1
Coaching in the Wild: Identifying Factors that Lead to Success
Abstract:
While executive coaching has been shown to be effective, few research initiatives have
attempted to understand the importance of the emergent relationship between a coach and
coachee. This paper explores the factors that influence coaching outcomes from both the coach
and coachees’ perspective and presents the results of the mediating effect that working alliance
and information sharing have on coachee goal attainment and coachee insight outcomes. The
authors explore these factors in both an academic coachee sample as well as a field sample.
Results show that coachee motivation is significantly positively related with coachee goal
attainment and coachee insight in the academic sample, but not a field sample. Moreover,
working alliance and information sharing partially mediate the relationship between a coach’s
psychological mindedness and coachee insight in an academic but not field sample. Other
notable results are that the difficulty of the coaching goal does not impact how successful the
coaching engagement is in terms of goal attainment. Implications of these findings for both
research and practice are discussed.
2
Coaching in the Wild: Identifying Factors that Lead to Success
In lieu of utilizing conventional training methods, organizations have been increasingly
implementing coaching as a means of improving different employee outcomes (Feldman &
Lankau, 2005; Quick & Macik-Frey, 2004; Diedrich, 2001) to cope with the increased demands
of the modern workplace (MacKie, 2014). Coaching can be defined as a relationship between a
consultant and an individual with the ultimate goal of facilitating professional development and
achieving a host of other targeted outcomes (Feldman & Lankau, 2005). Coaching, and
especially executive coaching, is one of the fastest growing industries in recent years and is
being used more frequently for the professional development of workers. Although coaching is
more prevalent, there still remains a lack of evidence for its effectiveness (MacKie, 2014). It is
unknown, at a high level, precisely what factors within the coaching process facilitate certain
outcomes (Bacon & Spear, 2003). This stems from a number of problems within the extant
literature.
To begin, case studies were one of the most common techniques utilized in early
coaching research. Such studies vary widely in consistency, making it difficult to generalize
results (Passmore & Gibbes, 2007). Recent research has been more quantitative in nature, but it
is often conducted within organizations, which complicates the interpretation and
generalizability of findings (Grant, Passmore, Cavanagh, & Parker, 2010) as a number of
organizational factors may contaminate results (Luthans, Luthans, Hodgetts, & Luthans, 2001).
Moreover, the coaching process remains largely unstandardized and, consequently, interventions
are generally inconsistent across organizations; a host of different outcomes may serve as the
focus of a coaching program (De Haan & Duckworth, 2013). There is also a general lack of
3
theoretical grounding for a large number of studies conducted (Grant, 2013). Coaching studies
have also been noted to lack rigorous methodology. For instance, a recent meta-analysis
ultimately included eighteen studies, but only four were identified as truly rigorous (i.e., utilizing
a between-subjects design, collecting data other than self-report, and conducted within field
settings; Theeboom, Beersma, & van Vianen, 2014). The meta-analysis indicated that coaching
was positively and significantly related to five critical identified outcomes, including
performance, coping, work attitudes, goal-directed self-regulation, and well-being (Theeboom et
al., 2014), but, given the limitations of the primary studies and coaching literature in general, it is
difficult to determine precisely what fostered these specific outcomes. In sum, a dearth of theory
and inconsistent as well as diverse methodologies and outcomes have limited the ability of
researchers to conclusively identify which aspects of coaching contribute to its effectiveness.
While many have made the business case for executive coaching (McGovern et al., 2001;
Parker-Wilkins, 2009; Wasylyshyn, 2003), key issues exist within the industry and the field.
Sherman and Freas (2004) likened executive coaching to the “wild west.” Even casual exposure
to this industry validates their claim. “Effectiveness” in executive coaching may range from
improved interpersonal skills, to decreased stress, to better turnaround time in responding to
emails; as a result of this lack of consistent outcomes within coaching interventions, outcomes
are nearly impossible to systematically assess across interventions (Mackie, 2007). This is a
major issue for executive coaching, because it is the systematic assessment of interventions that
drives scientific and practical progress. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to maximize the
effectiveness of coaching on the whole, until more stringent standards of practice are developed
which are based in theory, tested, agreed upon, and continually developed (Lowman, 2007;
Mackie, 2007). It has been stated elsewhere that coaching is still in its nascent stages and that
4
much works remain to be done (Kilburg, 2004; Mackie, 2007). For example, research conducted
on coaching often fails to account for individual differences, even though constructs like ability,
personality, and motivation have consistently been established as influencing the effectiveness of
outcomes typically associated with coaching, such as transfer of learning and job performance
(Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000). Consequently, it is largely unknown what factors may cause an
individual to differ in their responses to coaching.
In the aim of addressing this gap, Stewart and colleagues (2008) offered some
preliminary evidence that individual factors, including conscientiousness, openness, emotional
stability, and general self-efficacy, contribute to the attainment of desired coaching outcomes.
Self-awareness, core coaching competencies, and an understanding of the management of
coaching relationships have also been identified as significant predictors (Jarvis, lane, & FilleryTravis, 2006). There has also been some work conducted on which coaching behaviors may be
most beneficial to facilitating targeted results. Challenge, listening, reflecting back and checking
back on understanding have been identified as integral to overall effectiveness (Hall, Otazo, &
Hollenbeck, 1999). Yet, despite this initial work, the question of how and what works in
contributing to coaching outcomes still remains largely unknown (MacKie, 2014).
There is still a need to quantify the impact of coaching behaviors and processes on
coachees. We seek to advance the state of research in the field of executive coaching by
addressing this gap and taking an empirical approach to understanding which attitudinal and
behavioral factors contribute to effective coaching outcomes. Specifically, we will examine
inputs, processes, and outcomes in the coaching relationship. We will examine the contributors
and barriers to an effective coaching engagement. In conducting this empirical investigation, we
will utilize available theoretical rationale derived from the extant coaching literature to inform
5
the development of our hypotheses as well as the identification of constructs which should be
examined.
The Input-Process-Output Coaching Model
We leverage current research on the critical components of coaching and coaching
relationships (e.g., coach-coachee working alliance, information sharing, coachee motivation)
(de Haan et al., 2013; Bozer, Sarros, & Santora, 2013; McKenna & Davis, 2009), to propose a
framework of coaching that addresses the mediating and explanatory mechanisms behind
achieving coaching goals. To accomplish this, we first provide a generalizable “input-processoutput” (IPO; McGrath, 1964, 1984) framework for modeling linkages between key coaching
variables.
In assessing the state of coaching science, Mackie (2007) highlighted the need for a
testable, theory-driven model of coaching, but acknowledged the difficulty associated with
designing and implementing feasible randomized controlled trials. Rather, he proposed that the
best way to validate such a model would be to continue to validate the model against the
objective outcomes (e.g., return on investment) as well as by examining the mediating
components involved in the coaching process (e.g., motivation). Accordingly, we developed a
testable model of contributors to coaching outcomes (see Figure 1). We then proceeded to test its
validity in multiple environments. In study 1 we will detail the results of a pilot study comprised
of academic coaching engagements within two executive MBA program. In study 2 we will test
the model using a field sample of executive coaches and coachees in multiple organizational
contexts.
6
Coach and Coachee Inputs
As Baldwin and Ford (1988) argue, developmental interventions are driven by three
inputs: trainee characteristics, aspects of training design, and external elements of the work
environment. Following their logic, coachee characteristics (e.g., coachee personality,
motivation), coaching design (e.g., techniques, delivery), and the coachee’s work context should
all influence proximal and distal coaching outcomes. Indeed, research frequently points to the
importance of these broad categories of variables in driving coaching effectiveness. Bono and
colleagues (2009) conducted a wide-scale survey, examining the frequencies and connections
between a broad array of coaching inputs, including demographic (e.g., age, race) and
professional (e.g., psychologist vs. non-psychologist) information, logistical inputs (e.g., average
number of sessions), and coaching techniques, behaviors, and strategies (e.g. challenging
questions, reflection exercises). Sue-Chan, Wood, and Latham (2012) examined the effect that
coachees’ implicit person theories had on the effectiveness of coaching techniques in eliciting
behavioral change. Other inputs that the coaching literature has considered include coachcoachee match (Boyce et al., 2010), coachee personality (Berglas, 2013), specific questioning
and feedback techniques (Hicks & McCracken, 2010; 2011), interpersonal communication
strategies (Quick & Macick-Frey, 2004), and even the use of literary techniques such as
metaphor and storytelling (Robinson, 2010). These are all proposed to influence coaching
outcomes in some way, directly or indirectly. An input particularly salient to the coaching
domain is coachee motivation.
