Coaching

This article was downloaded by: [Johns Hopkins University] On: 27 August 2015, At: 08:10 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcoa20

The power of coaching: a meta-analytic investigation a

b

c

Shirley C. Sonesh , Chris W. Coultas , Christina N. Lacerenza , c

d

c

Shannon L. Marlow , Lauren E. Benishek & Eduardo Salas a

Institute for Simulation & Training, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA b

Leadership Worth Following, LLC, Irving, TX, USA

c

Department of Psychology, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA

d

Click for updates

Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA Published online: 25 Aug 2015.

To cite this article: Shirley C. Sonesh, Chris W. Coultas, Christina N. Lacerenza, Shannon L. Marlow, Lauren E. Benishek & Eduardo Salas (2015): The power of coaching: a meta-analytic investigation, Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, DOI: 10.1080/17521882.2015.1071418 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2015.1071418

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Johns Hopkins University] at 08:10 27 August 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2015.1071418

The power of coaching: a meta-analytic investigation Shirley C. Sonesha*, Chris W. Coultasb, Christina N. Lacerenzac, Shannon L. Marlowc, Lauren E. Benishekd and Eduardo Salasc a

Institute for Simulation & Training, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA; Leadership Worth Following, LLC, Irving, TX, USA; cDepartment of Psychology, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA; dArmstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA


b

(Received 12 March 2015; accepted 29 June 2015) Coaching is defined as a one-to-one relationship in which the coach and coachee work together to identify and achieve organisationally, professionally, and personally beneficial developmental goals. However, it is often unclear what the relative effects of coaching are on specific coaching outcomes. We adopt metaanalytic techniques to investigate the predictive power of coaching on coach– coachee relationship outcomes, and coachee goal-attainment outcomes. Our findings suggest that coaching has stronger effects on eliciting relationship outcomes with the coachee than goal-attainment outcomes. Moreover, of the goal-attainment outcomes, coaching has the strongest effect on behavioural changes as opposed to attitudinal changes. Sample type, study design, background of the coach, and number of coaching sessions all emerged as significant moderators. Implications of these findings are discussed. Keywords: coaching; executive coaching; working alliance; coach–coachee relationship; goal attainment

Practice points . The current paper is relevant to a broad spectrum of practice areas as the studies included in the meta-analysis represent coaching relationships in multiple industries and contexts (e.g. MBA and executive coaches). . Our paper departs from the reliance on specific coaching techniques as the explanatory mechanism behind coaching effectiveness. It explores the relative effects of general coaching, characteristics of the coach, the coachee, and the coaching sessions on both relationship and goal-attainment outcomes, which has never been meta-analytically investigated. Moreover, it explores the effect of relationship outcomes on goal-attainment outcomes. This serves as a necessary first step towards determining the role of the coach–coachee relationship as a mechanism through which coaching works. . Tangible implications for practitioners include the following: practitioners need to foster the development of a healthy, social relationship with their coachees; if attitudinal outcomes are the goal of the coaching relationship, practitioners need to work harder to achieve these outcomes as they are harder to develop in *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] © 2015 Taylor & Francis

2

S.C. Sonesh et al. comparison to behavioural outcomes; practitioners need to keep in mind the type of coachee they are coaching – coaches should collect longer term goalattainment information for executive coachees in comparison to student coachees.


