Title
Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders model:
coaches enabling transfer of learning
Author
Dr Janice Cook, Senior Lecturer,
Hertfordshire Business School, University of Hertfordshire,
De Havilland Campus, Hatfield, AL10 9UF
j.cook9@herts.ac.uk
Abstract
Purpose: to report on the findings of a post doctoral study exploring the Collaborative Action
Coaching for Leaders (Cook, 2011) model and its transferability to a range of external
coaches of leaders.
Design/methodology/approach: a collaborative action research study conducted by three
external coaches and the author of the coaching model. The study explored the six categories
and thirty-three themes of the coaching model with the aim of determining its transferability,
if any, to a range of external coaches of leaders in order to enable the transfer of learning.
Findings: the model enables the transfer of learning from coaching sessions to outside the
sessions when used by a range of professional external coaches of leaders. The categories of
the model have remained the same, five of the themes have been identified for possible
amendment and data was collected which suggests other changes to the model.
Research limitations/implications: not a longitudinal study and therefore only covers the
transfer of learning and not the sustainability of learning as in the original doctoral study.
However, the findings have indicated that sustainability of learning is also possible.
Practical implications: this practitioner research study is showing some interesting results
for both the professional field of coaching and those commissioning coaching in
organisations with its emphasis on transfer of learning as a return on investment.
Social implications: could potentially benefit numerous leaders in organisations if adopted
by more professional external coaches.
Originality/value: the Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders (Cook, 2011) model
continues to be the only model for coaching leaders which focuses on the transfer and
sustainability of learning.
Keywords: coaching for leaders, transfer of learning
Why is this post doctoral research study important?
“If organisations are going to invest scarce resources ... [they] will need evidence that such an
investment can produce desired results. Desired results could be interpreted as … learning
being transferred back into the workplace and then sustained over time.” (Cook, 2011)
As a commissioner of training, learning and development activities for over 30 years (and
most of those in limited resource environments in the public and private sectors), I know how
important it is to ensure that both the individuals and the organisation are experiencing
benefits from an investment in learning and development activities. This is important not just
in terms of return on financial investment but also return on investment of time which is also
very precious, both particularly important from an ethical perspective in public services and
charitable contexts. Coaching leaders on a one-to-one basis is at the top end of the spectrum
with regards to investment of both budget and time. Therefore, the benefits have to be
commensurate with that investment.
In my article (Cook, 2013) I presented the Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders
(Cook, 2011) model as a way of preventing coaching from becoming simply an expensive
conversation, it has to be much more than that to warrant the investment of money and time
in this learning and development activity. In this same article I quoted one of the leader
participants in the doctoral study from which this model emerged: “I know I have retained
information and reused it so much, and will continue to do so. It will also support me as I
move forward.” (Cook, 2013, p.123)
However, my doctoral study was focused on researching my own coaching practice and I was
left with the question of the transferability of my model to other professional external coaches
of leaders. In order to continue the contribution to the professional field of one-to-one
coaching this question needed to be answered. By asking other coaches to experiment with
my model in a research practice environment, this gave me the opportunity to explore the
Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders model from a range of professional perspectives
and experiences, importantly keeping the focus on the model enabling the transfer of
learning. This was not a longitudinal study; therefore it was not possible to include
sustainability of learning in this post doctoral study.
What relevant research already exists?
For my doctoral study I reviewed both coaching for leaders literature as well as transfer and
sustainability of learning literature and found that a gap existed with regard to exploring a
possible link between coaching process and relationship and the transfer and sustainability of
learning.
Coaching for leaders
The coaching for leaders’ literature focuses almost entirely on the coaching process and the
coaching relationship with some interesting results emerging about the specifics of the
coaching process, for example the coach challenging the leader being coached (Hall, Otazo
and Hollenbeck, 1999), and the collaborative nature of the coaching relationship (Law,
Ireland and Hussain, 2007). Over time, a common view has developed that coaching leaders
is about learning and change as opposed to a dialogic environment which continues the status
quo for the leader being coached, indicating a possible shift in thinking amongst coaching
practitioners and researchers. However, the specific issue of transfer and sustainability of
learning in respect of coaching process and relationship was minimal; and the issue of return
on investment in leadership coaching remains a thorny issue in coaching research with
scientific rationalisation less attractive to some researchers than others. In accordance with
my values and beliefs, I was mindful in my research to retain the humanity of coaching and
not to “reduce coaching to a functional and instrumental practice” (Garvey et al, 2009),
although keen to find the specifics of the coaching process and relationship which enabled the
transfer and sustainability of learning for the leader being coached.