Coachee Inputs
7
Research and theory alike have consistently identified motivation as a key input
influencing the obtainment of goals and other salient outcomes across a broad array of work
behaviors (e.g., Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1994). Motivation can be conceptualized as “a set of
energetic forces that originates both within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate
work-related behavior, and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration” (Pinder,
1998, p. 11). Highly relevant to motivation is goal-setting theory, as motivation is consistently
linked to the achievement of targeted goals both theoretically and empirically (Locke & Latham,
2002); as a primary objective of the coaching relationship is fostering the achievement of set
goals, goal obtainment is an outcome that is highly salient to the coaching domain (Witherspoon,
2000). Building on motivation theories explaining behavior in the workplace (e.g., Boyacigiller
& Adler, 1991; Shamir, 1991) Meyer and colleagues (2004) described an integrative model of
commitment and motivation to explain the specific process by which motivation impacts goal
obtainment. They expanded upon Locke and Latham’s (1990) theory of goal setting, which
posits that goals high in specificity and difficulty are more likely to facilitate high task
performance. Specifically, Meyer et al. (2004) argued that goal regulation plays an integral role
in the motivation process, which they defined as “a motivational mindset reflecting the reasons
for, and purpose of, a course of action being contemplated or in progress” (p. 998). In other
words, motivation is the force influencing goal directed behavior and stems from multiple
sources.
Relevant to this argument is the concept of intrinsic motivation, which refers to the
propensity to engage in activities solely to experience a sense of accomplishment and promote
personal growth (White, 1959). It can also be conceptualized as undertaking a task due to
associated enjoyment and interest (Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006). Conversely, extrinsic
8
motivation can be defined as “engaging in an activity to obtain an outcome that is separable from
the activity itself” (Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006, p. 20; deCharms, 1968; Lepper &
Greene, 1978). Individuals who are guided by intrinsic motivation, as opposed to extrinsic
motivation, are found to exhibit high task performance (Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Ford, 2014). As
individuals high in intrinsic motivation are primarily motivated by working on the task itself,
engaging in task completion serves as reinforcement for subsequent behavior aimed at achieving
goals associated with the task (Lavigne et al., 2009).This effect has been confirmed within the
coaching literature, with motivation being identified as a key component of coachee willingness
to change (McKenna & Davis, 2009) and accept coach direction (Peterson, 1996). Therefore, we
hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1a: Coachee Motivation will be positively related to coachee goal attainment
One of the underlying goals of the coaching relationship is for the coach to guide the
coachee through the process of implementing behavioral changes that will foster goal attainment
(Prochaska et al., 2008; Weinstein et al., 2008). However, for this process to occur, the coachee
must first understand the relevance and importance of making such alterations. This requirement
can be realized through insight. Insight can be conceptualized as a coachee’s understanding
regarding the precise behavioral changes that need to occur to facilitate goal obtainment (Hicks
& Peterson, 1999). In other words, insight allows a coachee to comprehensively assess and
understand information gleaned from the coaching relationship and subsequently apply that
information to further goal attainment and the achievement of other integral outcomes. One
factor that can further this process is coachee motivation.
9
Research indicates that intrinsic motivation is associated with deeper, less superficial
information processing (Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004). Coachees must
first engage in information processing to make sense of information acquired from the coaching
relationship and achieve insight (Sowa, 1984). Information processing can be defined as the
underlying mechanisms that explain the manner in which individuals collect, perceive, encode,
store, retrieve, and apply information (Jarvinen & Poikela, 2001). As intrinsic motivation
“involve[s] learning in the service of inherent psychological needs and growth tendencies”
(Vansteenkiste et al., 2004, p. 247), intrinsically motivated individuals are predisposed to more
fully engage in the learning process and this promotes deeper information processing. This, in
turn, allows coachees to more comprehensively assess information pertinent to goal achievement
and this more focused examination furthers insight. Thus, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1b: Coachee Motivation will be positively related to coachee insight.
Coach-Coachee Relationship
Coaching places a great emphasis on the coach-coachee relationship (Boyce et al., 2010;
McKenna & Davis, 2009), sharing some construct space with mentoring and therapy/counseling
(Feldman & Lankau, 2005). Counseling research highlights the therapeutic relationship in
eliciting changes in the client (Gassman & Grawe, 2006; McKenna & Davis, 2009). This refers
to the relationship between therapist and patient (or coach and coachee), and is evaluated along a
number of dimensions such as respect, openness, and affect (DiGiuseppe, Leaf, & Linscott,
1993; Horvath & Symonds, 1991; Saltzman, Luetgert, Roth, Creaser, & Howard, 1976). While
there are several theoretical frameworks used to describe the coaching process (Feldman &
Lankau, 2005), above all the coaching relationship is one in which the coach and coachee form a
collaborative working alliance, set mutually defined goals and devise specific action steps to
10
ultimately achieve goal attainment (Kemp, 2008; Grant et al., 2009).
The relationship between the coach and coachee is identified as an integral factor which
ultimately determines the success of the coaching intervention (Passmore & Fillery-Travis,
2011). This relationship is characterized by numerous facets, but researchers have identified
working alliance and information sharing as two particularly significant attributes comprising
this construct (Baron & Morin, 2009; Naficy & Isabella, 2008). We limit the coaching
relationship constructs we discuss to information sharing and working alliance, as these two
constructs represent both the emotional and informational components of relationship
development. While the coaching literature discusses many others (e.g. trust, rapport), we take a
more focused examination of these particular relationship variables.
Relationship forms the medium and context by which specific coach inputs (e.g.,
feedback, challenging questions) are delivered (Baron & Morin, 2009; Horvath & Symonds,
1991). For example, de Haan and colleagues (2011; 2013) have looked at how common
relationship factors important to coaching, such as empathy, trust, listening, and working alliance
influence coaching outcomes such as behavior change and generic perceptions of helpfulness.
Moreover, van Woerkom (2010) found that coaches attribute the effectiveness of their coaching
to a large part to the relationship they had with their coach. In fact, it was found that when
coaches provide unconditional acceptance and respect it was perceived to be directly responsible
for change. These findings suggest that a mutual relationship between the coach and coachee will
be more effective in facilitating the attainment of coachee goals than a unilateral helping
relationship.
Working Alliance and Information Sharing
11
Working alliance refers to the quality and strength of the collaborative relationship
between a coach and coachee (Bordin, 1979). More specifically, it refers to the trust that emerges
from a common relational bond, sense of credibility, and/or a mutual commitment to shared
goals (Horvath, Del Re, Fluckiger, & Symonds, 2011), and is often highlighted as a major
component of the coaching relationship (de Haan, Culpin, & Curd, 2011; Wasylyshyn, 2003). It
has been argued that working alliance plays an important role in predicting coaching outcomes
(Baron & Morin, 2009), and that the coaching relationship has even been said to be the ‘vehicle
for change’ (Gyllensten & Palmer, 2007, p.163). It is asserted that when working alliance is
strong, it enables deeper discussions of thoughts, feelings, and values and overall greater
information sharing (Haeussler, 2011) which translates to and facilitates both coachee goal
attainment outcomes and coachee insight outcomes. In the context of the coaching relationship,
working alliance can be conceptualized as comprised of three aspects: (1) the bond that develops
between the coach and coachee, (2) the goals associated with the coaching relationship, and (3)
the tasks required to achieve those goals (Baron & Morin, 2001). Moreover, aspects such as
mutual respect/trust and shared goals are also frequently identified as composing working
alliance (Horvath, 2005; Bluckert, 2005).