The power of coaching: a meta-analytic investigation Executive coaching has been described as a ‘catalyst for personal growth and corporate change’ (Axsmith, 2004, p. 1). In addition to indirectly engendering organisational outcomes, coaching enables business leaders to become self-aware and obtain a deeper understanding of the effects of their language and actions (Sherman & Freas, 2004). Executive coaching is formally defined as a ‘one-on-one relationship between a professional coach and an executive (coachee) for the purpose of enhancing coachee’s behavioral change through self-awareness and learning, and thus ultimately for the success of individual and organization’ (Joo, 2005, p. 468). Executive coaching has impacted the corporate world in a positive way. The International Coaching Federation (2009) demonstrated that 70% of coachees report an improvement in job performance, 72% in communication skills, and 61% in business management. Furthermore, 86% report a positive return on investment (ROI) and 96% indicate that they would repeat the coaching process. Grant, Curtayne, and Burton (2009) conducted a randomised controlled study and found that coaching resulted in increases in goal attainment, resilience, and workplace well-being, and decreases in depression and stress. Researchers also argue that executive coaching is an ‘effective method of leadership development’ (Kombarakaran, Yang, Baker, & Fernandes, 2008, p. 78), and a recent meta-analysis examining the role of coaching on five individual level coachee outcomes provides promising evidence that coaching is an effective intervention in organisations (Theeboom, Beersma, & van Vianen, 2013). Coaching entails a collaborative process of learning and behavioural change, making key constructs from the teams, training, learning, and motivational/behavioural change literature bases particularly salient. Similarities between coaching and training suggest parallel process-based models involving (1) a facilitator (trainer, training system, or coach), (2) content or techniques, (3) a learner, trainee, or coachee, (4) an organisational context, and (5) proximal and distal outcomes. Despite evidence that coaching works (Theeboom et al., 2013) and provides ROI (De Meuse, Dai, & Lee, 2009), there is much debate about the specific competencies, qualifications, and conceptualisations of effective coaching (Peterson, 2011). Moreover, academic and practitioner reviews have noted that despite the popularity of coaching in industry, peer-reviewed empirical work is scarce (Bono, Purvanova, Towler, & Peterson, 2009; Feldman & Lankau, 2005). Although coaching research has increased and improved, a significant portion remains uncontrolled, anecdotal, and lacking theoretical foundation (Dagley, 2006; Grant, 2013). The coaching relationship is argued to be the primary explanatory mechanism undergirding the differential effectiveness of different coaching engagements (Hooijberg & Lane, 2009; Joo, 2005; Kowalski & Casper, 2007; McNally & Lukens, 2006), yet the specific interpersonal (e.g. trust, rapport, and chemistry) and intrapersonal variables (e.g. information processing and motivation changes) that precede successful coaching outcomes have, until recently, been relatively unexplored (Feldman & Lankau, 2005).


Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice

3

Nonetheless, recent works have responded to calls (Boyatzis, Smith, & Van Oosten, 2015; Kampa-Kokesch & Anderson, 2001) for more research examining the effects of the coaching relationship on coaching results (Boyce, Jackson, & Neal, 2010; Gessnitzer & Kauffeld, 2015; Ianiro & Kauffeld, 2014; Ianiro, Lehmann-Willenbrock, & Kauffeld, 2014; Ianiro, Schermuly, & Kauffeld, 2013; Passmore & Fillery-Travis, 2011). The importance of the coaching relationship raises a fundamental question – why? What is it about the coaching relationship that facilitates desirable coaching outcomes? Is it increased motivation or deeper commitment to goal setting? Or might there be a more complex phenomenon underlying the coaching-outcome connection? Fillery-Travis and Lane (2006) suggested that it is of paramount importance to address these questions and determine which mechanisms can foster effective coaching outcomes. To achieve this aim, it is necessary to understand the relative effects of coaching on emergent relationship phenomena between a coach and coachee. Ultimately, the objectives of this meta-analysis are threefold. The first objective is to systematically explore the relative effects of coaching on relationship outcomes that emerge between the coach and coachee, and what specific relationship outcomes coaching elicits. The second objective is to explore the relative effects of coaching on goal-oriented coaching outcomes (e.g. behavioural change, attitudinal change, and cognitive change), and which types of coaching outcomes are most strongly affected by coaching. The third objective is to meta-analytically explore the relationship between the coach–coachee relationship and coachee goal-oriented outcomes.

Goal-attainment coachee outcomes According to goal setting theory, goals improve performance by ‘directing energy and attention, mobilising energy expenditure or effort, prolonging effort over time (persistence) and motivating the individual to develop relevant strategies for goal attainment’ (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981, p. 145). As such, goal setting is a critical part of developmental initiatives (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). In fact, executive coaching is a goal-focused process (Grant, 2006). Goal attainment is achieved when coachee performance is goal appropriate so has become a fundamental dependent variable in coaching research (e.g. Spence, 2007). Empirical evidence supports the notion that coaching leads to goal attainment (e.g. Grant et al., 2009). For instance, Grant (2008) conducted a repeated-measures experiment and found coaching increases goal attainment, cognitive hardiness, and insight, and reduces anxiety.

Relationship outcomes Coaching shares construct space with mentoring and therapy/counselling (Feldman & Lankau, 2005) in that the facilitator-recipient relationship is thought to be a key determinant of intervention effectiveness by eliciting changes in the client (Gassmann & Grawe, 2006; McKenna & Davis, 2009). The relationship between therapist and patient (or coach and coachee) 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). Relationship forms the medium and context by which specific coaching inputs (e.g. feedback, challenging questions) are delivered (Baron & Morin, 2009; Horvath & Symonds, 1991).


4

S.C. Sonesh et al.