Transfer of learning
There have been several ways of interpreting transfer of learning over the years including
transfer of training and transfer system. Transfer of training usually refers to the transfer of
learning from a training programme (Baldwin and Ford, 1988) and it is difficult to see the
usefulness of this interpretation to the one-to-one coaching environment. Ruona, Leimbach,
Holton and Bates (2002, p.220) prefer the expression “transfer system” in which “transfer
involves the application, generalisability and maintenance of new knowledge and skills.”
However, a new researcher (Spencer, 2011) has studied the transfer of training using
coaching as a tool for that transfer. She reviews the work of Holton, Bates and Ruona (2000)
and concludes that “the LTSI [Learning Transfer System Inventory] model may be inadequate
to consider coaching’s contribution to training transfer” (2011, p.4); the limitations of
previous transfer of training and transfer system theories are also recognised in the work of
Stewart et al. (2008).
My doctoral study with a focus on the transfer and sustainability of learning has therefore
helped to fill a gap in the literature by augmenting the research of Stewart et al (2008) with a
focus on learning, and complementing the seminal work of Olivero, Bane and Kopelman
(1997) in respect of the use of coaching to transfer learning from a formal training
programme to the workplace. My study also added to the work of Stern (2004); Natale and
Diamante (2005); and Law, Ireland and Hussain (2007) on the concept of collaboration in
coaching, although my study looked specifically at the collaborative coaching processes and
relationship required of both coach and client.
Cox (2013, p.138) sums it up very well when she states that “one of the unwritten goals of
coaching is to ensure enduring learning and development for the client that can be sustained
long beyond the end of the coaching intervention”. Similarly, the definition for both the
doctoral and post doctoral studies is the transfer of learning from a coaching session to
outside the session, with that learning sustained over time without any additional coaching
intervention.
In preparation for the post doctoral study, I reviewed the contemporary literature and found
that there is a continuing lack of additional empirical research studying the transfer of
learning from an external, one-to-one, stand alone coaching experience to outside that
experience. Although, there has been some more recent published work on the transfer of
learning from training programmes (De Ridjt et al, 2013; Weisweiler et al, 2013).
Whilst there is some literature on the coaching relationship and the person being coached in
respect of transfer of learning (eg Stewart et al, 2008); there is also a clear gap in the
literature regarding what actually happens in the coaching process in respect of transfer of
learning. In an attempt to demonstrate to the business world that coaching can have a good
return on investment, Cook’s (2011) Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders model has
an additional focus on application of learning in the workplace as well as what facilitates the
learning and enables the transfer of learning back into the workplace (Styhre and Josephson,
2007; Allan, 2007).
If a commissioner of learning and development in an organisation is searching for leadership
coaching which enables a return on investment, then the Collaborative Action for Leaders
(Cook, 2011) model provides the option of considering transfer and sustainability of learning
as such a return on investment. Therefore the model’s possible use by a range of professional
external coaches is an important topic for research.
How was the post doctoral study conducted?
Within a paradigm of social constructivism in which meanings are constructed as people
engage with the world they are interpreting (Creswell, 2009), we were trying to answer the
following questions:
1. Is the Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders model transferable across a range of
professional coaches?
2. Does the Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders model enable the transfer and
sustainability of learning when implemented by a range of professional coaches?
As the doctoral study had been successful in its collaborative action research methodology
with the methodology itself influencing the content of the model, it seemed important and
relevant to continue with this methodological approach. In my doctoral study I created a new
Collaborative Action Research approach for coaching research (Cook, 2010) and therefore
applied this model to this post doctoral study (see Figure 1 below).
However, I was mindful that we were not creating a new theory but exploring an existing
theory. In this regard, Carr and Kemmis (1986, p.162) helpfully suggest that “Action
research is simply a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social
situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their
understanding of these practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out”
(Carr and Kemmis 1986, p.162). Also, the methodological approach could still be regarded
as a “living theory form” of action research in that it is grounded in the ontological “I” of the
researcher and uses a “living logic” of experiences at the moment (McNiff and Whitehead,
2006, p.41). The focus of the research remained entirely about creating meanings from
experience, in particular the experience of the coaches using the Collaborative Action
Coaching for Leaders (Cook, 2011) model. This retained the sense of a type of living theory
(McNiff and Whitehead, 2006) which allows the individual experiences to dictate the
research journey. This was important when researching with a range of coaches and their
unique experiences and contribution as individual coaches to the coaching experience in the
study.