Coach Inputs
The proposed framework, as previously mentioned, draws from Baldwin and Ford’s
(1988) model of training effectiveness. Baldwin and Ford’s (1988) model posits that elements
such as individual characteristics and behaviors drive the training process. Similarly, we argue
that individual characteristics and behaviors serve as integral inputs within the coaching process.
Specifically, we posit that couch inputs are necessary to facilitate the coaching process. These
inputs influence the coach-coachee relationship which ultimately influences immediate coaching
12
outcomes. Research and theory identify psychological mindedness and coach behaviors as two
influential coach inputs.
A salient coach input explaining why some coachees may benefit more from the coaching
relationship than others is psychological mindedness. Psychological mindedness can be defined
as “a person’s interest and ability to be in touch with and reflect on his or her psychological
states and processes” (Nyklicek & Denollet, 2009, p. 32). This input can help facilitate the
coach-coachee relationship by fostering different processes. Specifically, it can facilitate working
alliance. In the context of clinical therapy, there is evidence that psychological mindedness
facilitates a high-quality working alliance among therapists and clients (Castonguay,
Constantino, & Grosse Holtforth, 2006) as those with high psychological mindedness have a
better awareness of the motives and experiences of others (Gough, 1957; 1975). We extend this
argument to the coaching literature, arguing that coaches who have a better sense of their
emotions and psychological states will be better able to understand the motives, experiences, and
psychological states of their coachees and consequently tailor their guidance in a manner
conducive to helping that particular individual. Providing this customized guidance is likely to
enhance the coachee’s perception of the relationship as helpful and promote a high-quality
relationship. We therefore hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2a: Coach psychological mindedness will be positively related to working alliance
We further argue that coaches high in psychological mindeness are also more likely to
engage in and foster information sharing. Information gathered from multiple sources results in a
larger amount of informational resources (Henningsen & Henningsen, 2006); it is thus critical
that both coaches and coachees engage in information sharing. Doing so allows the coachee to
13
obtain novel information pertaining to goal attainment. However, certain characteristics of the
coach are likely to influence the degree to which information sharing occurs. Psychological
mindedness is particularly influential in this regard because coaches with high psychological
mindedness have an acuter grasp of their thoughts and feelings (Beitel, Ferrer, & Cecero, 2004).
This deeper understanding enables these coaches to more easily draw information from their
perspective and clearly articulate and provide information to the coachee which, in turn, can
motivate the coachee to reciprocate this behavior by sharing information gleaned from their own
perspective (Haeussler, 2011). We argue that this consequently results in a high degree of
information sharing between the coach and coachee. We thus posit:
Hypothesis 2b: Coach psychological mindedness will be positively related to information
sharing between the coach and coachee
Coach Behaviors
In addition to individual differences, coach behaviors are an integral aspect of facilitating
pertinent outcomes. The coaching literature has identified a myriad of coaching behaviors that
can foster positive outcomes as a result of coaching interventions. However, we argue that
several behaviors are especially salient to the coaching relationship including rapport building,
providing content, coaching authentically, regulating motivation, and boundary setting. Rapport
building refers to “mutual understanding, agreement, and liking between the client and coach”
(Boyce & Neal, 2010, p. 917). Boyce and Neal (2010) further noted that rapport building
includes reducing differences between the coach and coachee in addition to building similarities.
Engaging in such behavior lends itself to the development of a high-quality working alliance by
increasing the bond between coach and coachee.
14
We define providing content as a coach behavior aimed at structuring the coaching
relationship around goal achievement, encompassing several relevant constructs such as
assessment (Gettman, 2008) to yield a more parsimonious behavior. This includes behavior such
as verbally providing goal relevant feedback and guidance. We argue that this will promote
working alliance because it entails the coach taking a more active part in the relationship and
promoting a collaborative relationship. Boundary setting is another coach input that serves a
similar purpose; this behavior can be defined as the coach providing clear guidelines for goal
achievement (e.g., Albrecht, 2006). We argue that the coach demonstrating such behavior will
assure the coachee of the coach’s investment in the relationship and, in doing so, further working
alliance.
Coaching authentically is another coach behavior that functions similarly; this refers to
the coach promoting an authentic sense of mutual respect and commitment between the coach
and coachee (e.g., Noer, 2004). This can include engaging in behaviors geared towards goal
achievement. A sense of commitment is argued to be necessary for the establishment of a
working alliance (Baron & Morin, 2009) and this behavior fosters commitment. Yet another
coach behavior integral to the development of working alliance is regulating motivation, which
refers to engaging in various strategies to enhance motivation to further the attainment of
relevant outcomes (Wolters, 1999; 2003). In the context of the coaching relationship, this can be
conceptualized as the strategies and behaviors the coach utilizes to motivate the coachee. As
previously argued, coachee motivation can foster a high-quality working alliance, as motivated
individuals are more likely to invest energy in activities that will further goal attainment, such as
building a working alliance with the coach (Baron & Morin, 2009). Thus, we argue that each of
15
these behaviors work in tandem to foster a high-quality relationship and promote a strong
working alliance between the coach and coachee. Consequently, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 3a: Coach behaviors a) rapport building, b) providing content, c) coaching
authentically, d) regulating motivation, and e) boundary setting will be positively related to
coach-coachee working alliance.
In addition to promoting working alliance, we posit that coach behaviors, consisting of
rapport building, providing content, coaching authentically, regulating motivation, and boundary
setting, will also foster information sharing. Rapport building and coaching enable the coachee to
develop a high-quality relationship with the coach (Boyce & Neal, 2010). This, in turn, can
develop an associated sense of trust which generally promotes greater information sharing
among entities (Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin, 2000). Providing structure and clarification
through the behaviors of boundary setting and structuring content requires communicating
information pertinent to goals (Gettman, 2008); as coach information sharing can influence the
coachee to reciprocate by sharing information from their own perspective (Haeussler, 2011),
these behaviors promote overall, collective information sharing between the coach and coachee.
Moreover, by engaging in the behavior of regulating motivation, the coach can further foster
information sharing by encouraging a sense of motivation in the coachee; highly motivated
individuals are more likely to invest the necessary energy into undertaking actions that will
further goal achievement (Baron & Morin, 2009). This may entail information sharing.
Consistent with these arguments, we hypothesize:
16
Hypothesis 3b: Coach behaviors a) rapport building, b) providing content, c) coaching
authentically, d) regulating motivation, and e) boundary setting will be positively related to
coach-coachee information sharing.
Working alliance is a robust predictor of positive outcomes within the therapy domain
(Horvath & Symonds, 1991; Martin, Gaske, & Davis, 2000).Within the context of the coaching
relationship, working alliance has been argued to function in a similar manner by lending
credibility to the coach and promoting trust (Murphy, 2005). Enhancing source credibility
increases the likelihood of behavioral change targeted at goal achievement and more focused
processing of information provided by the coach (Hovlan & Weiss, 1951; Missirlian,
Toukmanian, Warwar, & Greenberg, 2005). In other words, working alliance fosters goal
attainment and insight. When the coachee engages in mutual information sharing with the coach,
more information is generated than when the coachee is assessing information from their
perspective alone (Naficy & Isabella, 2008). Consequently, more information is available to be
leveraged to obtain insight and applied to goal attainment. Drawing from the training literature,
Baron and Morin (2009) posited that coachee inputs can enhance working alliance. They argued
that the participant’s underlying motivation to acquire and transfer skills associated with the
coaching relationship “constitutes a prerequisite for establishing a working alliance with the
coach” (p. 92). In other words, motivated individuals are more likely to invest energy in building
a working alliance with the coach because of an innate propensity to engage in activities
promoting growth and learning (Vansteenkiste et al., 2004). Similarly, coaches who engage in
the aforementioned coaching behaviors and who are high on psychological mindedness are more
likely to achieve goal attainment and coachee insight through the strong positive relationships
that are elicited by their behaviors. These aspects of the coaching relationship serve as a partial
17
explanatory mechanism explicating the relationship between individual motivation and the
achievement of pertinent outputs. Consequently, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 4: Working alliance between the coach and coachee will partially mediate the
relationship between coach psychological mindedness and (a) coachee insight and (b) coachee
goal attainment.
