was introduced as an



individual measure that is also a predictor ofthe ability to cope effectively with adversityand good mental health. Self-compassioncomprises being kind and understandingtowards oneself when experiencing pain orfailure as opposed to being harsh and self-critical. Research studies have consistentlylinked self-compassion to reduced fear offailure, enhanced perceived competenceand emotionally-focused coping strategies,suggesting that this indicator is a promisingone for coaching (Neff, 2009; Neff & Lamb,2009; Neff & Vonk, 2009).

Self-compassion has three basic compo-nents: (1) extending kindness and under-standing to oneself; (2) seeing one’sexperiences as part of the larger humanexperience rather than as separating andisolating; and (3) holding one’s painfulthoughts and feelings in balanced awarenessand not over-identifying with them. (Baume-sieter, Bushman & Campbell, 2000, asreported by Neff, 2003).

Self-compassion is measured with theSelf-compassion Scale (SCS, Neff, 2003).The 12-item scale was used with items 2 and6 for self-kindness, items 11 and 12 for self-judgement, items 5 and 10 for commonhumanity, items 4 and 8 for isolation, items 3and 7 for mindfulness and items 1 and 9 forover-identification. Subscale scores arecomputed by calculating the mean ofsubscale item responses. To compute a totalself-compassion score, reverse score thenegative subscale items – self-judgement,isolation and over-identification (i.e. 1=5,2=4, 3=4, 4=2, 5=1) – then compute a totalmean. Neff (2003) found that internalconsistency was above the acceptable: .75level for overall and subscales. Test/re-testreliability of overall scale plus subscales wasalso found to be acceptable (.93 overall).

A bespoke questionnaireWe made the decision to develop anotherinstrument for this evaluation for two mainreasons. The first was responding to theneed of the client-organisation to addressthe more specific contextual relationship

between the coaching service provided toLondon Deanery clients and noticeablebehavioural and attitudinal changes thatmight be linked to their work performanceand, consequently, patient care. The secondwas recognising the importance of beingcreative when facing various issues associatedwith measurement. In this case our intentionwas to capture not just the static estimationof particular aspects of the clients’ workinglives but directly addressing the degree ofchanges that happened in relation to theseaspects by the end of the coaching process.

To create this measure we interviewedappropriate stakeholders: three users ofservice (two consultants and one GP), twocoach/mentors and two matchers, thosereferring clients to this service and identify-ing a suitable coach. A Grounded Theoryapproach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was usedas the main methodology for analysis. Thefollowing themes that emerged as the resultof the qualitative analysis were particularlyuseful in the development of the bespokequestionnaire: 1. Impact on patients

l Improved interactions with patients.l Improved feedback from patients.l Use of coaching/mentoring tech-

niques with patients.l Changes in patients’ behaviour, such

as reduced dependency, better use ofdoctors’ time.

2. Impact on colleaguesl Improved interactions and communi-

cation with colleagues.l Use of coaching/mentoring tech-

niques with colleagues.3. Impact on self

l Improved confidence.l Better time management at work,

leading to an improved work-lifebalance.

l Improved capacity to solve problemsand make decisions, including careerdecisions.

l Better relationships with familymembers.



l Made them decide to stay within theprofession after seriously consideringleaving the NHS.

These questions allowed generation ofcontextually meaningful data for this evalua-tion. Although this added an importantelement for measuring the potential impactof coaching we had to acknowledge that inthis type of study, without a control group, itwas impossible to claim that changeshappening to coached clients were theresults of coaching rather than any otherinfluences or combination of influences. Inorder to minimise this limitation we addedanother question to our bespoke question-naire in which clients themselves could indi-cate to what degree coaching contributed toeach identified change. Although this indi-cation is a self-estimation we believe that thewell-educated and self-aware clients in thisstudy were conscious agents of their life situ-ation and therefore had sufficient insightinto the relationship between various influ-ences in their lives. We believed in theirunique position to isolate the role of theservice they received from the complex arrayof other factors in their life and to becompletely open about this under the condi-tions of this particular study when there wasno reason for them to misrepresent theirresponses.

This questionnaire was piloted internallyto check the questions and appropriateadjustments were made following feedback.The final questionnaire SWRQ (SpecificWork-Related Questionnaire) became partof the Time 2 questionnaires.

To summarise, the Time 1 questionnaireconsisted of demographic questions andthree scales measuring Employee Engage-ment, Self-Efficacy and Self-Compassion.The demographic questions were developedto capture the respondents’ age group, sex,ethnic origin, whether trained inside oroutside the UK and career level. The Time 2questionnaire included the above threescales of the Time 1 questionnaire and theSWRQ scale that aimed to identify changesin aspects of working life of the client and

degree to which the client attributed eachchange to coaching. All the questionnairesasked for the unique registration numberallocated on application in order to pair theTime 1 and Time 2 responses for each indi-vidual, whilst maintaining anonymity.

Research processOnce the potential participants of the evalu-ation research applied for the coachingprogramme online they were informedabout the evaluation study and were given anoption to opt out if they did not wish to takepart. Once accepted, clients were sent theirregistration number (CLT number) andthen an online link to the Time 1 Survey onSurveymonkey. The next stage was thenormal process of the coaching programmeas provided by the London Deanery. Theparticipants were rung by one of a smallteam of matchers, all trained DeaneryCoaches. A structured conversation was heldwith the client checking their reasons forseeking coaching, their understanding ofthe process and practical requirements suchas venue and time. The participant was thensent an email with the description of threecoaches attached for them to identify theirpreferred coach. Clients were offeredcoaches outside their specialty and outsidetheir place of work to ensure externality tothe coaching process. The coaching inter-vention consisted of four sessions of 60 to 90minutes taken over a period of six months.When the coaching was completed partici-pants were sent a link with an invitation tocomplete the Time 2 questionnaires. Theresearch was conducted with considerationof good practice and strict ethical guidelines.

ResultsOverall there were 189 Time 1 responses and137 Time 2 responses. After matchingresponses and taking out responses wherethe clients had not completed the minimumnumber of sessions, there was a total of 120matched Time 1 and Time 2 responses.Therefore, the final response rate was 78 per cent.



The demographic data show that 48.3per cent of respondents were aged between30 to 39, 20.8 per cent were aged between 20to 29, 23.3 per cent were aged between 40 to49 and 7.5 per cent were aged between 50 to59. There were no respondents aged over 60years old. The majority of respondents werefemale (66.7 per cent). Nearly all respon-dents were trained within the UK (92 percent). The majority of respondents (46.7 percent) were less than two years’ post-qualifica-tion with a further 25.8 per cent more thantwo years’ post-qualification and 18.3 percent Foundation Trainees. The majority ofrespondents were White British followed by18.3 per cent who were Asian or AsianBritish: Indian.

The results of the three selected estab-lished measures (Tables 1 and 2) indicatethat clients benefited from the programmein relation to each of them.

Table 1 shows the descriptive data forboth Time 1 and Time 2 for EmployeeEngagement, Self-Efficacy and Self-Compas-sion. The first line of data looks at the meansand it is clear that all Time 2 means (aver-age) are higher than the Time 1 means(average).

However, before exploring whether thesedifferences are statistically significant, it isimportant to consider levels of EmployeeEngagement, Self-Efficacy and Self-Compas-sion before the coaching began. Table 2describes the differences in results of thesample of doctors that was used in the UWESManual. These results suggest that theclients in this study had higher levels ofemployee engagement before they startedthe coaching than the sample from theUWES manual. What is also important topoint out is the minimum and maximumscores and the resulting range of scores.Whilst the average employee engagementlevels are reasonably high there is a widerange of scores, with the lowest being 1.60(which equates to ‘ at least once a year’) andthe highest being 5.80 (which equates to ‘acouple of times a week or daily’). At Time 2the range of scores is reduced, as is the

Standard deviation, which measures disper-sion around the average value.

Although Self-Efficacy scores had thelargest effect size (Table 3) the ranges ofscores and standard deviation stayed nearlythe same. Like Employee Engagement,scores for Self-Compassion showed decreasesin range of scores.

The results of the paired sample t-tests inTable 3 show a positive impact on meanscores of Employee Engagement, Self-Effi-cacy and Self-Compassion (at the .01 level)with a highly significant effect for meanscores on all three scales. Effect sizes werecalculated based on Cohen’s calculations forpaired sample t-tests. Effect size forEmployee Engagement is .32, effect size forSelf-Efficacy is 0.45 and effect size for Self-Compassion is .38. This shows that the effectsizes vary from between small and medium(Employee Engagement and Self-Compas-sion and medium (Self-Efficacy). It is alsoimportant to highlight that there is evidencethat the UWES is better at measuring lowercompared to high levels of employeeengagement. Therefore, it is possible thatthe coaching had more of an impact oncoaches than these effect sizes suggest. TheGeneral Self-Efficacy scale is also better atmeasuring lower scores than higher ones.

This means that all three measuresselected for their capacity to illustrate mean-ingful changes in the clients as the result oftheir coaching, confirm that these changeswere significant. The clients reported higherlevels of employee engagement, self-efficacyand self-compassion after being coached incomparison to the levels of these aspects intheir lives before they engaged with thecoaching programme. The results were notdriven by any particular subgroup and bene-fit was seen across subgroups in race, gender,stage of career and age.

Another type of analysis was made avail-able by using the SWRQ (specific work-related questionnaire developed for thisstudy). This questionnaire was designed toexplore the changes that are perceived bythe clients in relation to their work.





Table 2: Comparing UWES sample and London Deanery sample.

UWES Manual Sample London Deanery Sample

Number 655 120

Mean 3.10 4.13

Coding ‘At least a couple of times a month’ ‘At least once a week’

Nationality Dutch and Finnish English

Background Completed career counselling Applied to coaching programmequestionnaire

Table 1: Descriptive data from Time 1 and Time 2 questionnaires.

Employee Employee Self- Self- Self- Self-Engagement Engagement Efficacy Efficacy Compassion CompassionTime 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2

Mean/StandardDeviation

4.13 (0.78) 4.37 (0.71) 2.99 (0.39) 3.17 (0.39) 2.98 (0.61) 3.22 (0.63)

Median/Rangeof scores

4.2 (4.20) 4.4 (3.94) 3 (1.9) 3.1 (1.9) 2.92 (3.17) 3.25 (2.84)

Minimum score 1.60 1.93 2 2.1 1.25 1.58

Maximum score 5.80 5.87 3.9 4 4.42 4.42

Table 3: Paired sample t-tests to measure whether Time 2 means are higher than Time 1 scores.

Scale Standard t Df Sig. (2-tailed)Deviation

Employee Engagement 0.66 3.968 119 0.000

Self-Efficacy 0.36 5.423 119 0.000

Self-Compassion 0.47 5.586 119 0.000

The results of this analysis are shown in theFigures 1 and 2 and in Table 4.