Executive coaching is characterised by a series of one-on-one conversations, or sessions, between a coach and a coachee (de Haan, 2012). During these sessions, a quality relationship based on trust, support, and safety is established, thereby enabling the coachee to better learn from and reflect on their experiences (de Haan, 2012; Joo, 2005). The establishment of a relationship between a coach and coachee leads to desired outcomes (Baron & Morin, 2009; Horvath & Symonds, 1991). In fact, some researchers argue that the quality of the coaching relationship represents ‘not just a critical success factor, but the critical success factor in successful coaching outcomes’ (Bluckert, 2005, p. 336). Once a quality relationship is built, the coachee is more apt to take risks associated with positive change, learning, and development (Bluckert, 2005). The link between coaching relationships and outcomes has been identified both in theory (Kemp, 2008) and empirical research (e.g. de Haan, Duckworth, Birch, & Jones, 2013; Woerkom, 2010). De Haan et al. (2013) investigated 156 coach– coachee pairs and found the coaching relationship to be a significant mediator between inputs (i.e. self-efficacy) and desired outcomes. Similarly, Boyce et al. (2010) demonstrated that the coaching relationship variables of trust, rapport, and commitment led to the attainment of targeted coaching outcomes. Moreover, executives’ perceptions of outcomes were significantly related to perceptions of relationship factors. Empirical results from a similar dyadic field study conducted by Baron and Morin (2009) also suggest that the executive coaching relationship mediates the relationship between the presence of coaching and desired outcomes. In another study, 84% of coachees identified the quality of their relationship with their coach as the critical ingredient to their success (McGovern et al., 2001). In addition, multiple reviews outlining the state of the field (MacKie, 2007; Passmore & Fillery-Travis, 2011; Passmore & Gibbes, 2007) identify the impact of coaching relationships on goal attainment. As such, it is critical to examine the ways coaching impacts desired outcomes and the coaching relationship. A testable model of coaching and its outcomes By extracting core principles and key variables from the existing coaching literature and conceptually similar fields, we have developed a conceptual model for understanding the effectiveness of executive coaching interventions. Coaching involves professional development (Van Velsor & Leslie, 2001) and is related to the learning, teaching, and training disciplines. Naturally, there are key differences between these domains (Feldman & Lankau, 2005), but the Baldwin and Ford (1988) training effectiveness and transfer model offers a helpful starting point to guide the structure of the proposed coaching effectiveness model. The major distinction between coaching and training (and what makes coaching akin to therapy) is the centrality of the coach– coachee relationship to coaching outcomes (Feldman & Lankau, 2005; McKenna & Davis, 2009). For this reason, we place the coaching relationship as the most proximal coaching outcome, dynamically emerging from an interaction of coach and coachee inputs, coaching techniques, and organisational variables. This emergent coaching relationship serves to influence the development of further proximal and distal outcomes (e.g. goal setting, goal attainment). The idea that coaching is essentially a matter of input-process-output is neither new nor creative – indeed, Ely et al. (2010) reviewed the coaching literature and have identified many of these same concepts. However, the explicit modelling and parsing apart of coaching inputs, relationship



5

variables, and immediate coaching outcomes constitutes a contribution to the coaching literature because it allows for the testing of causal linkages within any given coaching intervention. Existing models of coaching tend to link coaching inputs to coaching outcomes without discriminating the theoretical ‘distance’ between inputs and outcomes or suggesting causal mediating variables (Carey, Philippon, & Cummings, 2011; Grant, 2007; Joo, 2005; Mackie, 2007). As a result, our model is more methodologically sound (Ajzen, 1996), and will provide a scalable foundation for future research to be developed and tested. In this meta-analysis, we explore the current state of the empirical literature on executive coaching and test the meta-analytic links between key constructs within our proposed model (see Figure 1). Specifically, we explore the direct effect of coaching on relationship outcomes and coachee goal-attainment outcomes, as well as the role that the coach–coachee relationship plays on influencing goal-attainment outcomes. By theoretically linking coaching with proximal relationship outcomes and distal goal-attainment and coachee outcomes, we provide a more unified understanding of the predictive power of coaching, as opposed to solely exploring the goal-attainment outcomes of interest.

Moderators of coaching effectiveness This meta-analysis sought to determine whether study characteristics impact coaching outcomes. Several researchers have criticised the use of data collected within laboratories for lacking ‘relevance for understanding the “real world”’ (Falk & Heckman, 2009, p. 535) due to unrepresentative student samples and unrealistic settings. Field

Figure 1.

