Executive coaching impacts leader behaviour
Leader behaviour impacts employee wellbeing
leadership development changes leader behaviour [and impacts subordinate wellbeing]
Exec coaching is a leadership development intervention
Therefore executive coaching should impact employee well-being and this is what my
research will focus on. Measure the indirect impact of executive coaching on subordinate
well-being
Linking EC as a leadership development intervention impacting employee well-being
Executive coaching has been defined as “an experiential, individualised, leadership
development process that builds a leader’s capability to achieve short and long-term
organisational goals – and is driven by the objectives, the needs and the preferences of the
executive and organisation”. (Ennis et al, 2003). It may entail any or all of the following:
changing attitudes and habits; developing skills; preparing and developing for future
assignments; defining and implementing one’s leadership style, business goals, and
strategies. (Stern, 2004).
To support and add credibility to its part in the booming coaching industry with an
estimated total global revenue of US$2.85 bn (ICF: Global Coaching Study, 2020), a growing
base of empirical and theoretical literature investigates a number of different measures of
success and outcomes for executive coaching. The majority of these have tended to focus
on executive-specific outcomes such as leader performance (A. M. Grant et al., 2009; Linley
et al., 2010; Theeboom et al., 2014), leadership behaviour and style (Anthony, 2017; Cerni et
al., 2010; Kampa-Kokesch & Anderson, 2001; MacKie, 2015; Sonesh et al., 2015), leadership
development (Kombarakaran et al., 2008; Walker-Fraser, 2011), relationships in the
workplace (Kombarakaran et al., 2008) or workplace well-being and job satisfaction (A. M.
Grant et al., 2009; Linley et al., 2010; Theeboom et al., 2014).
Alongside this body of coaching research, there is a wealth of occupational health and
occupational psychology research pertaining to the impact of leader behaviour on employee
well-being (Arnold, 2017; Bono et al., 2007; Inceoglu et al., 2018; K. Kelloway et al., 2013; K.
E. Kelloway & Barling, 2010) and support the argument that leadership interventions result
in enhanced leadership (Avolio et al 2009), which in turn enhance employee well-being
(Kelloway & Barling 2010) – although employee well-being understood as the employees’
actual and perceived work environment or well-being in the workplace (Christian et al 2011,
Kelloway and Barling 2010, Bigio & Cortese 2013)
employee well-being is well-documented in organisational studies there is no clear
agreement on the concept itself or a universal definition (Zheng et al., 2015, Page & VellaBrodrick 2009). Although employee well-being is considered a multi-dimensional construct
(Juniper et al., 2011; Zheng et al., 2015) studies on employee well-being have primarily
focused on specific elements such as job satisfaction (Weiss, 2002), employee engagement
(Knight et al., 2017), psychological well-being (PWB) (Wright, 2009), work attitude (Leavitt et
al., 2011), Flow (Ceja & Navarro, 2011) or adverse elements such as negative affect
(Panaccio & Vandenberghe, 2012), burnout and stress (Demerouti et al., 2001) rather than
employee well-being in a broader sense.
Employee well-being and that as well as an leadership ‘development process’ executive
coaching is also a leadership development intervention. a targeted, purposeful, intervention
like Executive coaching can help executives develop and maintain positive change in their
personal development and leadership behaviour (Grant, 2012a)
Difference in leadership development objectives and executive coaching objectives,
Leadership development focus is on changing the leaders in order to change employees (K.
E. Kelloway & Barling, 2010) ie the indirect effect of the intervention is of most interest.
whereas the focus of executive coaching is a goal-focused intervention aimed toward helping
executives improve their performance and consequently the performance of the overall
organization (R. R. Kilburg, 1996c). Subordinate benefit is rarely taken into consideration – and
where it is
Focus of my study is to look at the mluti-level effects of coaching beyond the executive and its
potential on the impact on subordinates rather than the intervention participants themselves. rickdown effects of changes in clients leadership behaviours on subordinates' job attitudes,
performance and retention. (Ely, Boyce et al)
And following this rationale it is reasonable to assume that executive coaching is a leadership
development intervention, that can impact employee well-being.