Figure 1 represents the results of theanalysis of the participants’ responses toQuestion 5: ‘How the following aspects ofyour work have changed since startingcoaching’. This figure illustrates how,according to clients themselves, certainaspects of their working life were changingor remained the same after the period whenthey undertook coaching. Different shadesof grey represent the degree to which theclients perceived the changes. It is clear that

the category ‘worsened significantly’ is notpresent in the figure. The result suggeststhat the majority of these aspects improvedor improved significantly. Only a very smallnumber of responses (21) indicated thatsome particular aspects of their working life‘worsened somewhat’. It is interesting tonotice that ten of these responses are relatedto the ‘Intention to stay in the current posi-tion’, which could be interpreted as a posi-tive outcome in some situations when aradical action is beneficial for both theemployee and the employer.

Particularly positive perceptions ofchanges were demonstrated in relation toPerception of values of the client contribu-tion to their current role, Confidence tomake changes in the workplace and Abilityto make career decisions. In comparison toother factors it appears that the coachingprogramme was particularly successful inempowering the clients and improving theirperception of themselves at work. This indi-cation of changes corresponds with the dataof self-efficacy and self-compassion in theTime 1 and Time 2 questionnaires.

Although the results of changes demon-strated in Table 2 and Figure 3 show signifi-cant changes in clients who undertook thecoaching programme it could be argued thatthese changes might indicate the influence ofa combination of factors other than coaching.Because we had no control group we do notknow to what degree the changes that we haveseen are due to the coaching that theyreceived. In order to compensate for this issuewe included question 6 in our SWRQ, whichasked this question directly: ‘Please indicatethe extent to which coaching/mentoringcontributed to this change’. In relation toeach change from Question 5 the clients

could indicate if the change could be attrib-uted to coaching and the degree theybelieved the coaching influenced this change.

The results of analysis of responses to thisquestion are demonstrated in Figure 2.

The black bar in Figure 2 highlights thenumber of respondents who felt that therehad been some improvement (either some-what or significant) in the areas highlightedin the SWRQ. The dark grey bar highlightsthe numbers of respondents who felt thatthe coaching had influenced the positivechange that is highlighted by the black bar.The light grey bar sitting in front of twoother bars highlights what percentage ofpositive improvement was attributed to thecoaching. For example, as was already shownin Figure 1 the three areas of work whererespondents felt there had been the mostimprovement were ‘Perception of value ofyour contribution’, ‘Confidence to makechanges at work’ and ‘Ability to make careerdecisions’. In these areas of work wherethere had been improvements, respondentsfelt that a large percentage of the improve-ment was due to the coaching that they hadreceived – on average 98 per ent for thesethree most changed areas of life.



Figure 1: Changes perceived in working life as the result of coaching.

The lowest change is indicated in thearea of work with patients, which may indi-cate that although Time 2 responses reflectincreased confidence and the way partici-pants felt about themselves, it may take timeto recognise such changes in action particu-larly with their work with patients. It is alsopossible that the junior doctors may be fairlyremote from patient satisfaction question-naires (this tends to happen at a departmen-tal level) and, therefore, find it difficult tonotice the effect of their internal changes onpatients.

Findings from the open question in SWRQ Question 9 in the SWRQ asked participantsin a word or phrase to describe what differ-ence the coaching and mentoring pro-gramme had made to them. All participantsresponded to this question. Threeresearchers, first independently and thentogether, analysed these responses and iden-tified the following themes (see Table 4).These themes are described in the order ofthe number of comments considered asrepresenting each theme (from highest tolowest).

On the whole the qualitative analysissuggests an overwhelmingly positive impactof coaching on clients and a wide variety ofthe benefits associated with participation inthis programme. The overarching patternsof the benefits are:l Confidence improvement and increased

self-awareness.l Specific areas of working life where there

was a significant difference as the resultof coaching such as career developmentand work-life balance.

l Acquiring a range of skills that couldmake participants more capable ofaddressing potential issues, such as theskills of problem-solving, reflection andseeing things in perspective.

It would be unusual if the effect of coachingwere universally positive. A small percentageof general negative comments (4.96 percent) illustrate that there are circumstancesin which this particular type of interventionis not the best solution. There could be, ofcourse, other explanations (e.g. not the bestmatch between coach and client); howeverwithout further investigation these are onlyspeculations.



Figure 2: Perception of participants on how changes occurred are attributable to coaching.

Discussion and conclusionsThe evaluation described in the report withthe support of both quantitative and qualita-tive methods indicate that the London Dean-ery coaching programme provides aneffective service for their clients. Well-vali-dated measures that were selected for thisevaluation project conclusively show thatemployee engagement, self-efficacy and self-compassion of the participants significantlyimproved. It could be argued that themeasures selected for this project have beensufficient for the purposes of the evaluation.They appropriately reflect the nature of thisprogramme, which is by definition individu-ally focused. However, as the programme isdelivered and paid for by public funding thebenefits for the individuals have to be mean-ingful in the context of the added value tothe ultimate users: in this context, patients.Therefore, an additional questionnaire, the

SWRQ, was developed with a focus on evalu-ating changes in the context specific toLondon Deanery coaching clients. The ques-tionnaire allowed unique information to beelicited about the nature of changes thatclients identified as the result of theprogramme related to their place of workand consequently showed improvementsparticularly to the aspect of self (confidencein their ability). We believe that this ques-tionnaire would be useful for future evalua-tions and the data collected in this projectcan be used for developing the scale forfurther investigations.

In terms of the design of the evaluationneedless to say that projects with features ofthe randomised control study would beeasier to defend in the traditional scientificcommunity. However, there are manyreasons to expand this position and wepropose to consider at least three of them.



Table 4: Summary of qualitative analysis.

Theme (No of comments) Example of the comments

Confidence (32) ‘Substantially increased my confidence in the workplace in the context of being a new consultant joining a well-established senior team’.

Change/problem solving (22) ‘I can now confidently formulate strategies to help me achieve my goals’.

Self-awareness (17) ‘…gave me insight into the tools I possess myself to change my work and personal life’.

Reflection (16) ‘…taught me how to analyse my experiences objectively – reflecting, thinking about things a lot deeper than I usually would.’

Work-life balance (12) ‘It has improved my perspective on what I am able to achieve at work and so improved my work-life balance significantly. I feel better able to cope as a result.’

Seeing things in perspective (8) ‘…helped me to see my position, behaviour and current options in better perspective’

Career development (7) ‘…focused my ideas of where I want to be in the future and how to influence and use the resources open to me now to reach these roles’.

Being listened to/sharing (6) ‘I was able to safely discuss a very difficult situation at work’.

General positive (14) ‘An immense difference – turned my life around.’

General negative (7) ‘…not all problems have a solution’.

The first is simply pragmatic. Consideringmany issues that constrain the use of RCTs incoaching research (Cavanagh & Grant, 2006;Greif, 2009; Passmore & Fillery-Travis, 2011),not the least the cost-effectiveness of theevaluation itself, we need to developresearch designs that are possible to execute.A more positively formulated reason forcreating new measures for evaluating coach-ing programmes relates to giving more statusto the participants according to the nature ofcoaching itself. Coaching is about valuingthe voice of the individual, empowering theperson and trusting in his/her ability tomake a judgment about the issues thatreflect his/her life. Research that activelyincludes the voice of participants in judgingthe changes they have experienced is betteraligned with coaching than research thattreats participants as only capable of answer-ing very simple questions leaving the analysisto an ‘objective’ researcher.

A third and probably the most importantreason for being more daring and creative insearching for new approaches to evaluationis based on the acknowledgement that theoutcomes we aim to assess result from thecomplex interaction of multiple elements insystems with emerging properties. Jones andCorner (2012) recently argued that mentor-ing should be seen as a case of complexadaptive system (CAS) and their argumentsare more than relevant also for coaching.Seeing coaching engagement through thislens brings to the fore many issues that werevery difficult to account for in this research.For example, the changes that occurredwithin the clients are directly and complexlyrelated to their context and it is impossibleto isolate all the influences without losingthe essence of the process and the layers ofmeaning for each individual involved. Thismeans that we need to look at researchmethods that include new ideas differentfrom traditional science because it implies adifferent view of the world.

In particular we suggest wider use ofqualitative methods that can enrich under-standing of the effect of coaching. Some of

these methods can include, for example,vignettes constructed around actual experi-ences, by using situations provided by partic-ipants before and after coaching. These richdescriptions of actual experiences can beseen as snapshots of the complexity reflectedin one particular case without losing the linkwith its context. We can use the SWRQ forevaluation of coaching programmes as anaddition to other methods and an alternativesolution when RCT is not possible/appropri-ate as it includes a self-estimation by therespondents about the extent to which theycan attribute each change to the receivedcoaching also without losing the view of thesystemic nature of their situations.

We also wish to advocate further buildingof the theoretical base of coaching byextending evaluation research from thequestion of effectiveness of coaching toexploring further questions such as thefollowing:l What elements of coaching in this

programme have particularly contri-buted to positive outcomes?

l Are the changes identified by the clientssustained over a longer period?

l To what type of clients is this programmemost suited?

l What difference does the matchingprocess make?

l In what way can the changes identified bythe client actually affect their work withpatients?

Research into the effect of the coachingprogramme on a large scale was on the agendafor the London Deanery at the start of thisproject. Although this could be an importantand ambitious undertaking we believe thatthis current project has provided a positiveanswer to the question about the effectivenessof the coaching programme on a reasonablescale. In light of these findings we would arguethat the questions that aim at improvement ofthe service which are of a more precise nature,similar to the questions listed above, would beno less important and probably more perti-nent for the ultimate stakeholders of theLondon Deanery’s coaching programme.




Author name

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.New York: Freeman.

Baumeister, R.F. (Ed.) (1999). The self in social psychol-ogy. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Briner, R. (2012) Does coaching work and doesanyone really care? OP Matters, 16, 4–12.

Cronin, M. & Klimoski, R. (2011). Broadening theview of what constitutes evidence. Industrial andOrganisational Psychology, 4(1), 57–61.

de Haan, E. & Duckworth, A. (2012). Signalling anew trend in executing coaching outcomeresearch. International Coaching Psychology Review,8(1), 6–19.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Janssen, P.P.M. &Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). Burnout and engage-ment at work as a function of demands andcontrol. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment& Health, 27, 279–286.

De Meuse, K, Dai, G. & Lee, R. (2009). Evaluating theeffectiveness of executive coaching: beyond ROI?Coaching: An International Journal of Theory,Research and Practice, 2(2), 117–134.

Drake, D. (2009). Evidence is a verb: A relational viewof knowledge and mastery in coaching. Interna-tional Journal of Evidence Based Coaching andMentoring, 7(1), 1–2.

Easton, S. & Van Laar, D. (2013). Evaluation ofoutcomes and Quality of Working Life in thecoaching setting. The Coaching Psychologist, 9(2),71–77.

Ellam-Dyson, V. (2012). Coaching psychologyresearch: Building the evidence, developingawareness. OP Matters, 16, 13–16.

Ely, K., Boyce, L., Nelson, J., Zaccaro, S., Hernez-Broome, G. & Whyman, W. (2010). Evaluatingleadership coaching: A review and integratedframework. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 585–599.