A model of the predictive power of coaching.


6

S.C. Sonesh et al.

studies using executive coachee samples may show lower effect sizes due to the difficulty associated with collecting results-oriented outcomes over time, whereas the control afforded by laboratory studies may produce stronger results. In response, we took an exploratory approach to determine whether study sample moderates the relationship between coach behaviours and coaching outcomes, and coach–coachee relationship and coaching outcomes. Study design is another factor that may influence results (Theeboom et al., 2013). We explored whether primary studies utilising repeated-measures designs (i.e. single group, pretest vs. posttest), independent groups designs (i.e. control vs. treatment groups), a combination of both designs (i.e. treatment vs. control group, pretest vs. posttest), or correlational designs influence the direction or magnitude of the examined relationships. Broadly speaking, researchers and practitioners understand what works in coaching, but debate specifics, such as the importance of professional certification and the advantages of coach professional background (e.g. psychology vs. business) (Bono et al., 2009). In response, we investigate whether the role of the coach and their level of expertise affect the coach–coachee relationship and coaching outcomes, as some studies argue that more experience is not necessarily better (Solomon, DiMarco, Ohlson, & Reece, 1998). Finally, because Theeboom et al.’s (2013) metaanalysis did not, we explore whether the number of coaching sessions moderates the examined relationships. As the empirical research on executive coaching and coaching in general is nascent, this meta-analysis seeks to provide an initial foundation upon which future empirical investigations and practical advancements in coaching can be based. By elucidating the relative effects that coaching has on relationship outcomes and performance-oriented goal-attainment outcomes and the specific coaching behaviours and techniques that contribute to those outcomes, we can begin to better understand which mechanisms and coaching characteristics contribute to targeted effects. While previous meta-analyses have examined whether coaching generally works (Theeboom et al., 2013), this is the first to differentiate between relationship and behavioural outcomes, while determining the relative effects of coaching. These aims further the field’s understanding regarding the how and why of executive coaching effectiveness. Methods Search methodology We searched the following databases: PsycINFO, Business Source Premier, Human Resources abstracts, and PsycARTICLES, from January 2000 to December 2014, using the keywords ‘coaching’, ‘leadership coaching’, and ‘business coaching’ combined with ‘correlation’, ‘survey’, ‘sample’, or ‘experiment’. Additionally, we manually searched the International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring for relevant primary studies. Our search returned 2123 articles. After removing duplicates and non-coaching articles, 874 remained. Inclusion/exclusion criteria To be included in the meta-analysis, primary studies must have examined leadership, business, or executive coaching. Studies that explored life, managerial, or peer coaching were excluded. Moreover, studies needed to empirically investigate the


7

relationships in our model and report data appropriate for conversion to a common metric, Cohen’s d. Twenty-four studies totalling 26 independent samples met these criteria and were included in the meta-analysis (see Figure 2).


Coding procedures Three trained individuals coded a subset of the articles together until 100% inter-rater reliability was achieved. Two individuals coded each remaining article to ensure quality and accuracy. Coding discrepancies were resolved via discussion. Each of the included studies was coded across eight categories: (1) study design (e.g. repeated-measures [pre-posttest design]; independent groups [treatment vs. control groups]; independent groups and repeated measures; correlational), (2) coach’s background (e.g. psychology; non-psychology), (3) coach’s level of expertise, which we dichotomised due to the infrequency of primary studies reporting this information (e.g. novice, expert), (4) the number of coaching sessions provided to the coachee, (5) sample type (e.g. undergraduates, MBA students, executive coachees, non-executive coachees, and coaches), (6) the behaviours/techniques employed in coaching (e.g. goal setting, 360 feedback, challenging questions, behavioural observation, role play, etc.), (7) relationship variable outcomes (e.g. trust, credibility, working alliance, information sharing, rapport, communication, conflict, openness, and psychological safety), and (8) goal-oriented coaching outcomes and conceptualisations of coaching effectiveness which we categorised into (a) generic behavioural change (e.g. improved job performance, technical skills, leadership skills, impact and influence), (b) workrelated attitude change (e.g. motivation, self-efficacy, motivation to transfer coached skills), (c) personal-related attitude change (e.g. reduced stress, happiness), (d) career

Figure 2.

Search strategy used for the inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis.