Hypothesis 5: Working alliance between the coach and coachee will partially mediate the
relationship between coach behaviors and (a) coachee insight (b) coachee goal attainment.
Hypothesis 6: Working alliance between the coach and coachee will partially mediate the
relationship between coachee motivation and (a) coachee insight and (b) coachee goal
attainment.
Hypothesis 7: Information sharing between the coach and coachee will partially mediate the
relationship between coach psychological mindedness and (a) coachee insight (b) coachee goal
attainment.
Hypothesis 8: Information sharing between the coach and coachee will partially mediate the
relationship between coach behaviors and (a) coachee insight and (b) coachee goal attainment.
Hypothesis 9: Information sharing between the coach and coachee will partially mediate the
relationship between coachee motivation and (a) coachee insight and (b) coachee goal
attainment.
Goal Difficulty
Goal difficulty refers to the complexity and relative effort required to attain a goal. While
executive coaching has been shown to facilitate the achievement of goals, it is important to take
18
into account whether the difficulty of the agreed upon goals impacts the relationship between
coaching and goal attainment (Grant, Curtayne & Burton, 2009). While we argue that
information sharing and working alliance may facilitate goal attainment, we argue that the
relationship between coach-coachee relationship and goal attainment will be weaker for more
difficult goals than less difficult goals. In other words, we posit that as goal difficulty increases,
the relationship between the coach and coachee will be less effective in facilitating goal
attainment.
Hypothesis 10: Goal difficulty will moderate the relationship between the coach and coachee (a)
working alliance and (b) information sharing and goal attainment, such that the more difficult the
goal the weaker the relationship between information sharing and goal attainment.
[INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE]
Methods
Sample
The participants include an executive MBA sample where each student was assigned a
coach, as well as an executive MBA student sample in a large northwestern university. 55
coaches and 44 coachees participated in the study. The coachee sample was 47.2 percent male,
and participant age ranged from 18 to 41. The coach sample was 71.7 percent male, and
participant age ranged from 18-70+.
Surveys
In developing the survey, we consulted the existing literature in an effort to represent a
comprehensive set of elements important to coaching. The final version of our longitudinal
19
survey contains repeated time collection points and four major sections (1) Coach and Coachee
inputs (e.g. coachee motivation, coach psychological mindedness), (2) general inputs (e.g.
coaching behaviors), (3) interpersonal coaching variables (e.g. information sharing, working
alliance), and (4) coaching outcomes (e.g. goal attainment). We employed a survey based
approach to collect dyadic data to obtain the perspective of both the coach and coachee.
Measures
Coaching Behavior. Coaching behavior was a rationally derived measure based on
structured interviews with executive coaches (Sonesh, Coultas & Salas, 2014). We extracted
behaviors and grouped them into five types of behaviors: rapport building, boundary setting,
providing content, regulating motivation, and coaching authentically.
To assess the degree to which coaches engaged in each of these behaviors we developed
a list of items which allowed the coach to report how often they engaged in each class of
behaviors on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Sample items
include “communicating encouragement and care for the coachee” for rapport building,
“establishing common ground with the coachee” for boundary setting, “giving feedback that
includes performance related incidents” for providing content, “giving coachee homework” for
regulating motivation, and “collecting data through interviews” for coaching authentically. For
both studies, the reliability for rapport building, boundary setting, providing content, regulating
motivation, and coaching authentically were α=0.598-0.606, α=0.614-0.684, α=0.612-0.735,
α=0.691-0.868, and α=0.638-0.778.
Coach Psychological Mindedness. Psychological mindedness was measured using the 14
item Balanced Index of Psychological Mindedness (BIPM) (Nyklíček, I., & Denollet, J., 2009).
20
Items were on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not true) to 5 (very much true). A sample
item includes “my feelings show me what I need”. Reliability for the scale ranged from 0.713 to
0.760.
Coachee Motivation. Motivation was measured using an adapted version of the Pelletier,
Tuson, and Haddad (1997) Client Motivation for Therapy Scale. This scale includes 15 items on
a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item
includes “I am being required to go to coaching”. Reliability for the scale ranged from 0.647 to
0.786.
Information Sharing. Information sharing was measured using a 7 item measure on a 7point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 7 (very accurate). A sample item includes
“we kept in touch effectively”. Reliability for the scale ranged from 0.805 to 0.941.
Working Alliance. Working alliance was measured using the 12 item short form of the
working alliance inventory scale (WAIS) (Corbiere et al., 2006; Horvath et al., 1989). Either
‘coach’ or ‘coachee’ was substituted as the referent depending on who the survey taker was. A 5point Likert scale was used ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample
item includes “My coach and I both feel confident about the usefulness of our current activity.”
Reliability for the scale ranged from 0.918 to 0.948.
21
Insight. Insight was measured using a 5 item measure adapted from a previously
developed scale (McCay-Peet & Toms, 2011). A 5-point Likert scale was used ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item includes “I obtained unexpected
insights”. Reliability for the scale was 0.861.
Goal Difficulty: To measure goal difficulty we first asked coaches to select from several
pre-populated options what the goals they were working towards with their coach were. We
provided multiple "other" options that could be manually filled in, in the event that the three
biggest goals were not listed. Sample goals that were presented include time management,
public speaking, and listening. Once identified, coachees reported the difficulty level of each of
the goals they selected on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very difficult) to 7 (very easy).
The average difficulty for all of the goals mentioned was calculated for each participant to arrive
at an overall goal difficulty score.
Goal Attainment: To measure goal attainment coachees were asked to assess how much
they believed that the coaching goals they had previously identified were achieved. A 5-point
Likert scale was used ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely).
Results
The descriptive statistics and correlations of all measured variables are shown in Table 3.
Hypothesis 1a and Hypothesis1b, which asserted that coachee motivation is positively
related to coachee goal attainment and coachee insight, was supported (see Table 3). The
relationship between motivation and coachee goal attainment was significant with a correlation
of r = .30, p < .05. Moreover, there was a significant positive correlation between coachee
motivation and coachee insight (r = .56, p = .01).
22
However, Hypothesis 2a, which predicted that coach psychological mindedness would
have a positive relationship with working alliance, was not supported (r = .16, p = .32).
Hypothesis 2b, which predicted that coach psychological mindedness would have a positive
relationship with information sharing, was also not supported (r = -.01, p = .95).
Hypothesis 3a and 3b, which asserted that coach inputs (behaviors) are positively related
to working alliance and information sharing between the coach and coachee, was partially
supported. Out of the five different coaching behaviors explored, it was found that rapport
building and coaching authentically behaviors were significantly correlated with information
sharing (r = .42, p < .01; r = .40, p < .05, respectively), thereby lending partial support to
Hypothesis 3b. Only regulating motivation coach behaviors were significantly correlated with
working alliance (r = .38, p < .05), lending partial support to Hypothesis 3a.
Mediation analyses
To examine whether the coach-coachee relationship mediated the relationship between
coach and coachee inputs and coachee outcomes, mediation analyses were performed using the
procedures outlined by Preacher and Hayes (2004); the simple mediation macro SPSS was
utilized with the Sobel test via bootstrapping. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to
assess each component of the proposed mediation model. When examining working alliance as
a mediator for coachee insight and coachee goal attainment, we found it did not serve as a
significant mediator for relationships between any of the inputs and coachee goal attainment.
Thus, there is no support for Hypothesis 4b, Hypothesis 5b, or Hypothesis 6b (see Table 4).