A few studies do exist that mention elements of employee wellbeing as an outcome for
executive coaching eg Talboom (1999) looked at the impact of coaching on subordinate
absence rates, Anderson (2001) considered employee satisfaction as a positive benefit of
executive coaching and Parker‐Wilkins (2006) found 54% of leaders cited subordinate
satisfaction being impacted by changes in their leader behaviours that resulted from their
coaching. However it was reported from the coachee perspective, rather than from the
subordinate. One study (O’Connor & Cavanagh, 2013) looked at the broader level impact
and wider network effect of how coaching can improve psychological well-being across an
organisation, therefore this empirical study will look to explore the direct impact of
executive coaching on a leader’s immediate subordinates.
However, despite this growing body of research adding credibility very few researchers or
organisations have looked at the impact of executive/leadership coaching and its potential
impact on employee well-being.
Leader behaviour impacts employee well-being
Leadership development interventions are one way to enhance individual well-being
(Kelloway and Barline 2010)
Executive Coaching is a goal-focused intervention that supports individuals by establishing
clearly defined goals and using a systematic process that is solution focused. It may result in
behaviour changes, enhance development, provide the learner with skills/tools primarily
used for improving interpersonal relations, and facilitate continued learning.
Leadership development is slightly different as focuses on changing leaders in order to
change employees ie the indirect effect of the intervention is of most interest. Direct focus
is to enhance an individual's leadership behaviours - and these changes must be perceived
by employees in order to achieve the indirect effect of employee change.
(Page & Vella-Brodrick, 2009)proposed a three-dimensional EWB construct comprising PWB,
SWB, work-related wellbeing and in 2013 expanded to include affective well-being.
However no scale was developed or empirical study conducted to the validity of this theory.
Zheng et al (2015) developed an 18-item scale to measure dimensions of life well-being,
workplace well-being and PWB, based on qualitiative research to determine how EWB is
evaluated. A quantitative survey was then developed, with reliability and validity tested in a
Chinese context with a measurement invariance analysis conducted across Chinese and
American cultures. In 2019 (Pradhan & Hati, 2019) expanded this survey to develop a 31item employee well-being survey , which added a fourth dimension of social well-being. In
the the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, which is still ongoing and is likely to continue to
have profound socio-psychological03/12/2021 19:59:00, physical, and technical implications
for employees as they continue to work in drastically altered work environments (Carnevale
& Hatak, 2020) it feels like the most comprehensive and relevant measure of employee
well-being available. However as it was developed and validated in India, we should note
that the cultural differences that distinguish well-being between collectivist cultures like
India and the individualistic culture of the UK, might impact its validity in a western study.
However may be called into question. However there is a need to develop and test models
which consider the combined influence of multiple factors of well-being in the workplace
(Gratwich et al, 2006)
Cultural differences between East and West tend to lead to differences in beliefs about wellbeing (Zheng et al., 2015) where went emphasises environmental mastery, autonomy and
personal emotions in well-being, Eastern emphasises harmony and social values (Gao,
Zheng, Yan 2010) although across both cultural domains employee well-being has two
crucial elements – feeling good and functioning well (Pradhan & Hati, 2019).
All the aforementioned research pre-dates
Like many other psychological or health constructs, employee well-being is a multi-faceted
concept with no universal definition. While many organisations and managers tend to think
of employee well-being with a narrow standpoint such as job satisfaction
there is an abundance of research that looks at the psychological wellbeing or affective
processes that include negative outcomes eg stress or burnout or more positive
conceptualisations such as positive moods or job engagement.
According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (#CIPD) “Investing in
employee wellbeing can lead to increased resilience, better employee engagement, reduced
sickness absence and higher performance and productivity – but wellbeing initiatives often
fall short of their potential because they stand alone, isolated from every day business”.
can be defined as the comprehensive experience and function of an employee from a p
A useful and well-researched framework to improve employee well-being and performance
is the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Originally
developed to investigate employee burnout and lack of engagement (Demerouti et al.,
2001) the model is now widely used in the wider context of employee well-being. (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007). It purports that all job characteristics - psychological, physical,
organisational and social - can be viewed as demands or resources that either positively or
negatively affect employee well-being. Job demands are factors that require sustained
physical and / or psychological effort from employees e.g., lack of autonomy, and are
therefore considered costs, stressors or strains (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
comprising subjective well-being (life satisfaction plus dispositional affect), workplace wellbeing (job satisfaction plus work-related affect) and psychological well-being (self
acceptance, positive relations with others, environmental mastery, autonomy, purpose in life
and personal growth), social well-being
like other health and well-being constructs, employee well-being is a multi-faced construct.