As mentioned above, we followed my model of Collaborative Action Research (Cook, 2010)
adapted to reflect the specifics of this post doctoral study:
Figure 1: Developing a coaching theory from researching your own coaching practice,
through collaborative action research (Cook, 2010) (adapted)
In the first action research cycle, each coach/researcher coached one or two leaders each.
These coaching sessions were mainly face-to-face with one coach conducting some sessions
by telephone. They were required to conduct at least 3 sessions for two hours each time over
a period of about six months, with one coach conducting some sessions for one hour. Each
leader being coached was encouraged to keep reflective research diaries in whatever format
they chose and to gain feedback from colleagues at work about their transfer of learning.
Most leaders did both of these although formal feedback provider sessions were not popular,
most leaders preferred to gain feedback informally from colleagues instead; this is different
to the doctoral study but this change did not undermine the model in Figure 1 because the
informal feedback was collected as data by the coach/researchers. In the second action
research cycle, the coach/researchers did not coach the leaders but kept in touch with them to
check about the sustainability of their learning. This second cycle was shorter than the first
cycle and therefore the data collected was limited.
The coach/researchers were recruited on a voluntary basis via various professional coaching
networks; they were not required to have any specific qualification or experience as long as
they were external coaches who worked one-to-one with leaders in organisations with the
coaching not linked to any development programme. The leaders were recruited by the
coach/researchers in line with their usual process for working with clients. All ethical
procedures were followed including the use of a participant information sheet, signed consent
forms with confidentiality and anonymity for the leaders guaranteed. The coach/researchers
gave permission for their names to be included in any papers or presentations about the study
but confidentiality of their individual contributions has been maintained.
The practicalities of the study were potentially a challenge. In particular, I was mindful of
the potential practical problems of conducting more than one action research cycle with a
range of volunteer coaches and their clients with uncertainty at the beginning about the ability
to sustain the study over a sufficient period of time to explore transfer of learning. I am
indebted to the volunteer coach/researchers (Hilary Price Jones, Jane Molloy and Helen
Smith) for their sustained and continuous commitment to this study and to the development
of evidence-based research in our professional coaching community.
The Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders (Cook, 2011) model continues to be the only
model for coaching leaders which focuses entirely on the transfer and sustainability of learning
and its transferability to a range of professional external coaches was explored in this study.
What is the Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders model?
The Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders (Cook, 2011) model emanated from a
professional doctorate study: “The effect of coaching on the transfer and sustainability of
learning: coaching for leaders, a collaborative action research study” (Cook, 2011). I
researched my own coaching practice over a period of about 15 months, coaching and
researching alongside leaders in the charitable sector. It was a highly qualitative study within
a social constructivist paradigm focused on improving practice in the professional field of
coaching.
As an experienced coach practitioner for over 20 years, at the time, I had a sense that my
coaching practice with leaders was enabling the transfer of learning but I was unsure what it
was about the coaching experience which might be enabling such a transfer. I was also
interested to explore if and how the coaching experience could enable that learning to sustain
over time. Hence the need for a longitudinal, in depth study. As mentioned above, a review
of the literature showed that this specific focus in coaching had not been the subject of any
prior research studies which indicated a potential contribution to the development of coaching
practice in general, not just a development of my coaching practice.
There were two main findings from this doctoral study:
1. Coaching can help the transfer and sustainability of learning
2. Both the coach and the client have individual and shared responsibilities in the
transfer and sustainability of learning from the coaching sessions to outside the
sessions
My research found that the six categories of the model enable this transfer and sustainability
of learning:
Figure 2: Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders (Cook, 2011)
The 33 themes underneath these six categories are:
CATEGORIES
COACH
RESPONSIBILITIES
CLIENT
RESPONSIBILITIES
COACH AND CLIENT
RESPONSIBILITIES
CLIENT
CENTRED
PROCESS
SESSION
CONTENT
COACHING
RELATIONSHIP
REFLECTIVE
LEARNING
ENABLING/
FACILITATING
LEARNING
ACTIVE
LEARNING
THEMES
Coach In
Charge Of
The
Process
Encourage
Practice
Back In The
Workplace
Contracting:
Start Point
Colleague
Feedback
Comfort
Reflective Diaries
Tailored
Tools/
Techniques
Share
Experience
To Facilitate
Learning
Client
Bringing
Content
Transfer Of
Learning
Measures
Identified
Safety/
Confidentiality/
Trust
Feedback
Provider
Sessions
Challenge/
Support
Suspend
Judgement
Being Open
To Learning
Coach And
Client Match
Record-Keeping
Client
Context
Not Therapy
Client Takes
Responsibility
For Their
Learning
Face-To-Face
Physical
Environme
nt
Lasting
Impact Of
Coach
Reflective
Practitioner
External
Coach
Setting
Goals
Coaching
Consultancy
Coaching
Supervision
Honest
Dialogue
Sounding
Board
Primary Role
As Coach
Friendly
Support
Keeping In
Touch Outside
Coaching
Sessions
Figure 3: Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders (Cook, 2011), 33 Themes
Each theme emerged from the qualitative research process, identified as important in the
transfer and sustainability of learning. No weighting of categories or themes was found.