There was also no support for Hypothesis 4a, which asserted that working alliance would
partially mediate the relationship between coach behaviors and insight. However, of all the coach
23
behaviors, it was found that regulating motivation was positively associated with coachee insight
(B = .33, t (38) = 2.03, p < .05). It was also found that regulating motivation behaviors were
positively related to working alliance (B = .41, t (38) = 2.58, p < .01). Lastly results indicated
that working alliance was positively associated with insight (B = .72, t (38) = 6.14, p < .001).
Because both the A path and B path were significant, mediation analyses were tested using the
bootstrapping method with bias corrected confidence estimates (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). In the
present study, the 95% confidence interval of the indirect effect was obtained with 5000
bootstrap samples (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Results of the mediation analysis confirmed the
mediation role of working alliance in the relationship between regulating motivation behaviors
and coachee insight (B = .30, 95% CI [.05, .55]). In addition results indicated that the direct
effect of regulating motivation behaviors on coachee insight became non-significant (B = .03,
t(38)=.25, n.s.) when controlling for working alliance, thus suggesting partial mediation (see
Figure 2). This lends partial support to Hypothesis 5a.
It was also found that insight was positively associated with coachee motivation (B = .89,
t (47) = 4.63, p < .001) and working alliance (B = .57, t (47) = 5.59, p < .001). Finally, results
indicated that working alliance was positively associated with motivation (B = .75, t (47) = 3.50,
p < .001). As both the A path and B path were significant, mediation analyses were tested using
the bootstrapping method with bias corrected confidence estimates (Preacher & Hayes, 2004).
Results of the mediation analysis confirmed the mediating role of working alliance in the
relationship between insight and motivation (B = .43, 95% CI [.14, .71]) (see Figure 3). This
supports Hypothesis 6a.
There was partial support for information sharing as a mediator of coach and coachee
inputs and coach insight. There was no support for information sharing as a mediator of the
24
relationship between coach and coachee inputs and goal attainment. Thus there is not support for
Hypothesis 7b, Hypothesis 8b, or Hypothesis 9b. Information sharing did not serve as a
mediator for the relationship between psychological mindedness and coachee insight or the
relationship between coachee motivation and coachee insight, thus there is no support for
Hypothesis 7a nor Hypothesis 9a. However, our mediation analyses revealed that while the direct
effect of coaching authentically on insight was not significant (B = .03, t (38) = .17, n.s.),
coaching authentically was positively related to information sharing (B = .96, t (38) = 3.06, p <
.01). Finally, results indicated that the predicted mediator, information sharing, was positively
associated with insight (B = .27, t (38) = 3.40, p < .001). Results of the mediation analysis
confirmed the mediating role of information sharing in the relationship between coaching
authentically and coachee insight (B = .26, 95% CI [.03, .49]), thus suggesting full mediation
(see Figure 4). This evidence lends support for Hypothesis 8a.
Moderation analyses
Goal difficulty was examined as a moderator of the relationship between the coach and
coachee’s (a) working alliance, (b) information sharing, and (c) goal attainment. First, we
centralized the predictor variables in order to reduce error in the analysis of interactions that
could be due to differences in measurement (McClelland & Judd, 1993). In two separate
analyses, (a) working alliance, (b) goal difficulty, and (c) information sharing were entered in the
first step of the regression analysis. In the second step of the regression analysis, the interaction
term between goal difficulty and working alliance was entered and results were not significant;
additionally, the regression examining the interaction between goal difficulty and information
sharing was not significant. Thus, Hypothesis 10 was not supported.
25
[INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE]
[INSERT TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE]
[INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE]
[INSERT FIGURE 3ABOUT HERE]
[INSERT FIGURE 4 ABOUT HERE]
Study 1 Discussion
Study 1 provides initial, partial support for the overall hypothesized model. Results
suggest that both coachee and coach individual differences (i.e., inputs) play a role in the
development of the coaching relationship. Moreover, these inputs also contribute to coachee
insight and goal attainment outcomes.
However, contrary to our hypotheses, not all coach inputs were associated with
relationship development among the coaches and coachees. Specifically, the coach’s
psychological mindedness did not seem to have a direct relationship with information sharing or
working alliance. Additionally, the specific coaching behaviors that are related to relationship
outcomes differ depending on the outcome assessed. Rapport building and coaching
authentically were positively related with working alliance, while regulating motivation
behaviors were positively related with information sharing. This suggests that coaches should
first identify what outcomes they are striving for in order to accurately assess what behaviors
would be most effective. For example, if a coach is concerned with creating a strong working
alliance, they should ensure their coaching efforts are authentic. This finding aligns with the
person-centered coaching approach identified by Joseph (2006), which highlights the importance
26
of coaching authentically in order to facilitate a social relationship between the coach and
coachee.
In contrast to our hypotheses, the relationship variables did not mediate all relationships
between coachee and coach inputs and outcomes of the coaching engagement. Working alliance
was found to partially mediate the relationship between the coach’s engagement in regulating
motivation behaviors and coachee insight and the coachee’s level of motivation and insight. The
relationship between coaching authentically and coachee insight was partially mediated by
information sharing. Interestingly, a significant relationship between coachee insight and
coachee goal attainment was identified. This suggests that insight is related to goal attainment,
thereby exhibiting the potential to be a predictor of coachee’s goal attainment. As such, coaches
should strive for insight as a proximal goal in order to obtain more distal outcomes (e.g., goal
attainment) of the coaching relationship. These findings highlight the importance of fostering a
strong, high-quality relationship between coaches and their coachee, thereby supporting previous
work on this topic (e.g., de Haan, Duckworth, Birch, & Jones, 2013).
Finally, while we had hypothesized that goal difficulty would moderate the relationship
between each coach-coachee relationship variable and goal attainment, there was no evidence to
support this. This indicates that despite the difficulty level of the goals set within a coaching
engagement, the working alliance that is built between the coach and coachee and the
information exchange that occurs between them is enough to help facilitate and achieve those
goals. This speaks to the value and importance of coaching as a tool to develop leaders and
managers to accomplish even seemingly unattainable goals. On the other hand, this finding may
have been a result of subjective determinations of difficult, as opposed to easy, goals. Future
27
work should consider determining whether there are objectively harder and easier coaching goals
that influence the effectiveness of coaching engagements.
Although the current findings provide significant contributions to the science and practice
of coaching, it is necessary to test the hypothesized model utilizing field data. The MBA sample
utilized provides a good representation of the individuals that will ultimately be the consumers of
coaching; however, we cannot be certain that the same results will generalize to a field sample of
executives. The coaching behaviors that engender results for MBA students may not be the same
as what is needed for executives working within the field. For example, the coach’s ability to
regulate motivation may not be as necessary when working with an executive because this
coachee is already highly motivated to achieve results because their job is at stake. As such,
study 2 investigates the hypothesized model utilizing a sample of executive coachees and
coaches in the field.
STUDY 2
Method
In study two we sought to determine whether similar effects would generalize to a field
sample of executive coaches and executive coachees. We identified a diverse sample of coaches
from both field and academic settings. We identified coaches from large organizations with
which executive coaches are usually affiliated: International coaching federation (ICF), Society
of Consulting Psychology, and the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP).
We distributed the survey via Qualtrics to approximately 36 contact points (including practicing
executive coaches and coaches working in various academic settings). Coaches were asked to
inform their coachees about the survey, allowing the coachee to have the final say as to whether
28
or not the dyad will complete the survey. When coachees completed their surveys, a notification
email was automatically sent to their coach counterpart. Approximately 90 executive coachees
and 17 field coaches participated in the study. Of these respondents, there were 89 coachcoachee dyads represented. The survey each completed was identical to that of study 1. The
coachee sample was 45.1 percent male, and age ranged from 22-69. The coach sample was 43.8
percent male, and age ranged from 34-70+.
Study 2 Results
The descriptive statistics and correlations of all measured variables are summarized in
Table 5.