1.1 Design of the research: (why have I chosen this design and how it’s similar or
different to other studies?)
It has been suggested that research design with the highest methodical rigor to
assess a training or development intervention is a pre-post, control group design
(Cohen, 2005). However there is another school of thought that quasi-experimenta
designs are more appriate than true experimental deisng in applied organisational
settings (Adkins & Weiss, 2003, Brough & O Driscoll 2010) and in the current climate
of potentially either working or being managed remotely, recruiting a control group
of employees presents practical challenges. Therefore I have chosen a pre-post
designed study as the most appropriate for a coaching evaluation study that can still
demonstrate adequate level of methodical rigour – a view that is supported by De
Meuse & Dai (2015) and evidenced in a systematic review by Grover & Furnham,
(2016) in which the majority of experimental designs of coaching studies used preand post-design measures.
My research design will be a quasi-experimental (AB design?) quantitative
intervention study where a 6-session coaching intervention will be delivered to a
leader/executive within an organisation over a four-month period. Employee wellbeing of the coachee’s subordinates will be measured online before the coaching
intervention and one week after the final coaching session, using a 31-item
employee well-being scale that measures PWB, Social well-being, Workplace wellbeing and SWB (Pradhan & Hati 2019).
The coaching programme will be delivered online by myself, and on completion the
executive will be asked to complete a Goal Attainment Survey (GAS), to measure
his/her/their perceived success of the programme, since executive coaching is a
leadership development intervention.
1.2 Participants:
Executive participants – Managers or executives who are interested in the well-being
of their subordinates and who also have an interest in their own development will be
recruited from different organisations. Location of the organisation is not a limiting
factor as the coaching will be delivered online. However, each executive participant
should manage a minimum of 5 employees so that a employees cannot be identified
through participation or non-participation in the well-being survey.
Employee participants - Employees will be recruited from the various executive
participants’ teams and this collective number will determine how many executive
coachees I need to recruit for the coaching intervention. Assuming a slightly
pessimistic dropout rate of 50%, [compared to an average expected rate of X%(REF)),
recruiting 40-50 initial employee participants will help ensure significant results for
the study.
https://www.psychstudio.com/articles/dropout/#dropout
1.3 Recruitment:
Executive participants will be recruited from my own business network via LinkedIn
notifications and direct emails. Anyone expressing interest in participation will be
given a participation invitation letter outlining more specific details of the study and
what’s involved. (Appendix 1). Should they wish to proceed, the first step will be to
provide a corporate-level authorisation letter to confirm participation. (Appendix 1)
Once received, an individual executive participation consent form (Appendix 2) and a
coaching contract (Appendix 3) should be signed.
On receipt of the executive participation signed documents, individual members
within his/her/their teams will then be individually sent/emailed an invitation letter
outlining full details of the study and what’s involved, with a consent form to be
signed. (Appendix 4)
1.4 Measures, materials or equipment:
Mirroring a study by A. Grant, (2003), executives will be asked to identify to identify three
goals before the coaching intervention programme. Post intervention, a 4-item Goal
Attainment Survey (GAS) will be used to measure his/her/their perceived success of the
programme. (Appendix 5)
To assess the direct effect of the intervention
Add to Appendix
Participants were asked to identify three goals. Participants rated each goal for perceived
difficulty on a four point scale (1 = very easy, to 4 = very difficult), and also rated their
degree of past success in attaining the goals on a scale from 0% (no attainment) to 100%
(total attainment). Goal attainment scores were calculated by multiplying the difficulty
rating by the degree of success, and dividing by the number of chosen goals to find a mean
score. Participants also rated the length of time they had sought to attain these goals.
To assess the indirect effect
An online 31-item employee well-being survey will be used to measure employee PWB,
Social Well-being, Work well-being and SWB before and after the executive’s coaching
intervention (Appendix 4).
Although employee well-being is a well-researched concept in organisational studies
Why I have chosen these form of measurement
1.5 Data collection: (need to give logistical and conceptual reasons as to why I am
choosing a quantitative study)
Goal Attainment Survey Data will be collected online using Qualtrix.
1.6 Data analysis:
The hypothesis is that it employee well-being will improve as a result of the coaching
intervention (but not because of it). Data will be analysed statistically using a T-Test.
NB!
A t-test is a hypothesis test for the difference in means of a single variable. A
correlation test is a hypothesis test for a relationship between two variables