For the post doctoral study I produced briefing notes for the coach/researchers providing the
practical detail of the model to help them when implementing the model with their clients. In
addition to these notes, I also held a group briefing session for all the coach/researchers and
answered queries by email or by phone as they coached their clients using this model. These
briefing notes bring the model to life for practice purposes and are detailed in Appendix 1
using the six categories and their themes as a structure. But is the model transferable to
other coaches of leaders?
What did the post doctoral study find?
The three external coach/researchers all had their own individual philosophies of coaching
practice including NLP and neuroscience and they all had their own coaching processes and
ways of building relationships firmly established over many years of practice. Despite this
professional diversity, the post doctoral study found that:
1. the Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders model is transferable across a range of
professional coaches.
2. the Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders model enables the transfer and of
learning when implemented by a range of professional coaches.
This demonstrated that the model is flexible enough to allow for professional diversity,
enabling the coach to retain their authentic identity in their coaching of leaders practice.
However, the study was not able to find that the model enables the sustainability of learning
due to the lack of a longitudinal approach, although there was some evidence of sustainability
of learning albeit over a limited period of time.
It is the detail behind these overall findings which has identified areas of refinement for the
Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders (Cook, 2011) model. The six categories remain
in place with the study confirming the importance of the collaborative nature of the model
(with individual and shared responsibilities) as important to enable the transfer of learning.
However, the study found that five of the themes underneath these six categories could
potentially be removed without any negative impact on the transfer of learning.
Five themes for potential removal from the model
Coach Responsibilities/Client Centred Process/Physical Environment
This was questioned by one leader being coached as unimportant to enable the transfer of
learning. In the original doctoral study this was identified as a potential inhibitor of learning,
eg if the client did not feel comfortable in the physical environment in which the coaching
session takes place then transfer of learning may not take place.
Coach Responsibilities/Client Centred Process/Friendly Support
The study found that this theme could depend on the leader as some leaders might not want
any form of friendly interaction in what they perceive as a business coaching environment.
Alternatively, friendly support may be desired depending on the personal situation of the
leader being coached as in the original doctoral study.
Both Physical Environment and Friendly Support were specific examples of client centred
action in the original doctoral study. You could regard them as examples of specific client
needs and therefore a new theme of Meeting specific client needs could be added under
Coach Responsibilities/Client Centred Process.
Coach Responsibilities/Enabling/Facilitating Learning/Not Therapy
The study found that this boundary could be deemed superficial unless a client has a severe
mental health issue. It was felt that most people are incredibly robust; they might stray into
areas which are more counselling orientated but are happy for the issues to be dealt with
through the coaching process and relationship. It was also found that some leaders think
coaching is therapeutic because it clears their head and they gain clarity through the coaching
process. In the original doctoral study it was found that if the leader has a professional
background in counselling they have a clear view of the boundary between the two. It
appears to depend on the leader’s definition and experience of counselling, therapy and
coaching and should therefore be explored as part of the Contracting:starting point and not
part of Enabling/Facilitating Learning. We discussed in the study the possibility that
coaching seems to be maturing as a professional field and now we ought to challenge this
definitive boundary. Historically, coaching has borrowed theory and processes from
counselling and we need now to find our own way.
Coach and Client Responsibilities/Coaching Relationship/Comfort
Coach/researchers struggled to separate this from safety, confidentiality and trust. They also
made the point that sometimes the coach’s responsibility is not to make the leader
comfortable, both comfort and discomfort is needed in the coaching relationship to enable
transfer of learning. Whilst this was separated out by the data collected in the doctoral
research, the data from this study was indicating the removal of this theme.