Fillery-Travis, A. & Lane, D. (2006). Does coachingwork or are we asking the wrong question? Inter-national Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 23–36.

Franklin, J. & Doran, J. (2009). Does all coachingenhance objective performance independentlyevaluated by blind assessors? The importance ofthe coaching model and content. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 4, 128–144.

Grant, A. (2013). The efficacy of coaching. In J. Pass-more, D. Peterson & T. Freire (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology of coaching andmentoring. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Grant, A. (2012). ROI is a poor measure of coachingsuccess: towards a more holistic approach using awell-being and engagement framework. Coaching:An International Journal of Theory, Research andPractice, 5(2), 74–85.

Grief, S. (2007). Advances in research on coachingoutcomes. International Coaching PsychologyReview. 2(3), 222–245.

Hicks, C. (1998). The randomised controlled trial: A critique. Nurse Researcher, 6(1), 19–32.

AcknowledgementsWe are deeply grateful to all participants inthis study and our advisors from the LondonDeanery Dr Rebecca Viney and Dr SueMorgan for constructive feedback at allstages of the project.

The AuthorsDr Tatiana BachkirovaFaculty of Business, Oxford Brookes University, Wheatley Campus, Oxford, OX33 1HX.Email: [email protected]

Dr Linet ArthurSchool of Education, Oxford Brookes University, Harcourt Hill, Oxford, OX2 9AT.Email: [email protected]

Mrs Emma ReadingEROP, 22 Chapel Street, Wellesbourne, Warwickshire, CV35 9QU.Email: [email protected]


References



Howard, K. et al. (1996). Evaluation of psycho-therapy: Efficacy, effectiveness, and patientprogress. American Psychologist, 51, 1059–1064.

Kirkpatrick, D. (1977). Evaluating training programs:Evidence vs. proof. Training and Development Jour-nal, 31(11), 9–12.

Kühnel, J., Sonnentag, S. & Westman, M. (2009).Does work engagement increase after a shortrespite? The role of job involvement as a double-edged sword. Journal of Occupational and Organi-sational Psychology, 82, 575–594.

Lane, D.A. & Corrie, S. (2006). The modern scientist-practitioner: A guide to practice in psychology.London: Routledge.

Lawrence, P. & Whyte, A. (2014). Return on invest-ment in executive coaching: A practical modelfor measuring ROI in organisations. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research andPractice, 7(1), 4–17.

Luszczynska, A., Scolz, U. & Schwarzer, R. (2005).The General Self-Efficacy Scale: Multiculturalvalidation studies. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 139(5), 439–457.

Neff, K.D. (2003). Development and validation of ascale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity,2, 223–250.

Neff, K.D. (2009). The role of self-compassion indevelopment: A healthier way to relate tooneself. Human Development, 52, 211–214.

Neff, K.D. & Lamb, L.M. (2009). Self-compassion. InS. Lopez (Ed.), The encyclopedia of positive psychol-ogy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Neff, K.D. & Vonk, R. (2009). Self-compassion versusglobal self-esteem: Two different ways of relatingto oneself. Journal of Personality, 77, 23–50.

Orlinsky, D., Grawe, K. & Parks, B. (1994). Processand outcome in psychotherapy. In A. Bergin & S. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy andbehavior change (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley.

Passmore, J. & Fillery-Travis, A. (2011). A criticalreview of executive coaching research: a decadeof progress and whats to come. Coaching: An Inter-national Journal of Theory, Research and Practice,4(2), 70–88.

Passmore, J. (Ed.) (2008). Psychometrics in coaching.London: Kegan Page.

Passmore, J. & Joao Velez, M. (2014). Training evalu-ation. In K. Kraiger, J. Passmore, A. Dos Santos &S. Malvezzi (Eds.), The Wiley and Blackwell hand-book of the psychology of training, development andperformance improvement (pp.136–153). Chich-ester: Wiley & Blackwell.

Salanova, M., Agut, S. & Peiró, J.M. (2005). Linkingorganisational resources and work engagementto employee performance and customer loyalty:The mediation of service climate. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 90, 1217–1227.

Schaufeli, W.B. & Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands,job resources and their relationship withburnout and engagement: A multi-sample study.Journal of Organisational Behavior, 25, 293–315.

Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Romá. V. &Bakker, A.B. (2002). The measurement ofengagement and burnout: A two-sample confir-matory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happi-ness Studies, 3, 71–92.

Scherbaum, C., Cohen-Charash & Kern, M. (2006).Measuring general self-efficacy: A comparison ofthree measures using item response theory.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(6),1047–1061.

Schwarzer, R. & Jerusalem, M. (1995). GeneralisedSelf–Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, &M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology:A users portfolio. Causal and control beliefs. Windsor,UK: NFER–NELSON.

Stajkovic, A. & Luthans. F. (1998). Self-efficacy andwork-related performance: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240–261.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitativeresearch: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.London: Sage.

Tashakkori, A. & Teddli, C. (Eds.) (2010). Sage hand-book of mixed methods in social and behaviouralresearch. London: Sage.

Theeboom, T., Beersma, B. & van Vianen, A. (2013).Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on theeffects of coaching on individual level outcomesin an organisational context. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1–18.

Williams, B.A. (2010). Perils of evidence-based medi-cine. Perspectives on Biology and Medicine, 53(1),106–120.

THIS STUDY strives to follow Linley andHarrington’s advice by addressing thegap in our knowledge about teachers’

experiences of taking part in coaching train-ing programmes. Such knowledge is espe-cially relevant for practitioners in Scotland,where the study took place. From August2014, the General Teaching Council forScotland’s (GTCS) revised system of profes-sional update for teachers (2013) hasrequired all school leaders to use coachingand mentoring to support colleagues withprofessional review and development (PRD).Therefore it could serve the needs ofresearchers and practitioners to know more

about teachers’ experiences of learning howto coach. This study explores five teachers’experiences of an introductory coachingtraining workshop.

The topic of the study is coaching, at thenon-directive end of the directive–non-direc-tive continuum (Pask & Joy, 2007 p.246), andnot mentoring which is more directive (Ives,2008, p.100).

This paper reviews the literature oncoaching in education and identifies theneed for the study. The method sectionincludes a description of the phenomenon,details of the research design, and therationale for selecting interpretative pheno-


Teachers’ experiences of an introductorycoaching training workshop in Scotland:An interpretative phenomenologicalanalysisMargaret Barr & Christian van Nieuwerburgh

Objectives: This study sought to explore teachers’ experiences of a coaching psychology intervention –an introductory coaching training workshop that included a positive psychology intervention and episodesof narrative-collaborative group coaching.Design: A qualitative design was applied to explore the participants’ experiences. Interpretativephenomenological analysis (IPA) was used to analyse the data.Method: The study took place in Scotland, where new professional update procedures require school leadersto use coaching skills. The participants were five teachers who had attended the workshop. Data collectionwas through semi-structured interviews.Results: Two main themes emerged from the analysis. The first theme, ‘Learning with others – the value ofcollaboration’, had two sub-themes: ‘Working with a partner made it real’ and ‘Feeling part of the group’.The second theme, ‘Reflection – the value of time to think’ had three sub-themes: ‘Myself as coach and coachee’,‘Coaching and other people’, and ‘Making plans to start coaching and sharing’. Conclusions: The participants reported that collaborating with others and having time for reflection enhancedtheir learning. The limitations of the study are discussed and areas for future research are proposed.Keywords: coaching in education; coaching psychology; coaching training; GROW; interpretativephenomenological analysis, narrative-collaborative group coaching; positive psychology, Scotland, teacher.

Coaching psychologists would do well to strive to combine the needs for both highimpact relevance and academic rigour in their work, thus meeting the call for more

pragmatic science that genuinely serves the needs of researchers and practitioners while also adding to our knowledge corpus. (Linley & Harrington, 2008, p.52)

menological analysis (IPA) for data analysis.The results are summarised and discussed,drawing on the literature review and intro-ducing relevant new literature. Limitationsof the study are described. The paperconcludes by suggesting implications forpractitioners, and proposing furtherresearch.

Literature reviewThe review of the literature considersevidence about the benefits of coaching ineducation. The context of coaching ineducation in Scotland is then described.

Coaching in educationCoaching in education involves both educa-tors and learners and has been defined byvan Nieuwerburgh (2012) as:

a one-to-one conversation focused on theenhancement of learning and develop-ment through increasing self-awarenessand a sense of personal responsibility,where the coach facilitates the self-directed learning of the coachee throughquestioning, active listening, and appro-priate challenge in a supportive andencouraging climate. (p.17)

This literature review looks at the coachingof educators only, and not the coaching oflearners.

UK guidance on coaching has evolvedfrom definitions of coaching and mentoring(Centre for the Use of Research andEvidence in Education, 2005; Departmentfor Education and Skills, 2003), to adviceand resources for practitioners (Creasy &Paterson, 2005; GTCS, 2014a, 2014b; Loft-house et al., 2010; National College forTeaching and Leadership, 2014; ScottishCollege for Educational Leadership, 2014).For example, Creasy and Paterson (2005)have advised school leaders ‘first developyourself’ (p.23); and Suggett (2006) hascommented on the importance of coachingbeing sponsored by senior leaders (p.13).Lofthouse et al. (2010) have acknowledgedthat long-term resourcing is required (p.36).

Peer-reviewed research on professionalcoaching for educators is somewhat limited(Grant et al., 2010, p.153) and three exam-ples are given next. First, evidence has shownthat coaching has the capacity to improvelearning and teaching, the core business ofschools, through peer coaching (Showers &Joyce, 1996, p.15), and through ‘instruc-tional coaching’ (Knight & van Nieuwer-burgh, 2012). The second example relates toa study of high school teachers who werecoached using a cognitive behavioural, solu-tion focused framework (Grant, 2003), andthe coaching process GROW (Whitmore,2009, pp.53–57). In this study, Grant et al.(2010) have found that coaching can lead toenhanced self-reported leadership andcommunication styles (p.162). Third, in areview of research into coaching in educa-tion Cornett and Knight (2008) have foundevidence that coaching after professionaldevelopment leads to improvements inimplementation rates (p.209).

Increasingly, coaching approaches basedon positive psychology (Seligman & Csik-szentmihalyi, 2000) are used in education.Positive education (Green et al., 2012),embracing positive psychology and coachingpsychology, aims to use coaching approachesand curricular programmes to enhanceresilience, positivity, engagement and mean-ing. Seligman et al. (2009) have describedevidence of its success. Fredrickson (2001)has shown that positive emotions broadenpeople’s thought–action repertoires (p.224),which could be of interest to coaching ineducation.

In line with broader leadership literatureabout the power of conversations (Cavanagh,2013; Jackson & Waldman, 2011), GrossCheliotes and Flemming Reilly (2010)observe that coaching conversations neednot be formal. Referring to the solution-focused nature of coaching, they havepointed out that ‘coach-like’ conversationshave the power to transform school cultures(p.xiii).