8

S.C. Sonesh et al.


outcomes (e.g. promotion, career satisfaction), (e) interpersonal/socio-emotional outcomes (e.g. improved relations with others), (f) cognitive outcomes (e.g. self-awareness, strategic thinking, emotional intelligence), and (g) satisfaction with coaching. Finally, we coded for sample size, measure reliability, and effect size metrics. Analysis Original article effect sizes were transformed to a repeated-measures Cohen’s d, which represents the standardised difference between pre- and post-coaching outcomes, using Hedges and Olkin’s (1985) approach to meta-analysis. This conservative technique allows for statistical corrections of artifactual sources of variance (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). To avoid overestimating the population effect size given our small sample, we calculated Hedges’ g from Cohen’s d. Hedges’ g is still interpreted as the mean difference expressed in standard deviation units but applies a simple correction to avoid overestimates (Hedges, 1981). A random effects model was used to conduct the meta-analysis and all effect sizes were weighted by the reciprocal of the sampling variances (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). Q tests were conducted in order to test for homogeneity (i.e. evaluated on a chi-square distribution with k – 1 degrees of freedom; Hedges, 1982). When relationships between coach–coachee relationships and coachee outcomes were reported, we focused on the mean corrected correlations and the confidence intervals around the mean. This approach followed Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) guidelines so all correlations were corrected for attenuation in the predictor and criterion variables. The software used for the analysis was comprehensive meta-analysis developed by Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, and Rothstein (2005).

Results Table 1 reports the results of the meta-analyses examining the influence of coaching on several coaching outcomes and relationship outcomes. The first objective of our metaanalysis was to determine the impact of coaching interventions on outcomes that emerge from the coach–coachee relationship. To assess this, we examined the impact of coaching on overall relationship outcomes, which was significant (g = 0.32, 95% CI [0.27, 0.38]), as indicated by the exclusion of 0 in the 95% confidence interval. To examine more specific coaching relationship outcomes, we assessed the influence of coaching on the generic coach–coachee relationship (g = 0.33, 95% CI [0.17, 0.49]), which was significant. However, the effect of coaching on working alliance was not significant (g = 0.40, 95% CI [−.02, 0.80]), as indicated by the inclusion of 0 in the 95% confidence interval. In summary, our findings indicate that coaching positively and significantly influences the coach–coachee relationship. The second objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the impact of coaching on goal-oriented coaching outcomes as well as to examine which outcomes are most strongly affected. In the aim of addressing this goal, we assessed the impact of coaching on overall coachee outcomes. The effect size was significant (g = 0.10, 95% CI [0.10, 0.11]); however, coaching had a significantly larger effect on relationship outcomes in comparison to coachee outcomes, as evidenced by the non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals (Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005). Examining more granular outcomes within this category, coaching had a significant impact on


95% CI Variable

k

N

d

Hedge’s g

SE

%Var

LL

UL

Q

Relationship outcomes Generic coach–coachee relationship Working alliance Coachee outcomes Goal attainment Behavioural change Work-related attitude change Personal attitude change Improved relations with others Overall satisfaction with coaching Cognitive change Task performance Organisation outcomes

6 3 3 40 6 10 11 5 3 2 2 1 1

580 385 195 3756 216 2350 524 149 84 173 153 107 52

0.324 0.332 0.399 0.108 0.218 0.192 0.186 0.077 0.124 0.399 0.220 0.368 0.284

0.321 0.330 0.391 0.100 0.206 0.188 0.175 0.072 0.115 0.391 0.217 0.365 0.280

0.000 0.081 0.208 0.002 0.055 0.020 0.016 0.003 0.062 0.124 0.175 0.017 0.009

0.000 0.007 0.043 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.015 0.031 0.000 0.000

0.267 0.171 −0.017 0.100 0.099 0.149 0.145 0.066 −0.006 0.149 −0.125 0.332 0.262

0.376 0.489 0.799 0.107 0.314 0.227 0.206 0.078 0.237 0.634 0.560 0.399 0.298

2286.04* 342.774* 287.675* 172,709.93* 1869.635* 48,430.793* 10,541.589* 23,563.984* 3069.875* 48.063* 299.384* 0.000 0.000

Notes: k, number of samples; N, sample size; d, Cohen’s d in a repeated-measures metric; SE, standard error; %Var, per cent of variance accounted for by sampling error; CI, confidence interval; LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit; Q, chi-square test for the homogeneity of true correlations across studies. *p < .001.


Table 1. Meta-analytic results.