Coach and Client Responsibilities/Coaching Relationship /Face-to-Face
The professional diversity of the coach/researchers included the use of coaching by telephone
and coaching by Skype. Therefore this theme needs to be removed to allow for these
different coaching approaches. We were also mindful of the growing interest and early
research in e-coaching. The study found that the model suits all these different situations for
all different types of coaching arrangements including the length of the session. Therefore,
better to remove this theme than restrict the professional diversity of a range of coaches and
imply there is one right way of coaching, ie always face-to-face. This retains the element of
the model allowing for what is right for the coach and the client, agree this in the
Contracting:start point phase, gaining agreement at this point and adjusting as necessary as
the coaching continues. Interestingly, the point was made that some leaders want to retain
their anonymity and never have face-to-face sessions for that reason.
Exploring the remaining twenty-eight themes
The remainder of the themes were explored in the study with the following findings. Any
themes not mentioned below did not produce any change from the data collected.
Coach Responsibilities/Client Centred Process/Tailored Tools/Techniques
The importance of this theme was re-emphasised, specifically focusing on the coach selecting
tools and techniques depending on the skills needed to be developed. These tools and
techniques are not restricted to coaching process tools but any tools which help the client
develop the skills they need. This could include business tools or research conducted by the
coach on the specific area of client development. This adds to the coach’s ‘toolkit’.
During this study, tools and techniques were sometimes evolved jointly with the client,
creating together bespoke tools for them with the client driving the agenda.
Coach Responsibilities/Enabling/Facilitating Learning/Coaching Consultancy
This study confirmed the importance of the coach making suggestions but not shifting the
power to the coach as the ‘expert’. The client using the coach’s experience as a resource,
exploring suggestions made by the coach with the client evaluating the suitability and ‘fit’ for
them. It was found that just watching clients in pain when the coach knows that they have
experience which could help them, does not feel supportive as a coach. Therefore, coaching
consultancy is focused on the client needs.
Client Responsibilities/Active learning/Colleague Feedback
One participating leader did not want to do colleague feedback formally but was receiving
informal feedback from colleagues and their line manager. Agenda items may be driven by
this feedback. It is the combination of reflective learning and colleague feedback which
enables the transfer of learning
Client Responsibilities/Transfer of learning measures identified
Some participating leaders found it difficult to identify these measures; the word measure put
them off, sometimes it is less tangible than that. A suggestion was made to just ask a
question about how they will know transfer of learning has taken place. Then there is still
something to check against.
Coach and Client Responsibilities/Coaching Relationship
Even though this category has some themes to help define what is meant by relationship in
the model, it was found that the coach and client need to come to an agreed definition of
relationship in this context. Therefore needs to be dealt with at the Contracting:start point
discussing with the client how they want to work with the coach, how they can best be
supported. This needs an experienced and confident coach to contract on these issues.
Coach and Client Responsibilities/Coaching Relationship/Keeping in touch outside coaching
sessions
The nature of this action was identified as a personal thing for coaches and their individual
clients. The type and regularity of this action depends on the specific relationship with a
client, although reinforcing the need not to develop a dependent relationship between client
and coach. It is the tailoring that enables the transfer of learning and this includes very little
or no contact in between coaching sessions.
Coach and Client Responsibilities/Coaching Relationship/External coach
This context is the basis of the research, reinforcing the value of having an external coach.
Further research is needed to explore the transferability of the model to internal coaches.
Coach and Client Responsibilities/ Reflective Learning
Some reflective learning is reflection in the moment, ie during the coaching session and some
outside the session, but both are important for the transfer of learning. In the coaching
sessions clients sometimes moved from rationalisation to acknowledging their feelings and
then reflecting in action outside the session, transformational learning from the moment of
experience which could be called mindful reflection. Therefore, the coach needs to ensure
that reflective learning space is created during the sessions and the client has to ensure
reflective learning outside the session, hence the shared responsibility. By facilitating
reflective learning in the session, the coach starts the appreciation of reflective learning which
then helps the client reflectively learn when they are on their own. The reflective diary can
put people off, although it may be the word diary. This could be any type of reflective
learning tool, log, process as determined between coach and client.
Coach and Client Responsibilities/Reflective Learning/Feedback Provider Sessions
Feedback provider sessions create a different reflective space but may not always be needed.