Teachers’ experiences of coaching training

Coaching in Scottish educationThis research study is set in Scotland, wherethe ‘distinctiveness’ of education has beennoted (Arnott & Ozga, 2010; Bryce &Humes, 2008; Ozga, 2005; Raffe, 2004).Experiential learning as a form of teacherlearning in Scottish schools has increased inprevalence for two reasons. First, HM Inspec-torate of Education (2009) have found areduction in the number of externally-offered professional development coursesbeing offered, caused by budget cuts, requir-ing schools to find innovative approaches toteacher learning (p.18). Second, there isnow an understanding that historic informalteacher learning activities such as collabora-tion and the ‘listening ear’ are powerfulapproaches to teacher development (Forde,2011, p.18). Therefore, experientialmethodologies such as coaching, mentoring,peer-supported learning and professionallearning communities have become morewidespread. One example is the FlexibleRoute to Headship (Education Scotland,2014), a leadership development pro-gramme for aspirant head teachers whichincludes support from a coach who is alsohead teacher of another school. Exploringthe role and experiences of these coaches,Forde et al. (2013) have described their‘multi-faceted role’ of coach, mentor, tutorand assessor (p.106).

In his major review of teacher educa-tion – Teaching Scotland’s Future – Donaldson(2010) has recognised the value of flexibleapproaches to professional learning (p.96).Among its recommendations, the review hasestablished the necessity of a refreshedsystem of professional review and develop-ment (PRD) based on self-evaluation againststandards, where it is a professional require-ment and an entitlement to engage incareer-long learning. The Scottish model ofPRD is not a performance review, and is notrelated to competence and disciplinematters. The reviewer (school leader) andthe reviewee (teacher) meet to discuss theimpact of the teacher’s professional learningexperiences during the previous year, then

plan learning for the next year, building onthe teacher’s self-evaluation and takingaccount of their learning aspirations and thepriorities of the school improvement plan.From August 2014, the system of Profes-sional Update (GTCS, 2013) requires thereviewer to use coaching and mentoringapproaches in this meeting, consistent withthe revised Standards for Leadership andManagement (GTCS, 2012, pp.12–20). Inaddition, teachers are required to confirmevery five years that they regularly self-evalu-ate their practice against the professionalstandards, and engage in ongoing profes-sional learning.

ConclusionIn conclusion, this review of the literaturehas found an upward trend in the use ofcoaching in education, and evidence of itsbenefits. In Scotland, a coaching approachto leadership and management has beenembedded in professional standards andprofessional update, which is likely to lead toan increase in teacher demand for coachingtraining. However, this review has not foundany literature about the individual experi-ences of teachers who are learning how tocoach.

MethodThe study is a phenomenological inquiryinto five teachers’ personal experiences ofan introductory coaching training workshop.This section describes the workshop and thesample. The rationale for using IPA for thestudy is explained. The process for collectingand analysing data is given, and reflexivity isexplored.

The phenomenonThe phenomenon was a two-hour introduc-tory coaching training workshop for teach-ers, covering basic coaching skills and theGROW model (Whitmore, 2009, pp.53–57).In September 2013 the workshop took placeseven times to accommodate teachers (bothschool leaders and unpromoted teachers inmixed groups) taking part in the area’s pilot


Margaret Barr & Christian van Nieuwerburgh

programme for revised PRD procedures, asdescribed in the literature review. Group sizeranged from five to 26 people. The work-shop facilitator was the researcher.

Stelter et al. (2011) have suggested thatnarrative-collaborative group coachingcould be used by teachers to reflect onprofessional challenges. The group coachingdesign of the workshop aimed to encouragecollaborative meaning-making about coach-ing, recognising that the presenter did nothave a monopoly on knowledge (Stelter,2013). Written by the researcher and peer-reviewed by an experienced formercolleague, the content included: l icebreaker to generate positive emotions

(Fredrickson, 2001); l coaching definitions and evidence of

impact;

l how coaching can be used in PRD meet-ings;

l a short unrehearsed demonstration,where the facilitator used GROW tocoach a volunteer from the group on areal issue;

l practising coaching with a partner; l planning next steps; andl invitation to participate in the research

project related to this study.

The participantsEight workshop participants expressed aninterest in taking part in the research andwere given a letter of invitation and consentform, and the opportunity to ask questions.Of those eight, three chose not to proceed,and five were recruited as participants forthe study. Table 1 gives a profile of eachparticipant.



Table 1: The participants in the study.

Participant Post Teaching Promoted Ethnicity Gender CoachingExperience Post Experience

Experience

P1 Primary teacher 2 years – White Female NoneScottish

P2 Primary teacher 6 years – White Female NoneScottish

P3 Secondary teacher 6 years – White Female NoneScottish

P4 Primary head teacher 19 years 14 years White Female Had beenScottish coached

P5 Primary head teacher 29 years 18 years White Female Had usedScottish solution–

focusedapproaches in previous

school

The choice of IPA for data analysisIPA aims to explore and understand themeaning of an experience from the partici-pant’s point of view (Smith & Osborn, 2004).This matches the intention of the study – togain a rich idiographic account of the partic-ipants’ individual experiences. Althoughsocial constructionism is relevant – partici-pants were influenced by interactions withothers, as they engaged with the groupcoaching approach – the overriding episte-mological position for the research isphenomenological, acknowledging thateach participant had a unique and validperception of the workshop.

First, a qualitative approach was chosenover quantitative. Qualitative research aimsto access the participants’ world and mean-ings, while quantitative research takes a real-ist epistemological position (Coyle, 2007,p.12).

Second, IPA was chosen over other quali-tative approaches. Braun and Clarke (2006)note similarities between thematic analysisand IPA (p.83). However, while thematicanalysis is descriptive, IPA is highly interpre-tative. Therefore IPA is more suitable forgaining deep insights into participants’experiences, for example in the studies byBramley and Eatough (2005); Gyllenstenand Palmer (2006); Gyllensten et al. (2010);Timotijevic and Breakwell (2000); and vanNieuwerburgh and Tong (2013). In addi-tion, the study did not intend to direct theanalysis towards theory development, asrequired in grounded theory (Holloway &Todres, 2003).

IPA recognises hermeneutics (Smith etal., 2009, pp.21–29), the skill of interpretingthe participant’s words and behaviourduring the interview. There is a doublehermeneutic because, while the participantis interpreting their own experience andputting it into words, the researcher ismaking their own meaning of the partici-pant’s words while attempting to resist influ-ence from their own experiences. To addressthe risk of bias, emerging themes wererepeatedly checked to ensure they were

represented in the transcript (Jarman et al.,1997).

Data collectionSemi-structured interviews were used tocollect the data. The researcher met eachparticipant individually, with interviewlength ranging from 59 minutes to one hour44 minutes.

In order to give participants the opportu-nity to tell their own story in their own words(Brocki & Weardon, 2006, pp.90–91),retrieval cues were selected to help themaccess their episodic memory of their expe-riences (Tulving & Pearlstone, 1966). Theywere invited to look at the presentationslides again individually. For each slide theywere asked the main question in the inter-view schedule: What were you thinking and feel-ing at that time?, then given time to think(Kline, 1999) and to reply. There was apotential risk that this set of cues would nothelp participants’ recall, especially if theyhad encoded the information in a differentway (Watkins & Tulving, 1975), for example,through the sights, sounds and smells of theworkshop venue. However, since it was notpossible to return to the venue, the presen-tation slides were offered, and participantswere given a choice about using them.

After each interview, notes were taken ina journal, reflecting on initial impressions ofinteraction with the participant (Smith et al.,2009, p.73).

The researcher transcribed each inter-view, adding non-verbal data about pausesand laughter. The transcript included startand stop times for each intervieweecomment, line numbers and page numbers,and wide margins for exploratory commentsand thoughts about emergent themes.

AnalysisAnalysis – reflective journal. Throughoutthe analysis, reflective notes were made in ajournal. The notes evolved throughout theprocess, covering the researcher’s reactionto thoughts about themes which might beemerging.





Analysis – exploratory comments. Whilebeing read and re-read, each transcript wasanalysed individually (Smith et al., 2009,p.82). Exploratory comments were added onthree levels – descriptive comments, linguis-tic comments, and conceptual coding whichwas often interrogative (Smith et al., 2009,p.84, p.88).

Analysis – emergent themes. The explora-tory comments for the first transcript werereviewed and patterns were explored tocompile a list of emergent themes, whichwere noted on post-it notes on a board to beclustered into provisional superordinatethemes and sub-themes. These emergentthemes and related quotations were alsocollated in a spreadsheet, with further reflec-tions. As recommended by Bainger (2011)the script was re-read to ensure that thethemes were represented in the transcript,and not a result of the researcher’s bias(p.37). Relevant missed quotations or themeswere added. Braun and Clarke (2006) advisethat themes should ‘capture somethingimportant in relation to the overall researchquestion’ (p.82), so themes were not neces-sarily dependent on prevalence. A conceptmap of the participant’s provisional superor-dinate themes and sub-themes was compiled.The above process was repeated for each ofthe transcripts individually. Cross-referencesand clusters of themes were sought by exam-ining the five concept maps, the displayboard and the spreadsheets of quotations,until two superordinate themes and theirsub-themes were identified.

The results. Quotations were selected toillustrate the results. The analysis continuedduring the writing phase (Smith, 1995,p.24).

Ethical principlesThroughout the study, the British Psycholog-ical Society’s Code of Ethics and Conduct(2009) was followed. Ethical approval wasgranted by the Research Ethics Committeeat the University of East London.

Reflexivity Creswell (2003) stated, ‘One cannot escapethe personal interpretations brought to qual-itative analysis’ (p.182). The researcher hadpreviously been a school leader, had writtenand facilitated the workshop, and would alsoconduct the interviews. Therefore it wasessential to take actions to minimise theeffect of bias, congruent with Corrie’s (2013)observation that evidence-based practice ismost helpful when understood as ‘a contextfor learning and discovery, rather than justi-fication’.

According to the ‘simultaneity principle’of appreciative coaching, the act of asking aquestion effects a change (Clancy & Binkert,2010, p.15). Therefore, interview questionswere neutral. Throughout the study, reflec-tion on conscious and unconscious construc-tion of the data was supported through theuse of a reflexive journal, and regular discus-sions with the researcher’s supervisor, check-ing that analysis was well-founded on thetranscripts. After completion of the study,individual meetings with participantsconfirmed that the findings reflected theirexperiences. Acknowledging the difficulty oftotal bracketing of bias, the reflexive journalwas maintained until the report wascomplete.

ResultsThe results are presented through thethemes shown in Table 2.

1. Learning with others – the value of collaborationAll participants commented on the signifi-cance of collaborating with other people tomake meaning, for example sharing narra-tives, practising with a partner and learningas a group.

Learning: Working with a partner made it real.All participants reported that working with apartner helped their understanding andconsolidated their learning.

I remember feeling, kind of accom-plished after it. …I think until you do

something, you don’t really understandhow it’s gonna [sic] work. (P3:1403–1465)Seeing it, you learn about it. But actuallydoing it yourself, it kind of cements thatfor you. (P2: 1504–1505)

When practising, participants realised thatlistening and non-directive questioning giveresponsibility to the coachee. They saw thecoachee accept responsibility and feel confi-dent about the outcome.