Hypothesis 1a and Hypothesis 1b, which asserted that coachee motivation is positively
related to coachee goal attainment and coachee insight, were not supported (see Table 4). The
relationship between motivation and coachee goal attainment was insignificant (r = .37, n.s.).
Moreover, the correlation between coachee motivation and coachee insight was also insignificant
(r = .19, n.s.).
Hypothesis 2a, which predicted that coach psychological mindedness would have a
positive relationship with working alliance, was not supported (r = .27, n.s.). Hypothesis 2b,
which predicted that coach psychological mindedness would have a positive relationship with
information sharing, was also not supported (r = -.15, n.s.).
Hypothesis 3a and 3b, which asserted that coach inputs (behaviors) are positively related
to working alliance and information sharing between the coach and coachee, was not supported.
None of the five different coaching behaviors explored were found to be significantly correlated
with information sharing or working alliance (see Table 4).
29
However, it was found that coachee insight was positively correlated to both the coachee
perception of information sharing and of working alliance (r = .42, p < .01; r = .64, p < .01,
respectively). Also, goal attainment was found to be positively correlated with both the coachee
perception of information sharing and of insight (r = .38, p < .01; r = .30, p < .01).
Mediation analyses
To examine the role of the coach-coachee relationship as a mediator between coach and
coachee inputs and coachee outcomes, mediation analyses were performed using the procedures
outlined by Preacher and Hayes (2004); the simple mediation macro built for SPSS with the
Sobel test via bootstrapping was utilized. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to assess
each component of the proposed mediation model. We found that working alliance did not
significantly mediate the relationships between any of the inputs (coach psychological
mindedness, coach behaviors, and coachee motivation) and coachee insight or coachee goal
attainment. Thus, there is no support for Hypothesis 4a, Hypothesis 4b, Hypothesis 5a,
Hypothesis 5b, Hypothesis 6a, or Hypothesis 6b (see Table 6).
Our analyses revealed no significant results for information sharing as a mediator of
coach and coachee inputs and coach insight. Thus, there was not support for Hypothesis 7a,
Hypothesis 8a, or Hypothesis 9a. The analyses also revealed information sharing was not a
significant mediator of the relationship between coach and coachee inputs and goal attainment;
therefore, Hypothesis 7b, Hypothesis 8b, or Hypothesis 9b (see Table 6) were not supported.
Moderation analyses
The same method as in study 1 (i.e., McClelland & Judd, 1993) was leveraged to
examine the role of goal difficulty as a moderator of the relationship between the coach and
30
coachee’s (a) working alliance and (b) information sharing, and (c) goal attainment . The
interaction term between goal difficulty and working alliance was entered and it was not
significant. Moreover, the interaction term between goal difficulty and information sharing was
also not significant. Thus, goal difficulty was not a significant moderator of the relationship
between (a) working alliance and goal attainment nor (b) information sharing and goal
attainment. Therefore there was no support found for Hypothesis 10.
[INSERT TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE]
[INSERT Table 6 ABOUT HERE]
Study 2 Discussion
Contrary to the hypotheses, Study 2 results did not mirror Study 1 results. Specifically,
both coachee inputs (i.e., motivation) and coach inputs (i.e., psychological mindedness and
coaching behaviors) were not significantly related to goal attainment or insight. The nonsignificant findings are unexpected, and may be due to the small amount of variance within the
independent variables. Specifically, the standard deviation for coachee motivation was low,
suggesting that most coachees display high levels of motivation. The same pattern was found for
coach psychological mindedness and the coaching behaviors. Because the current methodology
was limited to self-report measures, both coaches and coachees may have inflated scores due to
individuals’ tendency to respond in socially desirable ways . This is consistent with research
identifying this bias in self-reports of behaviors (Goode & Hatt, 1952), attitudes (Arkin & Lake,
1983), and personality (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960).
Nevertheless, results do suggest that relationship variables, information sharing and
working alliance, are significantly related to goal attainment and coachee insight. This suggests
31
that relationship outcomes are more related to, and matter more for desired outcomes, in
comparison to coach and coachee inputs. Additionally, this provides initial support for the
hypothesis that relationship outcomes partially mediate the relationship between inputs and
outcomes. However, when we further tested this hypothesis utilizing mediational techniques, no
support was found. Specifically, working alliance and information sharing were not significant,
partial mediators of the relationships between coach/coachee inputs and coaching engagement
outcomes. This finding runs contrary to the results of Study 1 and previous research (e.g., de
Haan, Duckworth, Birch, & Jones, 2013). Because the current data is cross-sectional, this
procedure may have hindered the ability to identify causal relationships. Maxwell and Cole
(2007) found that cross-sectional mediation analyses lend themselves to biased estimates of
longitudinal statistics. Moreover, the interpretability of mediational relationships utilizing crosssectional data is argued to be questionable (Maxwell, Cole, & Mitchell, 2011). Collecting
longitudinal data with executive coaches, however, proves to be a lofty challenge. Although
executive coaches may work with executives over several months, having to report on their
effectiveness throughout the coaching relationship is not something that is desired or practical. If
possible, future research should investigate the proposed mediational hypothesis in a longitudinal
study utilizing executive coachee and coach dyads.
Contrary to the hypotheses, but in line with the results of Study 1, goal difficulty did not
moderate the relationship between relationship variables and goal attainment. This provides
further support for the promising finding that despite goal difficulty the quality of the
relationship between executives and their coach serves a compensatory function to achieve
coachee goals.
General Discussion
32
Findings from study 1 and study 2 suggest that the study sample employed influences
coaching effectiveness. It is evident that coachee motivation matters more in an academic sample
than in a field sample. One reason for this may be that field sample data suffers from ceiling
effects, such that coachee motivation is high across the board. At the executive level, this is to be
expected. However, the purpose of coaching may play a role in how motivated the coachee is.
For example, coahes hired for remediation purposes may still want to engage in regulating
motivation behaviors, as it was shown to be effective in the academic sample. Another reason
for this discrepancy may be that academic coachees set more attainable goals that can be
completed in shorter periods of time than executive coachees. These issues should be more fully
explored in future coaching research.
It was also found that coachees in an academic sample achieved coachee insight when their
coaches reported regulated coachees’ motivation. However, coach behaviors are not significantly
related to coachee outcomes of interest in the field sample. This finding suggests that coaching in
general might not need to follow any particular strategies but rather what is important is the
emergent relationship that develops between an executive and a coach. Both study 1 and study 2
illustrated the importance of information sharing and working alliance as it relates to goal
attainment and the achievement of coachee insight. The sense of openness, trust, alliance, and
rapport is critical for translating coaching into measurable coachee achievements. The findings
suggested that coaches must foster a strong working alliance, rapport, and mutual information
sharing, through regulating coachee motivation, by coaching authentically and creating a feeling
of mutual respect to facilitate the achievement of coachee insight. Moreover, it was found that
coachee insight is a proximal goal that coaches should strive to achieve since it is highly
correlated with more distal goal attainment outcomes. For novice coachees or for coachees not
33
fully entrenched in the executive world it would seem that motivation is a critical ingredient to
success. It is necessary for the coach to activate the coachees’ strengths, resources, and sense of
personal agency. However, It is not all about the coach and the techniques or behaviors they
employ bur rather it is important for the coach to understand the readiness and ‘coachability’ of
the coachee to best coach them and achieve a strong relational bond with the coachee. Finally,
our findings suggest that coaches and coachees should not shy away from difficult and
challenging goals. In both studies it was found that regardless of self-reported goal difficulty the
relationship between working alliance and information sharing remained significant. This is an
encouraging finding considering the lofty and challenging objectives coaches and coachees
jointly set for their coaching engagements.