There is a practical issue of clients finding it difficult to create the space to conduct these
reflective learning sessions. Creating reflective learning opportunities in the workplace is
difficult in organisations which do not have a reflective learning culture or where a line
manager is not committed to reflective learning. These sessions had a profound impact in the
doctoral study but were difficult to put in place in the post doctoral study which suggests they
will be difficult to implement in coaching practice. Therefore, needs to remain in the model
as this theme does enable the transfer of learning but need to discuss at the Contracting:start
point to see if it is going to be included for that client.
Additional points about the model
In addition to the data collected on the categories and themes, there were also some
suggestions for the development of the model as outlined below.
Coach Self Awareness
Whilst the importance of coach self awareness is implied through the Reflective Learning and
Coaching Supervision themes in the model, it could be more explicit. All coaches have bias
and it is the process of not allowing your bias to influence your coaching which requires an
understanding of self. In order to suspend judgement, particularly in the moment in
coaching, this understanding of bias and self is critical.
Contracting
A suggestion to use the diagram of the model at the contracting stage with the client. By
showing the model to the leaders when contracting at the beginning helps to being the
transfer of learning journey.
Model is too static
A suggestion to redesign the model to get across the change and development elements. The
model is about being and doing for the coach and the client, and the transfer of learning
element needs to come across more actively in the model, ie the process of embedding a habit
and the habit becoming sustainable. Also, the model needs to reflect how the dialogue
between coach and client changes over time. Perhaps the model needs a flow process
included to show how things change over time, ie not static. For example: 1) explore/deepen
awareness (understand issues in the client’s reality), 2) experiment with new ways (client
tries out things discussed/explored in the coaching session), 3) change for client (determine
which habits are helping and persist with these)
Model is for experienced coaches
The coach/researchers were consistent in their feedback that the model is most suitable for
experienced coaches. Whilst it was acknowledged that a less experienced coach could
understand the concept of collaboration with individual and shared responsibilities, there
were concerns that the implementation of the themes will require training and practice to
develop and embed. This raised an issue about the seeming complexity of the model and
raised the question about how to ensure both depth and simplicity in coaching practice in
order to embrace a wider range of professional coaches.
Additional data from the study – general points and ideas
The Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders (Cook, 2011) model is a:
 Workable, practical and ethical model
 Reminder of the complexity of coaching, a model for the more experienced coach
which allows for the power of the presence of the coach
 Collaborative dialogic process in which the coach and the leader are being and doing,
have energetic engagement and learn together through a combination of individual
and shared responsibilities
 Model which encourages the coach and the client to keep focused on the transfer and
sustainability of learning, a model which encourages realistic and authentic practice
by the leader outside the coaching sessions
 Model which encourages the leader to develop as an independent learner and self
coach
 The strength of the reflection element of the model makes this model different to
others
 Good measure of adding value as a coach
New ideas for the model:
 Include in the contracting how you want the coach to support you – this will help
check the match suitability
 Add in enabling/facilitating self coaching
 Importance of coach assessment of the leader by the coach – ‘assessment in action’
 Coaching methodology/method rather than coaching process
 Model needs to include a thinking/analytical approach
Next steps
During the data collection process, various ideas for next steps were discussed:

Need to identify and describe the necessary behaviours, skills and mindset to
implement the model with the creation of core competences and other non-core
competences

Better able to assess transferability to other coaches if skills, behaviours and mindset
are clearly identified

Need to identify which skills, behaviours and mindset are needed to enable transfer
and sustainability of learning, for both the coach and the client

Having identified these skills and behaviours, explore how they map across the
EMCC competences

Is this a valuable model in the internal coaching situation? Map their model of
internal coaching against this model.

Is this a suitable model for line managers who are using coaching skills?
Contribution to professional field of coaching
The findings from this post doctoral study are showing some interesting results for both
external coaches and commissioners of coaching in organisations as this study provides some
evidence about how they can both begin to ensure a return on investment through the transfer
of learning from the coaching session to outside the session. Importantly, this model allows
for the diversity of the professional field of coaching, the model is flexible enough to allow
the authenticity of the coach to develop and flourish.
Further work needs to be completed on redesigning the model and the model briefing notes
including any existing theoretical base, and the participating coach/researchers have
expressed an interest in helping with this redesign. Alongside this redesign is the need to
develop continuous professional development opportunities for external coaches including
the development of some core competences (skills, knowledge, behaviour and attitude) as a
basis for this development. Finally, practitioner research needs to continue to keep exploring
the applicability, usefulness and transferability of this model. Cook’s (2011) Collaborative
Action Coaching for Leaders model could also be useful to line managers using coaching in
their role as well as internal coaches – both areas of interest for further research.