Actually I didn’t do anything. I just askedthe questions that were there and she didit all. It was quite good to help her tohelp herself. …She seemed really confi-dent about it after[wards]. (P1: 961–964)

Four of the participants reported noticingdifficulty with listening attentively to theirpartner.

It was really hard being quiet… it was abit of an eye opener. (P2: 410–412)

One participant experienced a ‘criticalmoment’ (de Haan, 2008, p.92) while work-ing with a partner who displayed good listen-ing skills.

I thought, ‘You are not listening!’ …Soyeah, that made me think. (P5:1044–1056) When we changed places… she was verygood at listening… didn’t interrupt…sort of encouraged me with her bodylanguage, but didn’t intervene. And Ithought, ‘…I’m learning from you’. (P5: 1064–1071)

Two participants observed that being in acoaching conversation had given them confi-dence that equality would be respected inPRD conversations with their reviewer.Although previously being doubtful, theyfound the practice coaching conversationconvincing.

[before practice session] I remember beingquite doubtful….. Sometimes you feel ifit is your boss, they are…more expertthan you. (P3: 922–924)[after practice session] Both people in theconversation being equal – I believedthat… by then. I didn’t really believe itbefore. Having done it, and experiencedthe conversation.’ (P3: 1587–1598)

Learning: Feeling part of the group. Four of theparticipants reported enjoying learning aspart of a group sharing a goal.

Because we were… there for the samegoal… it was quite nice. (P3: 364–365)

One participant was explicit about the valueof collaborating with people from otherschools.

The opportunity to engage withcolleagues. And I did like the fact that Ididn’t know these people. (P4:1524–1525)When being interviewed, participants

used language illustrating that they had feltpart of the group. For example, one partici-pant spoke about the group sharing aninsight while they all watched the demon-stration.



Table 2: The themes in the coaches’ experiences.

Superordinate Theme Sub-theme

1. Learning with others – the value of Learning: Working with a partner made it real collaboration Learning: Feeling part of the group

2. Reflection – the value of having time Reflection: Myself as a coach, and myself to think as a coachee

Reflection: Coaching and other people Reflection: Making plans to start coaching and sharing

Everybody was like ‘Ah!’… Once we sawit, we were all… ‘I get it now’. (P1:885–890)

2. Reflection – the value of having time tothinkThroughout the workshop, participantsthought about what it would be like in futureto be a coach, and to be coached. They alsobegan to plan next steps.

Reflection: Myself as coach and coachee. Whilereflecting during the workshop, participantscompared their own behaviour with thecoaching skills and processes beingdiscussed. Reflecting on their role as coach,they became aware of their desire to listenmore, and to be less directive when workingwith colleagues and learners.

What I got out of that night was I actuallydon’t listen. I look as if I’m listening. (P5:1063–1064). It also made me a bit more aware ofmaybe times where I have been moredirective in the school, and I maybeshouldn’t have been. (P2: 792–795)

Reflecting on their role as coachee, theyrecognised that they too would benefit fromthe thinking time they afforded to learners.

We give the kids thinking time, but wedon’t give ourselves it. So I think it makesyou question it yourself. (P3: 976–978)

When thinking about non-directive ques-tioning using the GROW model, one partici-pant noticed that being given responsibilityfor the outcome could challenge thecoachee.

When I look at these questions there’s nohiding really. It puts a lot of responsibilityon you. (P1: 727–729)

However, participants were enthusiasticabout having responsibility, and felt encour-aged by the non-judgemental approach toconcepts of right or wrong.

But it seemed as if there was no right orwrong answer. It was just what youthought. (P2: 290–291)

One participant noticed the ‘fit’ betweencoaching and her own values. Comparingthe practice coaching conversation with herexperience of previous non-coaching PRDmeetings, she experienced an insight aboutboth people in a coaching conversationbeing equal.

This fits better with the way I kind of seethe world…. We should treat otherpeople the way we would want to betreated. (P2: 533–535).This idea that what I brought to theconversation was just as important, wasreally enlightening to me. (P2:1104–1113)

Reflection: Coaching and other people. Duringthe workshop, participants reflected on linksbetween coaching and other people inschool. They related the workshop contentto real situations with colleagues andchildren.

I couldn’t help but relate what you weresaying to the situations that I was dealingwith in school. (P5: 676–677). I’ve been so busy leading, directing andfixing in this school that I haven’t usedthe coaching model at all. (P5: 966–967)

They began to think that goal-setting andnon-directive questioning could benefitteachers and learners alike.

Being allowed to set our own goals… wedo that with the children… If you dictateto the children… they are not going to beas motivated. (P4: 864–868)It started to get me thinking about howthis wasn’t just for staff…. It’s for staff topupil, or pupil to pupil. (P1: 507–512)

In particular, they identified with theconcept that people could use coachingskills and GROW to help one another,reporting that coaching was more supportiveand nurturing than the previous model ofPRD.

Coaching’s a bit more nurturing. (P2:217–218). It was more of a supportive environmentthan… the previous model. (P3:1243–1244)



The discussion about using coaching as asupport led to participants reflecting morewidely about helping others. One participanthad mixed feelings, speaking initially aboutthe benefits of collegiality, then later aboutthe difficulty of obtaining support fromothers.

Reminded me that we can have a colle-giate approach to things. (P3: 441).Sometimes I thought, actually, it’s morequick [sic] if you’re on your own. (P3:532)

The concern about accessing support wasechoed by another participant who wasworried about relying on her line manager’scoaching skills.

Just the worry that, em, the success of thismight land on the ability of the otherperson… (P2: 690–691)

Reflection: Making plans to start coaching andsharing. Participants thought about how theycould use coaching skills beyond PRDconversations, for example when target-setting with learners.

Made me think about the target-setting Ido every month with the kids. …thewording that I could use, to make it…more encouraging for them to speak.(P3: 791–796)

They also reflected on how they could intro-duce coaching when working with currentand future colleagues.

I do have a student [student teacher]coming… so I’ve been thinking aboutit… in terms of how I can help her. (P1:1082–1084)

One participant reported feeling an urgencyto resume using coaching.

It’s quite a strong tool… one you’d haveto practise. That’s what I was thinking. ‘Ineed to get back into this, I need to usethis.’ (P5: 721–723)

Participants with line management responsi-bilities considered how they could engagewith teachers in school, and how coachingskills and GROW could be used withcolleagues, parents, and children.

I remember thinking: this actually wouldbe a good approach to share with thewhole staff. So that even if they wereworking with parents, or a student,[teacher], or having to have possibly anuncomfortable or difficult conversationwith someone, …not the least bitconfrontational, …win-win situation. (P5:608–610)

Although overall the participants felt opti-mistic about their next steps, one participantreported feelings of anxiety about how shewould do this.

By the end of the session I was really posi-tive, really motivated about going back toschool… A bit anxious in some respects,if I’m honest…. At the end of it I thought, ‘…I know it’s a learning curvefor everybody.’ (P4: 1475–1492)

One participant reported that she hadstarted implementing her plans the day afterthe workshop. She recalled that usingGROW with a colleague had resolved a long-standing problem.

Came in the very next day. Put it in place.Used the GROW model, and ithappened. And I’d been struggling withthat for months… Because you haddemonstrated the GROW model. And Ithought, ‘Right, I’m doing that tomor-row!’ [laughing]. (P5: 291–306)

DiscussionThe study set out to enable teachers toexplain from their own perspective, theirexperience of an introductory coachingtraining workshop, where they learned basiccoaching skills and GROW, and exploredtheir role as a coach and as a coachee. Thisdiscussion compares the findings with theliterature review, and introduces furtherrelevant literature. The limitations of theresearch are identified, and proposals forfuture research are made.

Because the literature review on coach-ing in education did not find any literatureabout teachers’ experiences of undertakinga coaching training programme, the resultsof this study are explored with reference to



the research into coaching in education ingeneral.

Definition of coaching. Participants’ experi-ences concur with van Nieuwerburgh’s(2012) definition of coaching (p.17). Theyreported enhanced learning and self-aware-ness as a result of the one-to-one conversa-tion when practising coaching (P2: ‘…moreaware of… times where I have been…direc-tive in the school, and I maybe shouldn’thave been’). They felt supported and chal-lenged by the open questioning and activelistening (P3: ‘It was more of a supportiveenvironment than… the previous model’;P5: ‘She was very good at listening’; P1:‘When I look at these questions there’s nohiding really’).

GROW for leadership development. Otherfindings in the study are consistent with theliterature described. For example, oneparticipant reported success when usingGROW for a colleague’s leadership develop-ment the day after the workshop (Grant etal., 2010, p.162).

First develop yourself. Creasy and Paterson’s(2005) advice to school leaders ‘first developyourself’ (p.23) was not followed. Instead,the actions of all participants, whether teach-ers or school leaders, were congruent withthe principles of coaching; they showedinterest in pulling not pushing coachingthrough the school (Whybrow & O’Riordan,2012, p.216). They were keen to movequickly so that the whole school communitycould learn together (P5: ‘a good approachto share with the whole staff’), and couldbegin embedding ‘coach-like’ conversationsin school (Gross Cheliotes & FlemmingReilly, 2010). The participants who wereunpromoted teachers displayed enthusiasmfor putting their new knowledge and skillsinto practice with colleagues and children(P1: ‘I do have a student [student teacher]coming… so I’ve been thinking about… howI can help her’), and did not plan to waituntil their line managers became skilled.

It was clear that the participants who werehead teachers would be advocates for coach-ing, in line with Suggett’s (2006) recommen-dation that coaching is ‘sponsored’ by seniorleaders.

Implementation of coaching. In the work-shop section What action should I take now?participants were encouraged to coach oneanother after the workshop (‘co-coaching’)to work on their plans for coaching, and toincrease the chance of implementation(Cornett & Knight, 2008, p.209). The work-shop did not devote time to the arrange-ments. When being interviewed up to fourweeks later, none of the participantsreported that they had set up a formalarrangement. This raises a question aboutwhether participants would have set up theco-coaching arrangement if this section ofthe workshop, instead of simple encourage-ment had used a coaching model thatincluded a maintenance stage, for exampleGROWTH (Growth Coaching International,n.d.), or Skiffington and Zeus’ (2003) four-stage model. Cornett and Knight (2008)state that ‘one-shot professional develop-ment without coaching follow-up does notlead to wide implementation’ (p.209). Theparticipants did say that they planned tocontinue practising coaching, and they didnot express concern about taking smallsteps. This concurs with Amabile andKramer’s (2011) research into workplacemotivation, in which they highlight theimportance of small movements towards agoal. Arnold (2014) reports that these‘microresolutions’ build confidence becausethey are more doable, so more likely to beimplemented.