9


10

S.C. Sonesh et al.

general goal attainment (g = 0.21, 95% CI [0.10, 0.31]), behavioural change (g = 0.19, 95% CI [0.15, 0.23]), work-related attitude change (g = 0.18, 95% CI [0.15, 0.21]), and personal attitude change (g = 0.07, 95% CI [0.07, 0.08]). Interestingly, coaching had a significantly stronger impact on the majority of coachee outcomes as compared to personal attitude change, indicated by the non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals (Ng et al., 2005). Findings also indicated a significant effect of coaching on overall satisfaction with coaching (g = 0.39, 95% CI [0.15, 0.63]), although this result must be interpreted with caution, given the associated low number of primary studies (indicated by k) included in the analysis. The effect of coaching on improved relations with others, most often the coachees’ subordinates, was not significant (g = 0.12, 95% CI [−0.01, 0.24]). Additionally, coaching did not significantly improve cognitive change outcomes (g = 0.22, 95% CI [−0.13, 0.56]), but this finding must also be interpreted with caution, given the small number of primary studies included in the analysis. In summary, these findings demonstrate that coaching significantly impacts goaloriented coaching outcomes, fostering positive change. In exploration of the third objective, the effect of the coach–coachee relationship on coachee outcomes, mean corrected correlations were examined. While based on only two studies, and therefore should be interpreted with caution, results suggest that the coach– coachee relationship, working alliance in particular, does significantly correlate with overall goal-attainment coachee outcomes (r = 0.463, CI [0.418, 0.445]) (see Table 3). Sample type To assess the moderating effect of sample type, additional analyses were conducted. Table 2 summarises these analyses. The findings indicate that sample type was a significant moderator of the effectiveness of coaching on goal-oriented coaching outcomes. Specifically, overall goal-oriented coaching outcomes were more significantly improved in undergraduate students (g = 1.00, 95% CI [0.38, 1.61]) than in either executive coachees (g = 0.10, 95% CI [0.09, 0.11]) or non-academic, non-executive coachees (g = 0.10, 95% CI [.10, .11]). There were not a sufficient number of primary studies to warrant comparison across sample type for relationship outcomes. Design type Results of the design type moderator analysis suggest that the study design does moderate the effect of coaching on coaching outcomes. However, the repeated-measures confidence interval overlaps with the independent groups’ confidence interval, suggesting that there is not a significant difference between repeated measures or independent groups designs. The number of primary studies was too low (k < 3) to examine the moderating effect of design type on relationship and organisational outcomes. Coach background While there were not a sufficient number of primary studies to run comparative subgroup analyses of coach background (i.e. psychology or non-psychology background) on relationship outcomes, the results suggest that non-psychology coaches are effective in eliciting positive relational outcomes (g = 0.284, 95% CI [0.082,0.504]). Results suggest that coach background is a significant moderator of coachee outcomes, such that a mix of psychology and non-psychology coaches are more effective

Table 2. Moderator analyses.

Moderator variable Sample type Relationship outcomes Undergraduates MBA students Executive coachees Non-executive coachees Coaches Both coaches and coachees Coachee outcomes Undergraduates MBA students Executive coachees Non-executive coachees Coaches Both coaches and coachees Organisation outcomes Undergraduates MBA students Executive coaches Non-executive coachees Coaches Both coaches and coachees Study design type Relationship outcomes Repeated measures Independent groups

k

N

d

Hedge’s g

SE

%Var

LL

6 0 0 1 0 0 5 40 2 0 19 14 0 5 1 0 1 0 0

580 0 0 73 – – 507 3756 367 0 999 2151 0 239 52 – 52 – –

0.324 – – 0.290 – – 0.323 0.108 0.999 – 0.102 0.106 0.255 0.284 – 0.284 – –

0.321 – – 0.287 – – 0.321 0.100 0.995 – 0.098 0.103 – 0.250 0.280 – 0.280 – –

0.000 – – 0.011 – – 0.028 0.002 0.312 – 0.002 0.003 – 0.056 0.009 – 0.009 – –

0.000 – – 0.000 – – 0.001 0.000 0.098 – 0.000 0.000 – 0.003 0.000 – 0.000 – –

0.267 – – 0.266 – – 0.265 0.100 0.383 – 0.094 0.097 – 0.141 0.262 – 0.262 – –

0

–

–

–

–

–

3 0

112 –

0.293 –

0.284 –

0.108 –

0.012 –

–

0.082 –

UL

Q

0.376 – – 0.308 – – 0.376 0.107 1.607 – 0.101 0.109 – 0.360 0.298 – 0.298 – –

2286.04 – – 0.000 – – 1808.443 172,709.93 6.939 – 57,719.286 65,378.825 – 852.137 0.000 – 0.000 – –

–

–

0.503 –

625.332 –

11

(Continued)



95% CI

12

Table 2. Continued.