References
Allan, P. (2007), The benefits and impacts of a coaching and mentoring programme for
teaching staff in secondary school, International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and
Mentoring, 5(2):12-21.
Baldwin, T.T., Ford, J.K. (1988), Transfer of Training: A Review and Directions for Future
Research, Personnel Psychology, 41:63-105.
Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006), Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3:77-101.
Carr, W., Kemmis, S. (1986), Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action
Research, Victoria, Australia:Deakin University Press.
Cook, J. (2010), Collaborative action research: the ethical challenges, International Journal
of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, Special Issue No 4:141-150
Cook, J.A. (2011). The effect of coaching on the transfer and sustainability of learning:
coaching for leaders, a collaborative action research study. DCM Thesis, Oxford Brookes
University.
Cox, E. (2013). Coaching Understood: A pragmatic enquiry into the coaching process,
London:Sage.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method
Approaches. London:Sage.
Daloz, L. A. (1999), Mentor: guiding the journey of adult learners, San Francisco:JosseyBass.
De Rijdt, C., Stes, A., van der Vleuten, C., Dochy, F. (2013), Influencing variables and
moderators of transfer of learning to the workplace within the area of staff development in
higher education: Research review, Educational Research Review, Review 8:48-74.
Garvey, B., Stokes, P., Megginson, D. (2009), Coaching and mentoring:theory and practice,
London:Sage.
Hall, D.T., Otazo, K.L., Hollenbeck, G.P. (1999), Behind Closed Doors: What Really
Happens in Executive Coaching, Organizational Dynamics, Winter:39-53.
Holton, E.F., Bates, R.A., Ruona, W.E.A. (2000), Development of a Generalized Learning
Transfer System Inventory, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7:5-21
Law, H., Ireland, S., Hussain, K. (2007), The Psychology of Coaching, Mentoring and
Learning, Chichester, England:John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
McNiff, J., Whitehead, J. (2006), All You Need to Know About Action Research,
London:Sage.
Natale, S.M., Diamante, T. (2005), The Five Stages of Executive Coaching: Better Process
Makes Better Practice, Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4):361-374.
Olivero, G., Bane, K.D., Kopelman, R.E. (1997), Executive Coaching as a Transfer of
Training Tool: Effects on Productivity in a Public Agency, Public Personnel Management,
26(4):461-470.
Ruona, W.E.A., Leimbach, M., Holton III, E.F., Bates, R. (2002). The relationship between
learner utility reactions and predicted learning transfer among trainees. International Journal
of Training and Development, 6(4),218-228.
Spencer, L. (2011), Coaching and training transfer: A phenomenological inquiry into
combined training-coaching programmes, International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching
and Mentoring, Special Issue No.5:1-18.
Stern, L.R. (2004), Executive Coaching: A Working Definition, Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 56(3):154-162.
Stewart, L.J., Palmer, S., Wilkin, H., Kerrin, M. (2008), Towards a model of coaching
transfer, Operationalising coaching success and the facilitators and barriers to transfer,
International Coaching Psychology Review, 3(2):87-109.
Styhre, A., Josephson, P.E. (2007), Coaching the site manager: effects on learning and
managerial practice, Construction Management & Economics, Routledge, 25(12):1295-1304.
Weisweiler, S., Nikitopoulos, A., Netzel, J. Frey, D. (2013), Gaining insight to transfer of
training through the lens of social psychology, Educational Research Review, Review 8:1427
APPENDIX 1
BRIEFING NOTES FOR THE POST DOCTORAL STUDY COACH/RESEARCHERS
COLLABORATIVE ACTION COACHING FOR LEADERS MODEL
COACH RESPONSIBILITIES
Client Centred Process
Coach in Charge of the Process:
Coach has responsibility to ensure appropriate processes are in place, as opposed to the
content – see Client’s Responsibilities below.
Tailored Tools/Techniques:
Coach has responsibility to tailor the tools and techniques used during the sessions to the
learning needs of the client, ie not linked to one theory or model.
Challenge/Support:
Coach has responsibility to both challenge the client beyond their comfort zones as well as
support the client both emotionally and intellectually (relevant theory: Daloz, 1999).
Client Context:
Coach has responsibility to take into account the client’s context, eg their organisational
context, personal context.
Physical Environment:
Coach has responsibility to ensure that the physical environment is conducive to learning, eg
can hear each other.
Setting Goals:
Coach is responsible for ensuring that learning needs are identified by the client.