Positive psychology, critical moments andinsights. The workshop began with a listen-ing exercise intended to illustrate Fredrick-son’s broaden-and-build theory of positiveemotions (2001, p.219). The findings do notinclude an explicit link to positive psychol-ogy (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000),but we could speculate a link between the



positive emotions exercise and participants’later experience of the workshop. Duringcoaching practice, participants experienced‘critical moments’ (P5: ‘I thought, ‘You arenot listening!’’), defined by de Haan (2008,p.92), as an ‘exciting, tense or significantmoment’ in a coaching conversation. Whilereflecting outwith the practice coachingsession, they also experienced insights (P2:‘This idea… was really enlightening to me’).Colloquially called ‘Aha! moments’, insightsare sudden comprehensions that can resultin a new interpretation of a situation and canpoint to the solution to a problem (Kounios& Beeman, 2009, p.210; Sternberg & David-son, 1995; van Nieuwerburgh, 2014, p.160).In a study measuring brain activity, Subrama-niam et al. (2009) found that participantswere more likely to solve problems withinsight if they were in a positive mood, thanif they were in a neutral or negative mood.

A coaching approach to professional reviewand development (PRD). The participantsresponded positively (both as coach and ascoachee) to the requirement that schoolleaders use coaching skills to support profes-sional review and development (GTCS,2013). They looked forward to the coachingconversation giving them more responsibil-ity for their own learning (P2: ‘I loved thisidea of equality’). However, they recognisedthe responsibility (P1: ‘When I look at thesequestions, there’s no hiding really’), andthey also reported disquiet that their experi-ence of PRD relied on the coaching skills ofthe reviewer (P2: ‘Just the worry that, em,the success of this might land on the abilityof the other person’). This concurs withDonaldson’s (2010) vision of teachers havinga professional requirement to engage incareer-long learning, as well as an entitle-ment.

Wider uses for coaching. The participantsalso reflected on wider uses for coachingwith colleagues or learners (P3: ‘Made methink about the target-setting I do everymonth with the kids… the wording I could

use’). Participants did not report thoughtsabout using coaching to work withcolleagues directly for improving teachingand learning, for example instructionalcoaching (Knight & van Nieuwerburgh,2012), which had not been covered in theworkshop.

Fixer or Multiplier. Throughout the work-shop, participants experienced both ‘reflec-tion-in-action’ (while they completed anaction) and ‘reflection-on-action’ (evaluat-ing past action) (Schön, 1987). Whenreflecting-on-action, thinking about herbehaviour with others in school, one partici-pant became aware of a feature of herbehaviour with colleagues; she had chosento keep ‘fixing’ and had no time to coach(P5: ‘I’ve been so busy leading, directing andfixing in this school’). Like Reeves’ (2010)Fixer, she had stopped giving people theopportunity to struggle with challengingproblems (p.52). The workshop led her tobelieve that a non-directive coachingapproach to leadership and managementgives responsibility to colleagues who thendevelop their own problem-solving andanalytical skills. To use Reeves’ (2010) term,she wanted to revert to being a Multiplier.

Limitations of this study The study has several limitations and theyshould be taken into account when inter-preting the findings. The researcherdesigned and facilitated the workshop,designed the interview schedule, invitedparticipation in the study, interviewed theparticipants, and conducted the analysis.The researcher is also a former head teacherand committed to coaching. First, it is possi-ble that the participants may haveconsciously or unconsciously emphasisedpositive experiences over negative becauseof the positive relationship built up duringthe workshop. Second, the participants wereall volunteers interested in talking abouttheir experience of the workshop, so theymay have been unconsciously biased. It ispossible that non-volunteers interviewed by a



third party would have given differentanswers. Third, there is a risk that biasaffected the collection and analysis of thedata, despite attempts to conduct the studyscrupulously, including supervisor discus-sions and reflective journaling. Fourth, thestudy could not be replicated in exactly thesame context. The workshops took place inSeptember 2013 as part of a pilotprogramme, when teachers were preparingfor the introduction of new procedures inAugust 2014. If the workshop were repeatedin Scotland, the new procedures wouldalready be in place.

A further consideration relates to the useof IPA. It was appropriate for interpretingthe idiographic accounts of the participants’experiences, which are of interest in them-selves, and it does not permit generalisation.Hefferon and Gil-Rodriguez, (2011, p.758)advise that, rather than generalising IPAfindings, we consider possible transferabilityof findings from group to group. Howeverfurther research is needed.

Implications for practice and for futureresearchThe findings of the study act as a foundationfor further research on teachers’ experi-ences of coaching training. The study couldalso help construct one or more hypothesesfor quantitative testing.

Four suggestions are now made whichcould extend our knowledge. First, a hypoth-esis could be tested quantitatively – it ishypothesised that participants will experi-ence more insights if the workshop beginswith an activity to generate positiveemotions. Second, a longitudinal studycould look at the extent of implementationfollowing introductory training workshops.The study could compare settings with andwithout formally-arranged follow-up co-coaching, relating closely to Cornett andKnight’s (2008) findings that coaching afterprofessional development led to improvedimplementation rates. The third suggestionmight be of interest to educators attempting

to increase access to coaching training forteachers who find attendance at face-to-faceworkshops difficult because of scarcity offinance or supply teachers. If the workshopwere delivered through an alternativemodel, for example online video conferenc-ing and interactive forums, which helpedparticipants feel they were interacting withother people (Okita et al., 2007), the educa-tors may be interested to know if partici-pants’ experiences followed the samethemes as those in this study. A mixedmethod or qualitative study would also revealany additional experiences that were notmanifested in the face-to-face workshop. Thefourth suggestion relates to the matter ofline manager coaching in the PRD process,which is outwith the scope of this study.Teachers’ experiences of coaching trainingcould be explored with specific reference totheir context – either as a reviewee who willbe coached by their line manager, or as theline manager coach who will conduct thereview.

ConclusionI remember feeling, kind of accom-plished after it. …I think until you dosomething, you don’t really understandhow it’s gonna [sic] work. (P3:1403–1465)

The study aspired to respond to Linley andHarrington’s (2008, p.52) call for more prag-matic science that genuinely serves theneeds of researchers and practitioners. It haspresented five individuals’ experiences of anintroductory coaching training workshop.Participants noticed that collaborating withothers through practice and shared mean-ing-making enhanced their learning, whichwas further enriched by time for reflection.They experienced coaching from both sidesof the conversation, and as an observer.Reflecting on their own skills andbehaviours, they began to plan their nextsteps. Further research is needed to build onthe findings of this study.



The AuthorsMargaret BarrMSc Coaching Psychology student at the University of East London.

Dr Christian van NieuwerburghSenior Lecturer in School of Psychology at the University of East London.

CorrespondenceMargaret BarrEmail:[email protected]



ReferencesAmabile, T. & Kramer, S. (2011). The progress principle:

Using small wins to ignite joy, engagement, andcreativity at work. Boston, MA: Harvard BusinessSchool.

Arnold, C.L. (2014). Small move, big change: Usingmicro-resolutions to transform your life permanently.New York: Penguin.

Arnott, M.A. & Ozga, J. (2010). Education andnationalism: The discourse of education policy inScotland. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics ofEducation, 31(3), 335–350.

Bainger, L. (2011). Giving teachers a voice: Usinginterpretative phenomenological analysis inmusic education research. Music EducationResearch and Innovation, 14(1), 32–38.

Bramley, N. & Eatough, V. (2005). The experience ofliving with Parkinson’s disease: An interpretativephenomenological analysis case study. Psychologyand Health, 20(2), 223–235.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analy-sis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3(2), 77–101.

British Psychological Society (BPS) (2009). Code ofethics and conduct: Guidance published by the Ethics Committee of the British Psychological Society. Leicester: BPS.

Brocki, J.J.M. & Wearden, A.J. (2006). A critical eval-uation of the use of interpretative phenomeno-logical analysis (IPA) in health psychology.Psychology and Health, 21(1), 87–108.

Bryce, T. & Humes, W. (Eds.) (2008). Scottish educa-tion beyond devolution. (3rd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Cavanagh, M. (2013). The coaching engagement inthe 21st century: New paradigms for complextimes. In S. David, D. Clutterbuck & D. Meggin-son (Eds.), Beyond goals: Effective strategies for coach-ing and mentoring (pp.151–184). London: GowerPublishing.

Centre for the Use of Research and Evidence inEducation (CUREE) (2005). National frameworkfor coaching. London: CUREE.

Clancy, A.L. & Binkert, J. (2010). Appreciative coach-ing: Pathway to flourishing. In J. Passmore (Ed.),Excellence in coaching: The industry guide (2nd ed.,pp.147–156). London: Kogan Page.

Cornett, J. & Knight, J. (2008). Research on coach-ing. In J. Knight (Ed.), Coaching: Approaches andperspectives (pp.192–216). Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin.

Corrie, S. (2013). Developing coaching psychology as anevidence-based discipline: Challenges, opportunitiesand seeking new horizons. Presentation at 4th Euro-pean Coaching Psychology Conference in Edin-burgh, December. London: Special Group inCoaching Psychology.

Coyle, A. (2007). Introduction to qualitative psycho-logical research. In E. Lyons & A. Coyle (Eds.),Analysing qualitative data in psychology (pp.98–115).London: Sage.

Creasy, J. & Paterson, F. (2005). Leading coaching inschools. Nottingham: National College for SchoolLeadership.

Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative quanti-tative and mixed methods approaches. London: Sage.

de Haan, E. (2008). I doubt therefore I coach:Critical moments in coaching practice. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(1),91–105.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2003).Sustaining improvement: A suite of modules on coach-ing, running networks and building capacity.Nottingham: DfES.

Donaldson, G. (2010). Teaching Scotland’s future:Report of a review of teacher education in Scotland.Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.

Education Scotland (2014). Flexible route to HeadshipProgramme. Retrieved 10 July 2014, from:www.educationscotland.gov.uk/Images/FRH8_Leaflet_Final_tcm4-826313.pdf

Forde, C. (2011). Approaches to professional learn-ing: Coaching, mentoring and building collabo-ration. In C. Forde & J. O’Brian (Eds.), Coachingand mentoring: Developing teachers and leaders. Edin-burgh: Dunedin Academic Press

Forde, C., McMahon, M., Gronn, P. & Martin, M.(2013). Being a leadership development coach:A multi-faceted role. Educational ManagementAdministration & Leadership, 41, 105.

Fredrickson, B.L. (2001). The role of positiveemotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. AmericanPsychologist, 56, 218–226.

General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTC Scot-land) (2012). Revised professional standards. Edinburgh: GTC Scotland. Retrieved 15 July2014, from: www.gtcs.org.uk/standards/stan-dards.aspx

General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTC Scot-land) (2013). Professional update. Edinburgh:GTC Scotland. Retrieved 15 July 2014, from:www.gtcs.org.uk/professional-development/professional-update.aspx

General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTC Scot-land) (2014a). Coaching and mentoring. Edinburgh: GTC Scotland. Retrieved 14 August2014, from:www.gtcs.org.uk/professional-update/coaching-and-mentoring.aspx

General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTC Scot-land) (2014b). Sharing practice in professionalupdate for employers. Edinburgh: GTC Scotland.Retrieved 6 August 2014, from:www.gtcs.org.uk/professional-update/sharing-practice-in-professional-update.aspx

Grant, A.M., Green, L.S. & Rynsaardt, J. (2010).Developmental coaching for high school teach-ers: Executive coaching goes to school. ConsultingPsychology Journal, Practice and Research, 62(3),151–168.