Limitations
There are several limitations in our study that must be noted. First, coachee participants
who voluntarily chose to participate in the study may be different from a general set of coachees
who may not be as engaged in the coaching process and motivated to advance the science of
coaching. Moreover, we had a relatively low dyadic sample size, as such shared coach and
coachee perceptions of their emergent relationship could not be captured. Rather, we explored
each perspective separately using single source data. Future research should attempt to collect
more data where true dyadic analyses can be conducted. Moreover, future research should collect
third party data to determine whether intended coaching goals were attained from the perspective
of stakeholders. For example, if the coaching goal was to become a better leader, gathering data
from the leader’s subordinates would be a more accurate source than solely relying on self-report
data collected from the coach or coachee. In the same way, the use of self-report measures also
complicates the interpretation of findings and leads to limited evidence pertaining to the impact
34
of the coaching process on organizational outcomes (Spence, 2007). While we collected multisource data, which helps to quell this issue, more objective data would largely strengthen
understanding of whether coachees ultimately achieve their goals.
Another limitation is that our data is cross-sectional, which limits our ability to make
causal inferences. Longitudinal data is the next step to better understanding how the coachcoachee relationship evolves over time and whether it is predictive of proximal and distal
coaching outcomes. Finally, because coaches who participated in this research were asked to
respond with specific coachees in mind, they may have chosen to recall coaching engagements
that were particularly successful and coachees with whom they had relatively strong
relationships with. As such, we may have suffered from range restriction, and ultimately lost
variance in responses. Future work should aim to randomly select which coaching engagements
coaches recall, in order to attain a more representative and accurate representation of the
dynamics that emerge within coach-coachee interactions.
Conclusion
Executive coaching has emerged as an important tool for the development of managers,
executives, and leaders. It aims to contribute to career development and to ultimately improve
organizational outcomes. While coaching research has been described as a ‘black box’ we have
attempted to delineate the why and the how of coaching by exploring the factors of coaches and
coachees that influence the coaching relationship and how that, in turn, ultimately influences
important coaching outcomes. It is our hope that the results presented here will serve as a
stepping stone for both scholars and practitioners of executive coaching and developmental
interventions in the workplace.
35
References
Abrams, L.C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., & Levin, D.Z. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal trust in
knowledge-sharing networks. The Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 64-77.
Arkin, R., & Lake, E. (1983). Plumbing the depths of the bogus pipeline: A reprise. Journal of
Research in Personality, 17, 81-88.
Bacon, T.R., & Spear, K.I. (2003). Adaptive coaching: The art and practice of a client-centered
approach to performance improvement. Palo Alto, CA: Davis-Black.
Baldwin, T.T., & Ford, J.K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future
research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63-105.
Baron, L., Morin, L. (2009). The coach-coachee relationship in executive coaching: A Field
study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(1), 85-106.
Beitel, M., Ferrer, E., & Cecero, J.J. (2004). Psychological mindedness and cognitive style.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(6), 567-582.
Berglas, S. (2013). Truth-resistant people. Leadership Excellence, 30(3), 11.
Bluckert, P. (2055). Critical factors in executive coaching- the coaching relationship. Industrial
and Commercial Training, 37(7), 336-340.
Bono, J.E., Purvanova, R.K., Towler, A.J., & Peterson, D.B. (2009). A survey of executive
coaching practices. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 361-404.
Bordin, E.S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16(3), 252-260.
36
Boyacigiller, N.A., & Adler, N.J. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in
global context. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 262-290.
Boyce, L.A., Jackson, R.J., & Neal, L.J. (2010). Building successful leadership coaching
relationships: Examining impact of matching criteria in a leadership coaching program.
Journal of Management Development, 29(10), 914-931.
Bozer, G., Sarros, J.C., & Santora, J.C. (2013). The role of coachee characteristics in executive
coaching for effective sustainability. Journal of Management Development, 32(3), 277294.
Castonguay, L.G., Constantino, M.J., & Holtforth, M.G. (2006). The working alliance: Wehre
are we and where should we go? Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training,
43(3), 271-279.
Cerasoli, C.P., Nicklin, J.M., & Ford, M.T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives
jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4),
980-1008.
Colquitt, J.A., LePine, J.A., & Noe, R.A. (2000). Toward and integrative theory of training
motivation: A meta-analytic path of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85(5), 678-707.
Corbiere,M., Bisson, J., S., & Ricard, N. (2006). Factorial validation of French short-form of the
working alliance inventory. International journal of methods in Psychiatric Research,
15(1), 36-45.
37
Crowne, D. P., &Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
DeCharms, R., & Carpenter, V. (1968). Measuring motivation in culturally disadvantaged
school children. Journal of Experimental Education, 37, 31-41.
De Haan, E., Culpin, V., Curd, J. (2011). Executive coaching in practice: What determines
helpfulness for clients of coaching? Personnel Review, 40(1), 24-44.
De Haan, E., & Duckworth, A. (2013). Signalling a new trend in executive coaching outcomes
research. International Coaching Psychology Review, 8(1), 6-20.
De Haan, E., Duckwoth, A., Birch, D., & Jones, C.(2013). Executive coaching outcomes
research: The contribution of common factors such as relationship, personality match,
and self-efficacy. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 65(1), 40-57.
Diedrich, R.C. (2001). Lessons learned in – and guidelines for- coaching executive teams.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 53(4), 238-239.
Digiuseppe, R., Leaf, R., & Linscott, J. (1993). The therapeutic relationship in rational-emotive
therapy: Some preliminary data. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior
Therapy, 11(4), 223-233.
Elliot, A.J., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (1994). Goal setting, achievement orientation, and intrinsic
motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 66, 968980.
Feldman, D.C., & Lankau, M.J. (2005). Executive coaching: A review and agenda for future
research. Journal of Management, 31(6), 829-848.
38
Gettman, H.J. (2008). Executive coaching as a developmental experience: A framework and
measure of coaching dimensions (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of
Maryland, College Park, United states.
Goode, W. J., & Hatt, P. K. (1952). Methods in social science. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gough, H.G. (1957). Manual for California personality inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Grant, A.M. (2013). The efficacy of coaching. In J. Passmore, D.B. Peterson, & T. Freire (Eds.),
Handbook of psychology of coaching and mentoring (pp. 15-39). West Sussex: WileyBlackwell.
Grant, A.M., Curtayne, L., & Burton, G. (2009). Executive coaching enhances goal attainment,
resilience and workplace well-being: A randomized controlled study. The Journal of
Positive Psychology: Dedicated to furthering Research and Promoting Good Practice,
4(5), 396-407.
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. International Review of Industrial &
Organizational Psychology, 25, 125-168.
Gyllensten, K., Palmer, S., (2007). The coaching relationship: An interpretive phenomenological
analysis. International Coaching Psychology Review, 2, 168-177.
Haeussler, C. (2011). The determinants of commercialization strategy: Idiosyncrasies in British
and German biotechnology. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 35(4), 653-681.
39
Hall, D.T., Otazo, K.L., & Hollenbeck, G.P. (1999). Behind closed doors: What really happens
in executive coaching. Organizational Dynamics, 27(3), 39-53.
Hicks, R., & McCracken, J. (2010). Solution-focused coaching. Physician Executive, 36(1), 6264.
Hicks, R., & McCracken, J. (2011). How to give difficult feedback. Physician Executive, 37(3),
84-87.
Hicks, M.D., & Peterson, D.B. (1999). Leaders coaching across borders. In W.H. Mobley (Eds.),
Advances in global leadership (Vol. 1, pp. 297-315).
Horvath, A. (2005). The therapeutic relationship: Research and theory. Psychotherapy Research,
15(1/2), 3-7.
Horvath, A.O., Del Re, A.C., Fluckiger, C., & Symonds, D. (2011). Alliance in individual
psychotherapy. In J.C. Norcross (Eds.), Psychotherapy relationships that work: evidencebased responsiveness (2nd ed., pp. 25-69), New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Horvath, A.O., & Symonds, B.D. (1991). Relation between working alliance and outcome in
psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(2), 139-149.
Hovland, C.I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication
effectiveness. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635-650.
Jarvinen, A., & Poikela, E. (2001). Modelling reflective and contextual learning at work. Journal
of Workplace learning, 13(7-8), 282-289.