Moderator variable

k

N

d

Hedge’s g

SE

%Var

LL

UL

Q

Correlational Repeated measures and independent groups Coachee outcomes Repeated measures Independent groups Correlational Repeated measures and independent groups Organisational outcomes Repeated measures Independent groups Correlational Repeated measures and independent groups Number of coaching sessions Relationship outcomes 1–3 4–6 7–9 10–12 13–15 15+ Coachee outcomes 1–3 4–6 7–9 10–12 13–15 15+ Organisational outcomes 1–3

1 0

156 –

0.617 –

0.614 –

0.048 –

0.002 –

0.522 –

0.711 –

8 4 1 7

300 570 13 2031

0.234 0.53 0.167 0.128

0.227 0.527 0.156 0.124

0.024 0.143 0.004 0.008

0.001 0.020 0.000 0.000

0.187 0.249 0.159 0.112

0.281 0.810 0.174 0.144

1700.383 313.844 0.000 61,483.597

0 1 0 0

– 52 – –

– 0.284 – –

– 0.28 – –

– 0.009 – –

– 0.000 – –

– 0.265 – –

– 0.302 – –

– 0.000 – –

2 0 1 0 0 1

39 – 156 – – 73

0.298 – 0.617 – – 0.29

0.287 – 0.614 – – 0.287

0.247 – 0.048 – – 0.011

0.061 – 0.002 – – 0.000

−0.186 – 0.522 – – 0.269

0.783 – 0.711 – – 0.311

143.869 – 0.000 – – 0.000

4 6 1 0 0 2

404 718 38 – – 200

0.17 0.099 1.84 – – 1.407

0.169 0.097 1.802 – – 1.392

0.024 0.004 0.446 – – 1.401

0.001 0.000 0.199 – – 1.962

0.122 0.091 0.965 – – −1.339

0.217 0.107 2.715 – – 4.152

879.092 117,170.666 0.000 – – 5.334

0

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

0.00 –

S.C. Sonesh et al.

95% CI


0 0 1 0 0

– – 52 – –

– – 0.284 – –

– – 0.28 – –

– – 0.009 – –

– – 0.000 – –

– – 0.265 – –

– – 0.302 – –

– – 0.000 – –

0 3 0

– 112 –

– 0.293 –

– 0.284 –

– 0.108 –

– 0.012 –

– 0.082 –

– 0.503 –

– 625.332 –

3 2 3

297 81 1182

1.411 1.385 0.089

1.393 1.362 0.087

0.863 1.429 0.041

0.746 2.042 0.002

−0.281 −1.416 0.009

3.104 4.186 0.169

27.7 5.537 11,509.591

0 0 1

– – 52

– – 0.284

– – 0.28

– – 0.009

– – 0.000

– – 0.265

– – 0.302

– – 0.000

3 1 0

112 156 –

0.293 0.617 –

0.284 0.614 –

0.108 0.048 –

0.012 0.002 –

0.082 0.522 –

0.503 0.711 –

625.332 0.000 –

3 5 1

138 1507 11

0.36 0.148 0.066

0.35 0.147 0.061

0.136 0.028 0.001

0.019 0.001 0.000

0.093 0.093 0.065

0.628 0.202 0.067

96.700 166.079 0.000

0 1 0

– 52 –

– 0.284 –

– 0.28 –

– 0.009 –

– 0.000 –

– 0.265 –

– 0.302 –

– 0.00 –

13

Notes: k, number of samples; N, sample size; d, Cohen’s d in a repeated-measures metric; SE, standard error; %Var, per cent of variance accounted for by sampling error; CI, confidence interval; LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit; Q, chi-square test for the homogeneity of true correlations across studies.


4–6 7–9 10–12 13–15 15+ Coaches vocational background Relationship outcomes Psychology Non-psychology Mix Coachee outcomes Psychology Non-psychology Mix Organisational outcomes Psychology Non-psychology Mix Coaches expertise Relationship outcomes Novice Expert Mix of novice and expert Coachee outcomes Novice Expert Mix of novice and expert Organisational outcomes Novice Expert Mix of novice and expert

14

S.C. Sonesh et al.

Table 3. Meta-analytic effect size between coach–coachee relationship and coachee outcomes. IV Relationship (working alliance)

DV

k

N

r

Corr r

Coachee outcomes

2

186

.432

.463

% var RM .783

95% CI range .418 .445


Notes: k, number of samples; N, sample size; r, correlation; Corr r, corrected correlation; %Var, per cent of variance accounted for by sampling error; 95% CI, confidence interval.