Green, L.S., Oades, L.G. & Robinson, P. (2012). Positive psychology and coaching psychology. InC.J. van Nieuwerburgh (Ed.), Coaching in educa-tion: Getting better results for students, educators andparents (pp.115–132). London: Karnac.

Gross Cheliotes, L. & Flemming Reilly, M. (2010).Coaching conversations: Transforming your school oneconversation at a time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Growth Coaching International (n.d.) The GROWTHApproach. Retrieved 18 August 2014, from:www.growthcoaching.com.au/Default.aspx?PageID=3385088&A=SearchResult&SearchID=6376417&ObjectID=3385088&ObjectType=1.

Gyllensten, K. & Palmer, S. (2006). Experiences ofcoaching and stress in the workplace: An inter-pretative phenomenological analysis. Interna-tional Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 86–98.

Gyllensten, K., Palmer, S., Nilsson, El, Regner, A. M.& Frodi, A. (2010). Experiences of cognitivecoaching: A qualitative study. International Coach-ing Psychology Review, 5(2), 98–108.

Hefferon, K. & Gil-Rodriguez, E. (2011). Interpreta-tive phenomenological analysis. The Psychologist,24(10), 754–759.

HM Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) (2009).Learning together: Improving teaching, improvinglearning. The roles of continuing professional develop-ment, collegiality and chartered teachers in implement-ing curriculum for excellence. Livingston, UK:HMIE.

Holloway, I. & Todres, L. (2003). The status ofmethod: Flexibility, consistency and coherence.Qualitative Research, 3, 345–357.

Ives, Y. (2008). What is ‘coaching’? An exploration ofconflicting paradigms. International Journal ofEvidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 6(2),100–113.

Jackson, P. & Waldman, J. (2011). Positively speaking:The art of constructive conversation with a solutionsfocus. St Albans: The Solutions Focus.

Jarman, M., Smith, J.A. & Walsh, S. (1997). Thepsychological battle for control: A qualitativestudy of health care professionals’ understand-ings of the treatment of anorexia nervosa. Journalof Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7,137–152

Kline, N. (1999). Time to think: listening to ignite thehuman mind. London: Cassell.

Knight, J. & van Nieuwerburgh, C.J. (2012). Instruc-tional coaching: A focus on practice. Coaching:An International Journal of Theory, Research andPractice, 5(2), 1–13.

Kounios, J. & Beeman, M. (2009). The aha! moment:The cognitive neuroscience of insight. CurrentDirections in Psychological Science, 18(4), 210–216.

Linley, P.A. & Harrington, S. (2008). Integrating posi-tive psychology and coaching psychology: Sharedassumptions and aspirations? In S. Palmer & A. Whybrow (Eds.), Handbook of coaching psychol-ogy: A guide for practitioners. Hove: Routledge.

Lofthouse, R., Leat, D. & Towler, C. (2010). Coachingfor teaching and learning: A practical guide forschools. Nottingham: CfBT Education Trust.

National College for Teaching & Leadership(NCT&L) (2014). Coaching. Nottingham:NCT&L. Retrieved 14 August 2014, from:www.nationalcollege.org.uk/index/resources/leadingschools/developing-leadership-in-your-school/coaching

Okita, S.Y., Bailenson, J. & Schwartz, D.L. (2007).The mere belief of social interaction improveslearning. In D.S. McNamara & J.G. Trafton(Eds.), The proceedings of the 29th meeting of theCognitive Science Society (pp.1355–1360).Nashville, Tennessee.

Ozga, J. (2005). Modernising the education work-force: A perspective from Scotland. EducationalReview, 57(2), 207–219.

Pask, R. & Joy, B. (2007). Mentoring-coaching: A hand-book for education professionals. Maidenhead: OpenUniversity Press/McGraw Hill Education.



Raffe, D. (2004). How distinctive is Scottish educa-tion? Five perspectives on distinctiveness. ScottishAffairs, 49, 50–72.

Reeves, D.B. (2010). Fixer or Multiplier? AmericanSchool Board Journal, September 2010, 52–53.Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Associa-tion.

Schön, D.A. (1987). Teaching artistry through reflec-tion-in-action. In Educating the reflective practi-tioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learningin the professions (pp.22–40). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Scottish College for Educational Leadership (SCEL)(2014). Resources. Glasgow: SCEL. Retrieved 17 August 2014, from:www.scelscotland.org.uk/professionallearning/resources.asp

Seligman, M.E.P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. AmericanPsychologist, 55(1), 5-14.

Seligman, M.E.P., Ernst, R.M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K.& Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education: Positivepsychology and classroom interventions. OxfordReview of Education, 35(3), 293–311.

Showers, B. & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peercoaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12–16.

Skiffington, S. & Zeus, P. (2003). Behavioural coaching:How to build sustainable personal and organisationalstrength. North Ryde, NSW: McGraw-Hill.

Smith, J.A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing andqualitative analysis. In J.A. Smith, R. Harre & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods inpsychology (pp.9–26). London: Sage.

Smith, J.A., Flowers, P. & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpre-tative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method andresearch. London: Sage.

Smith, J.A. & Osborn, M. (2004). Interpretativephenomenological analysis. In G.M. Breakwell(Ed.), Doing social psychology research(pp.229–254). Oxford: BPS Blackwell.

Stelter, R. (2013). Third generation coaching. Presenta-tion at 4th European Coaching PsychologyConference in Edinburgh, December. London:Special Group in Coaching Psychology.

Stelter, R., Nielsen, G. & Wikman, J. (2011). Narra-tive-collaborative group coaching develops socialcapital – a randomised control trial and furtherimplications of the social impact of the interven-tion. Coaching: An International Journal of theory,Research and Practice, 4(2), 123–137.

Sternberg, R.J. & Davidson, J.E. (Eds.) (1995).The nature of insight. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Subramaniam, K., Kounios, J., Parrish, T.B. & Jung-Beeman, M. (2009). A brain mechanism for facil-itation of insight by positive affect. Journal ofCognitive Neuroscience, 21, 415–432.

Suggett, N. (2006). Time for coaching. Nottingham:National College for School Leadership.

Timotijevic, L. & Breakwell, G.M. (2000). Migrationand threat to identity. Journal of Community &Applied Social Psychology, 10, 355–372.

Tulving, E. & Pearlstone, Z. (1966). Availability versusaccessibility of information in memory for words.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5,381 391.

van Nieuwerburgh, C.J. (Ed.) (2012). Coaching ineducation: Getting better results for students, educators,and parents. London: Karnac.

van Nieuwerburgh, C.J. (2014). An introduction tocoaching skills: A practical guide. London: Sage.

van Nieuwerburgh, C.J. & Tong, C. (2013). Exploringthe benefits of being a student coach in educa-tional settings: A mixed-method study. Coaching:An International Journal of Theory, Practice andResearch, 6(1), 5–24.

Watkins, M.J. & Tulving, E. (1975). Episodic memory:When recognition fails. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: General, 104, 5–29.

Whitmore, J. (2009). Coaching for performance: GROW-ing human potential and purpose: The principles andpractice of coaching and leadership (4th ed.).London: Nicholas Brealey.

Whybrow, A. & O’Riordan, S. (2012). Developing acoaching culture at work. In M. Neenan & S.Palmer (Eds.), Cognitive behavioural coaching inpractice: An evidence-based approach (pp.203–236).London: Routledge.

Willig, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research inpsychology: Adventures in theory and method(2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.




S WE ARE ENTERING the secondhalf of the year, we have been busywith a variety of activities. Two

surveys – one at the last conference in 2014and one sent out recently – have clearly indi-cated what you, our members, are expectingfrom your Special Group. Your views incombination with the British PsychologicalSociety’s Strategic Plan have shaped both thestrategic plan of the SGCP and our currentprojects, which include CPD events, develop-ing our Coaching Psychology ResearchNetwork, exploring Training and Accredita-tion routes for Coaching Psychologists andof course organising the 5th EuropeanCoaching Psychology Conference.

To begin with I must mention our lineupof CPD events. At the time of publishing thisissue of ICPR, our 2015 CPD programme iswell underway with three workshops havingalready been delivered in London. The‘Positive psychology and authentic well-being’ workshop was presented by Dr SueRoffey on 30 March, and was a joint offeringfrom the SGCP, the Division of HealthPsychology, the Community PsychologySection, and the Social Psychology Section.The ‘Essential neuro-linguistic skills forcoaching psychologists’ workshop was anSGCP offering delivered by Dr Rene Bosmanon the 27 May.

The ‘Self Composing: A new approach inLeadership coaching’, was presented by Dr Ton Voogt on 26 June. Our events team,led by Andy Colville, reports that all work-shops up to date were fully attended andwere a great success.

The next CPD event coming up is anSGCP and Division of Occupational Psychol-ogy shared workshop called ‘Overcomingresistance to change using process consulta-

tion’. This will be delivered by CharteredPsychologists Hannah Azizollah and KajalRuparell on 8 September.

Our final CPD event this year will be theSGCP professional practice workshop on the26 October, entitled ‘Psychological Interven-tions for a Variety of Contexts: Issues ofDesign and Implementation’ presented byDr Aneta Tunariu and Professor RachelTribe.

These events are open to non-SGCPmembers and the general public.

An exclusive additional CPD event – afull-day Masterclass – will be run by Dr SuzyGreen on positive psychology coaching. Theevent will take place in December just beforethe European Conference (for more detailsand registration please check the sgcp.euwebsite).

Submissions for our 2016 CPDprogramme have been received, and ourevents team are working with the Society’sProfessional Development Centre to selectthe workshops representing topics requestedby you, our members.

Report

Special Group in Coaching Psychology NewsDasha Grajfoner

A

The second activity I would like to high-light is the development of The CoachingPsychology Research Network, which wasinaugurated at the 4th InternationalCongress of Coaching Psychology in Decem-ber last year. The development of theResearch Network is important on a numberof levels and is consistent with the strategicobjectives of the SGCP and the Society morebroadly.

The aims of the Research Network are toenable excellence in coaching psychologyresearch through facilitating dialogue anddebate; promoting and enhancing awarenessof coaching psychology research and practicethrough the dissemination of results andestablishing a community of coaching psychol-ogy researchers and practitioners that willstimulate new research interests and ventures.The Research Network also aims to connectpeople across specialisms and areas of interest,both nationally and internationally, for thepurposes of research collaboration.

We are actively recruiting members whohave an interest in research matters andstrengthening the evidence-base of coachingpsychology, so if you would like to beinvolved in research collaborations pleasecontact our Research Officer, ProfessorSarah Corrie, at [email protected].