Sounding Board:
Coach is responsible for being a sounding board for the client’s ideas for learning.
Friendly Support:
Whilst the coach has to ensure appropriate professional boundaries (ie not taking on the role
of a friend), there is a place for appropriate friendly support on personal issues provided they
do not dominate.
Enabling/Facilitating Learning
Encourage Practice Back in The Workplace:
Coach is responsible for facilitating the client to practice learning from the sessions back in
the workplace, a risk assessment discussion needs to form part of this facilitation.
Share Experience To Facilitate Learning:
Coach to share relevant experience with a focus on facilitating client learning, ensuring that
the client learns from this sharing of experience and the coach is not trying to persuade the
client that there is one right way for anything.
Suspend Judgement:
Coach to ensure that judgement of the client is suspended throughout every session.
Not Therapy:
Coach to ensure that coaching is the focus and that the boundary between coaching and
counselling is strongly held.
Lasting Impact of Coaching:
Coach to have a lasting impact on the client outside the coaching sessions, ie “Janice in my
head”.
Coaching Consultancy:
Coach to provide suggestions/options to the client which help them make up their own minds,
ie it is not advice.
CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES
Session Content
Contracting: Start Point:
Client to identify their learning needs actively at the start of the coaching relationship/
Client Bringing Content:
Client is responsible for bringing areas for learning and development to the coaching
sessions.
Active Learning
Colleague Feedback:
Client to obtain feedback from colleagues when they practice their learning back in the
workplace.
Transfer of Learning Measures Identified:
Client to identify how they will know that learning has transferred back to the workplace, eg
x will happen instead of y.
Being Open to Learning:
Client to be open to learning throughout coaching sessions as well as back in the workplace.
Client Takes Responsibility For Their Learning:
Client takes responsibility for their own learning as opposed to trying to pass that
responsibility to somebody or something else.
Reflective Practitioner:
Client to develop as a reflective practitioner when practising their learning from the
coaching sessions in the workplace (relevant theory: Schön, 1991).
COACH AND CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES
Coaching Relationship
Comfort:
Both coach and client need to ensure that a comfortable coaching relationship develops, ie it
is not just the responsibility of the coach.
Safety/Confidentiality/Trust:
Both coach and client need to ensure that safety, confidentiality and trust develops in the
coaching relationship, ie it is not just the responsibility of the coach.
Coach and Client Match:
Both coach and client need to be clear that the coach is the right coach for the client, ie the
matching process has been successful.
Face-To-Face:
Coach and client need to make time for the sessions to be face-to-face as a contributory
factor to an effective coaching relationship.
External Coach:
Coach needs to be independent from the client’s organisation and personal life, both coach
and client need to check that this independence exists.
Honest Dialogue:
Both coach and client need to have honest dialogue during coaching sessions.
Primary Role As Coach:
Coach and client need to ensure that the primary role of the coach is as a coach, ie not a
friend, a counsellor, a therapist, a consultant, etc.
Keeping In Touch Outside Coaching Sessions:
Coach and client keep in touch as appropriate outside the coaching sessions, this could be as
simple as checking the date/time of the next session or communicating about some learning
or difficulty at work. This is brief communication and not extensive, an opportunity for the
coach to remind the client of learning already discussed in the coaching sessions, not for
introducing new points of learning. Need to keep developing a non-dependent relationship.
Reflective Learning
Reflective Diaries:
Both coach and client keep reflective diaries of the learning from the coaching sessions from
their own perspectives with the coach developing as a coach and the client developing in the
areas of learning discussed during the coaching sessions.
Feedback Provider Sessions:
Coach and client discuss feedback provider sessions for the client in their workplace. The
feedback providers can be the client’s line manager, a peer, a direct report, a colleague, or a
customer, or all of them. The client can choose whether or not to have the coach present at
the feedback provider sessions (except in collaborative action research projects when the
coach attends as a researcher). The client facilitates these sessions with the coach coaching
them for this role. Coach to assess potential risk with the client to ensure that no
harm/damage comes to the client as a result of these feedback provider sessions.
Record-Keeping:
Both coach and client keep notes of topics covered in the coaching sessions for future
reference.
Coaching Supervision:
Coach has regular and professional coaching supervision to challenge and support them in
their coaching role. Client may identify areas for coaching supervision when coach requests
feedback either during and/or at the end of each session or after a few sessions (there is a
Collaborative Action Coaching for Leaders Feedback/Reflection Form.).