40
Jarvis, J., Lane, D.A., & Fikkery-Travis, A. (2006). The case for coaching: Making evidencebased decisions on coaching. London: Chartered Institute of Personal and Development.
Kemp, T. (2008). Self-management and the coaching relationship: exploring coaching impact
beyond models and methods. International coaching Psychology Review, 3(1), 32-42.
Kilburg, R.R., (2004). Trudging Towards Dodoville: Conceptual approaches and case studies in
executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 56(4), 203213.
Lavigne, G.L., Hauw, N., Vallerand, R.J., Brunnel, P., Blanchard, C., Cardoretta, I., & Angot, C.
(2009). On the dynamic relationships between contextual (or general) and situational (or
state) motivation toward exercise and physi9cal activity: A longitudinal test of the topdown and bottom-up hypotheses. International Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 7, 147-168.
Lepper, M.R., & Greene, D. (1978). The hidden costs of reward: New perspective on the
psychology of human motivation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task
motivation: A 35-year odyssey. The American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
Lowman, R.L. (2007). Coaching and consulting in multicultural contexts: Integrating themes and
issues. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Review, 59(4), 296-303.
41
Luthans, F., Luthans, K.W., Hodgetts, R.M., & Luthans, B.C.(2001). Positive approach to
leadership (PAL) implications for today’s organizations. Journal of Leadership Studies,
8(2), 3-20.
MacKie, D. (2007). Evaluating the effectiveness of executive coaching: Where are we now and
where do we need to be? Australian Psychologist, 42(4), 310-318.
MacKie, D. (2014). The effectiveness of strength-based executive coaching in enhancing fullrange leadership development: A controlled study. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice & Research, 66(2), 118-137.
Martin, D.J., Garske, J.P. & Davis, M.K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with
outcome and other variables: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting & Clinical
Psychology, 68(3), 438-450.
Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation.
Psychological Methods, 12, 23–44.
Maxwell, S. E., Cole, D. A., & Mitchell, M. A. (2011). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of
longitudinal mediation: Partial and complete mediation under an autoregressive model.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(5), 816-841.
McCay-Peet, L., & Toms, E. (2011). The serendipity quotient. Proceedings of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1), 1-4.
McClelland, G.H., & Judd, C.M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and
moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376-390.
42
McGovern, J., Linderman, M., Vergara, M., Murphy, S., Barker, L., & Warrenfeltz, R. (2001).
Maximizing the impact of executive coaching: Behavioral change, organizational
outcomes, and return on investment. The Manchester Review, 6, 1-9.
McGrath, R.J., & Rideout, V.C. (1964). A simulator study of a two-parameter adaptive system.
Simulation, 3(1), 45-54.
McGrath, J.E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
McKenna, D.D., & Davis, S.L. (2009). Hidden in plain sight: The active ingredients of executive
coaching. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and
Practice, 2(3), 244-260.
Meyer, J.P., Becker, T.E., & Vandenberghie, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation:
A conceptual analysis and integrative model: Theoretical models and conceptual analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991-1007.
Missirlian, T.M., Toukmanian, S.G., Warwar, S.H., & Greenberg, L.S. (2005). Emotional
arousal, client perceptual processing, and the working alliance in experimental
psychotherapy for depression. Journal of Consulting and clinical psychology, 73(5), 861871.
Murphy, S.A. (2005). Recource to executive coaching: The mediating role of human resources.
International Journal of Police Science & Management, 7(3), 175-186.
Naficy, K., & Isabella, I. (2008). How executive coaching can fuel professional and personal
growth. OD Practitioner, 40(1), 40-46.
43
Noer, D. (2005). Behaviorally based coaching: A cross-cultural case study. International Journal
of Coaching in Organizations, 3, 14-23.
Nyklicek, I., & Denollet, J. (2009). Development and evaluation of the balanced index of
psychological mindedness (BIPM). Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 32-44.
Parker-Wilkins, V. (2006). Business impact of executive coaching: Demonstrating monetary
value. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38(3), 122-127.
Passmore, J., & Fillery-Travis, A. (2011). A critical review of executive coaching research: A
decade of progress and what’s to come. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory,
4(2), 70-88.
Passmore, J., & Gibbes, C. (2007). The state of executive coaching research: What does the
current literature tell us and what’s next for coaching research? International Coaching
Psychology Review, 2(2), 116-128.
Pelletier, L.G., Tuson, K.M., & Haddad, N.K. (1997). Client motivation for therapy scale: A
measurement of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and activation for therapy.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 68(2), 414-435.
Peterson, D.B. (1996). Executive coaching at work: The art of one-on-one change. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(2), 78-86.
Pinder, C.C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
44
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedure for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36(4),
717-731.
Prochaska, J.O., Butterworth, S., Redding, C.A., Burden, V., Perrin, N., Flaherty-Robb, M., &
Prochaska, J.M. (2008). Initial efficacy of I, TTM tailoring and HRI’s with multiple
behaviors for employee health promotion. Preventive Medicine, 46(3), 226-231.
Quick, J.C., & Macik-Frey, M. (2004). Behind the mask coaching through deep interpersonal
communication. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 56(2), 67-74.
Robinson, E. (2010). The use of literary techniques in coaching. Journal of Management
Development, 29(10), 902-913.
Saltzman, C., Luetgert M., Roth, C., Creaser, J., & Howard, L. (1976). Formation of a
therapeutic relationship: experiences during the initial phase of psychotherapy as
predictors of treatment duration and outcome. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 44(4), 546-555.
Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies, 12(3),
405-424.
Sherman, S., & Freas, A. (2004). The wild west of executive coaching. Harvard Business
Review, 82(11), 82-90.
Sonesh, S.C., Coultas, C., Salas, E. (2014). How Does Coaching Work? A Mixed Method
Analysis. Poster submitted to the 29th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and
45
Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HI.Sowa, J.F. (1984). Conceptual structures:
Information processing in min and machine. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Spence, G.B. (2007). Further development of evidence-based coaching: Lessons from the rise
and fall of the human potential movement. Australian Psychologist, 42(4), 255-265.
Stewart, L.J., Palmer, S., Wilkin, H., & Kerrin, M. (2008). The influence of character: Does
personality impact coaching success? International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching
& Mentoring, 6(1), 32-42.
Sue-Chan, C., Wood, R.E., & Latham, G.P. (2012). Effect of a coach’s regulatory focus and an
individual’s impact person theory on individual performance. Journal of Management,
38(3), 809-835.
Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & van Vianen, A.E. (2014). Does coaching work? A meta-analysis
on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context.
Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1-18.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E.L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in selfdetermination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational
Psychologist, 41(1), 19-31.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K.M., & Deci, E.L. (2004). Motivating
learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic role of intrinsic goals and
autonomy-support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246-260.
46
Van Woerkom, M. (2010). The relationship between coach and the coachee: A crucial factor for
coaching effectiveness. In S. Billett (Eds.), Learning through practice models, traditions,
orientations and approaches (pp. 256-267).
Wasylyshyn, K.M. (2003). Executive coaching: An outcome study. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice & Research, 55(2), 94-106.
Weinstein, A., Yemini, Z, & Greif, J. (2008). Motivational and behavioral factors predicting
success in cigarette smoking-cessation treatment combining group therapy with
bupropion. Journal of Groups in Addiction & Recovery, 3(1-2), 79-92.
White, R.W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological
Review, 66(5), 297-333.
Witherspoon, R. (2000). Starting smart: Clarifying goals and roles. In M. Goldsmith, L. Lyons,
& A. Freas (Eds.), Coaching for leadership: How the world’s greatest coaches help
leaders learn (pp. 165-185). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Wolters, C.A. (1999). The relationship between high school students’ motivational regulation
and their use of learning strategies, effort, and classroom performance. Learning &
Individual Differences, 11, 281-299.
Wolters, C.A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of selfregulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 189-205.