Following the success of our 10th anniver-sary conference last year, plans are well afootfor this year’s event, entitled 5th EuropeanCoaching Psychology Conference: ‘BreakingNew Ground’. The event will be held over10–11 December 2015 at the Holiday Inn,Bloomsbury, in London, as the venue provedsuch a success with our delegates previously.We are inviting submissions of abstracts viaour conference website: http://www.sgcp.euand are particularly interested in submissions

that support our conference theme, ‘Break-ing New Ground’. In addition, we canannounce that the streams running acrossthe two days of the conference will be: ‘Lead-ership, Executive and Business Coaching’,‘Positive Psychology Coaching (includingResilience)’, Tools and Techniques in Coach-ing Psychology (including CPD and PeerPractice)’ and ‘Coaching PsychologyResearch Network (including internationalcollaborations and developments, collabora-tions between practice and research, and newemerging research and evidence-basedpractice)’. Conference Co-Chairs David Teeand Michael Webster have managed toorganise an exciting line-up of keynote speak-ers. The information is available on ourconference website, so please do visit us,submit your abstract or register for attendingthe event.

Last but not least, I would like to saythank you to Professor Stephen Palmer, whowill be stepping down following 10 volumesas the UK Co-ordinating Editor of ICPR afterthis September 2015 issue.

Stephen has done a stellar job as theFounder and Editor of the ICPR. The publi-cation has become highly influential in thefield of coaching psychology under his lead-ership.

The SGCP Committee and I look forwardvery much to meeting you at our CPD eventsor in December for what is always a popular,friendly and informative occasion and one ofthe highlights of the Coaching Psychologycalendar.

Dr Dasha GrajfonerChair of the Special Group in Coaching PsychologyEmail: [email protected]


Dasha Grajfoner


Report

Interest Group in Coaching Psychology NewsNic Eddy

IN PREVIOUS REPORTS, I have discussedthe Coaching Psychology Interest Group’sevolving strategic marketing efforts –

moving away from an earlier emphasis onthe merits of coaching psychologists andcoaching psychology to one of exploring thecontribution of psychology to best practicecoaching. This inclusive emphasis hasallowed us to address more readily theprofessional development needs of thosecoaches – psychologists or not – who aspireto best practice coaching, as well as to theneeds of those HR practitioners andpurchasers of coaching who seek to improvethe utility of their coaching programs bothin initial coach engagement as well as post-assignment evaluation.

Our most significant activity over the lastyear has been the International Congress onCoaching Psychology (4th ICCP) held inMelbourne in November 2014. I have previ-ously discussed (see ICPR Vol. 10 No. 1March 2015 pp.111–112) some of our earlyevaluation of both qualitative feedback andquantitative data collected from the Novem-ber Congress in exploring whether we hadbeen successful in meeting our more strate-gic aspirations. Whilst considering how wemight improve a next Congress, we also tooka moment to pause and notice the profes-sional satisfaction that arises when coreprocesses and factors align:

determining participant needs, design,implementation and evaluation.

The recent APS Industrial and Organisa-tional Psychology (IOP) Conference held inJuly 2015, Melbourne offered an unexpectedopportunity to reflect on how factors such asthe Congress underlying purpose, partici-pant needs, program design, and presenterselection and presentation coaching affect

the experience and satisfaction of Congressparticipants as well as presenters.l By comparison with the relatively focused

emphasis on coaching at the 4th ICCP,the IOP Conference was attempting to dojustice to a plethora of topics that fallunder the umbrella of organisationalpsychology.

l All presenters at the 4th ICCP wereinvited and then briefed/coached onpresenting effectively to an audience ofexperienced practitioners. With the IOPConference, with the exception ofkeynote presenters, the more commonpsychology conference approach wasadopted with the IOP Conference Scien-tific Committee seeking submissionsfrom presenters for inclusion in theConference programme.

l Appealing to a relatively narrow band ofcoaches who aspire to best practiceimplies training, maturity and experi-ence. Not surprisingly, it appeared to methat the majority of 4th ICCP participantsreflected this experience and were onaverage, notably older than the far more

diverse IOP participant age range andhence a far greater diversity of individualprofessional development needs.

Two conferences with differing underlyingfactors that require very different approachesto conference design.

Can we say which conference design ismore effective? As the previous points I thinkmake clear, this is a misleading questionwithout a clear understanding of the partic-ular conference purpose and participantneeds.

Considering the challenges facing theIOP Conference Organising Committeeprovided an excellent lens to reflect that thesuccess of the 4th ICCP was determinedeasily as much by its particular and necessaryorganising design as by the subsequentperformance of presenters on the day. Inappealing to those coaches, those practition-ers, seeking to explore the contribution ofpsychology to best practice coaching thenthe Congress organisers’ approach of inviting all presenters – not just keynotepresenters – and briefing them effectively onthe specific needs of an audience of experi-enced practitioners resulted in an excellentplatform to deliver the outcome we sought.

A different approach for 2016The Coaching Psychology Interest Grouphas conducted a Symposium, or in lateryears, a Congress every two years since 2004.However, we will be adopting a differentapproach for 2016. In September next year,the APS will be hosting its 50th AnnualConference and in honour of its half-century, has requested Colleges and InterestGroups not run separate conferences duringthe year but rather contribute to a mega-conference celebrating psychology in all itsforms and applications.

The Coaching Psychology Interest GroupNational Committee is exploring how we canmake a substantial contribution at the APSAnnual Conference, and will be adding tothis with a series of national ‘road shows’ inthe first seven months of the year. Theseroad shows will add to the ongoing profes-sional development events organised byrespective State Committees.

Which leaves me with an excellent oppor-tunity to thank the continuing efforts of mycolleagues in Perth, Adelaide, Canberra,Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane as well asmy colleagues on the National Committee.

Cheers.

Nic EddyNational ConvenerInterest Group on Coaching PsychologyAustralian Psychological SocietyEmail: [email protected]


Nic Eddy


The Docklands Waterfront, Melbourne.


International Coaching Psychology Review– Volume index 2015

Volume 10, No. 1, March 2015

4 Editorial: Celebrating our 10th volume of the International Coaching Psychology ReviewStephen Palmer & Sandy Gordon

Papers

6 How coaching helps leadership resilience: The leadership perspectiveCarmelina Lawton Smith

20 There is no leadership if no-one follows: Why leadership is necessarily a group processMichael J. Platow, S. Alexander Haslam, Stephen D. Reicher & Niklas K. Steffens

38 Differences between critical moments for clients, coaches, and sponsors of coachingErik de Haan & Christiane Nieß

62 Helping people to ‘make things happen’: A framework for proactivity at work Sharon K. Parker & Ying Wang

76 The experience of cognitive behavioural group coaching with college students: An IPA study exploring its effectivenessPepita Torbrand & Vicky Ellam-Dyson

94 Clients’ experiences of Intentional Personality Change CoachingLesley S. Martin, Lindsay G. Oades & Peter Caputi

Reports




Volume 10, No. 2, September 2015

116 Editorial: 10 years, 10 volumes of the International Coaching Psychology ReviewStephen Palmer & Sandy Gordon

Papers







Reports





Notes

4. Online submission process(1) All manuscripts must be submitted to a Co-ordinating Editor by email to:

Stephen Palmer (UK): [email protected] Gordon (Australia): [email protected]

(2) The submission must include the following as separate files:l Title page consisting of manuscript title, authors’ full names and affiliations, name and address for corresponding author.l Abstract.l Full manuscript omitting authors’ names and affiliations. Figures and tables can be attached separately if necessary.

5. Manuscript requirementsl Contributions must be typed in double spacing with wide margins. All sheets must be numbered.l Tables should be typed in double spacing, each on a separate page with a self-explanatory title. Tables should be comprehensible

without reference to the text. They should be placed at the end of the manuscript with their approximate locations indicated inthe text.

l Figures can be included at the end of the document or attached as separate files, carefully labelled in initial capital/lower caselettering with symbols in a form consistent with text use. Unnecessary background patterns, lines and shading should be avoided.Captions should be listed on a separate page. The resolution of digital images must be at least 300 dpi.

l For articles containing original scientific research, a structured abstract of up to 250 words should be included with theheadings: Objectives, Design, Methods, Results, Conclusions. Review articles should use these headings: Purpose, Methods, Results,Conclusions.

l Overall, the presentation of papers should conform to the British Psychological Society’s Style Guide (available at www.bps.org.uk/publications/publications_home.cfm in PDF format). Non-discriminatory language should be used throughout. Spelling should beAnglicised when appropriate. Text should be concise and written for an international readership of applied psychologists.Sensationalist and unsubstantiated views are discouraged. Abbreviations, acronyms and unfamiliar specialist terms should beexplained in the text on first use.

l Particular care should be taken to ensure that references are accurate and complete. Give all journal titles in full. Referencingshould follow BPS formats. For example:Billington, T. (2000). Separating, losing and excluding children: Narratives of difference. London: Routledge/Falmer.Elliott, J.G. (2000). Dynamic assessment in educational contexts: Purpose and promise. In C. Lidz & J.G. Elliott (Eds.),

Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp.713–740). New York: J.A.I. Press.Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2006). The coaching psychology movement and its development within the British Psychological

Society. International Coaching Psychology Review 1(1), 5–11.l SI units must be used for all measurements, rounded off to practical values if appropriate, with the Imperial equivalent in

parentheses.l In normal circumstances, effect size should be incorporated.l Authors are requested to avoid the use of sexist language.l Authors are responsible for acquiring written permission to publish lengthy quotations, illustrations, etc. for which they do not

own copyright.

6. Brief reportsThese should be limited to 1000 words and may include research studies and theoretical, critical or review comments whose essentialcontribution can be made briefly. A summary of not more than 50 words should be provided.7. Publication ethicsBPS Code of Conduct – Code of Conduct, Ethical Principles and Guidelines.Principles of Publishing – Principle of Publishing.

8. Supplementary dataSupplementary data too extensive for publication may be deposited with the British Library Document Supply Centre. Such materialincludes numerical data, computer programs, fuller details of case studies and experimental techniques. The material should besubmitted to the Editor together with the article, for simultaneous refereeing.

9. Post acceptancePDF page proofs are sent to authors via email for correction of typesetting but not for rewriting or the introduction of new material.Corrections at this stage in production due to errors made by an author may incur a fee payable by the author or their institution.

10. CopyrightTo protect authors and publications against unauthorised reproduction of articles, The British Psychological Society requires copyrightto be assigned to itself as publisher, on the express condition that authors may use their own material at any time withoutpermission. On acceptance of a paper, authors will be requested to sign an appropriate assignment of copyright form.

11. Checklist of requirementsl Abstract (100–200 words).l Title page (include title, authors’ names, affiliations, full contact details).l Full article text (double-spaced with numbered pages and anonymised).l References (see above). Authors are responsible for bibliographic accuracy and must check every reference in the manuscript and

proofread again in the page proofs.l Tables, figures, captions placed at the end of the article or attached as separate files.

St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR, UKTel 0116 254 9568 Fax 0116 227 1314 E-mail [email protected] www.bps.org.uk

© The British Psychological Society 2015Incorporated by Royal Charter Registered Charity No 229642

Contents116 Editorial: 10 years, 10 volumes of the International Coaching Psychology Review

Stephen Palmer & Sandy Gordon

Papers







Reports




international coaching psychology...

Documents