(g = 0.087, 95% CI [0.009, 0.169]), than coaches solely with a psychology (g = 1.393 95% CI [−0.281, 3.104]) or non-psychology background (g = 1.362, 95%CI [−1.416, 4.186]). There were not a sufficient number of primary studies to examine the moderating effect of coach background on organisational outcomes. Coach expertise Sub-group analyses indicate that coach expertise is not a moderator of the relationship between coaching and coachee outcomes. Novices (g = 0.136, 95% CI [.093, .628]) are as effective as experts (g = 0.308, 95% CI [0.093, 0.202]) in achieving coachee goalattainment outcomes, as evidenced by overlapping confidence intervals that do not cross zero. There was not a sufficient amount of primary studies to examine the moderating effect of coach expertise on relationship outcomes or organisational outcomes. Number of coaching sessions Finally, there was a significant moderating effect of the number of coaching sessions provided to coachees on coachee outcomes. Specifically, it was found that 1–3 coaching sessions had a stronger effect on coachee outcomes (g = 0.169, 95% CI[0.122, 0.217]) than 4–6 coaching sessions (g = 0.097, 95% CI [0.091, 0.107]). Having 7–9 coaching sessions was superior (g = 0.446, 95% CI [0.965, 2.715]), but this finding was based on only 1 primary study. There were not a sufficient number of studies to examine the moderating effects of number of coaching sessions on relationship or organisational outcomes. Discussion The main purpose of this study was to investigate the relative effects of coaching on variables highly salient to how coaching effectiveness is conceptualised. We found that coaching is an effective tool contributing to positive coach–coachee relationships and that coaching is effective in improving coachee behaviours and attitudes. Coaching had a significant positive effect on coachee behavioural change, suggesting that coaching is effective in improving coachee leadership skills, job performance, and skills development. Moreover, coaching significantly improved coachee’s personal and work-related attitudes. These include improvement in coachee selfefficacy, motivation to transfer coached skills to the job, stress reduction, and commitment to the organisation. These attitudes are critical to goal-attainment and coachee behavioural change, as research has shown that work-related attitudes such as self-



15

efficacy, commitment to the organisation, and satisfaction are strong predictors of improved job performance (Bandura, 1997; Grant & Greene, 2004; Anderson, Krajewski, Goffin, & Jackson, 2008). Interestingly, cognitive outcomes (e.g. coachee self-awareness and strategic thinking) were not significantly improved by coaching. It is likely that this was not significant because only two studies explored these outcomes. While generally not the primary focus of coaching, cognitive outcomes are important in changing the ways coachees approach their work and promote behavioural change, and ultimately contribute to improved job performance, (Goleman, 2001; Sy, Tram, & O’Hara, 2006) and even subordinate job performance (Moshavi, Brown, & Dodd, 2003). Similarly, coachees’ relationships with their colleagues and subordinates did not significantly improve as a result of coaching, though this result should be interpreted with caution as it is based on a low number of primary studies (k = 3). This highlights the need for additional work exploring the impact of coaching on these outcomes in order to obtain a deeper understanding of the effects of coaching. Our findings also suggest that coaching is an effective developmental tool to elicit positive coach–coachee relationship outcomes. In fact, of all the outcomes examined in this meta-analysis, coaching had the strongest effect on relationship outcomes. While working alliance was not significantly improved, it has long been used in the field of psychotherapy, as it refers to the quality and strength of the collaborative relationship between a client and his/her psychotherapist (Bordin, 1979). In coaching relationships, relationship building is crucial as it contributes to joint goal setting and greater engagement in working on coaching tasks. It has been shown in previous work that working alliance plays a role in coaching outcomes (Baron & Morin, 2009), and the findings of this meta-analysis show that coaching does in fact elicit this bond between coach and coachee. Research suggests that transformational coaches are more likely to elicit a strong working alliance (Sun et al., 2013), but there was not enough evidence in the literature to metaanalyse this effect. Nonetheless, the results suggest that the emergent relationship between a coach and coachee may be an important mechanism through which coaching goals are achieved. While the primary studies included in this meta-analysis did not allow for a robust meta-analytic investigation of the effect of coaching relationship on coaching outcomes, there is literature that supports this link (Bennett, 2006; de Haan, 2008; Gessnitzer & Kauffeld, 2015; Gregory & Levy, 2010, 2011; Gyllensten & Palmer, 2007; Ting & Riddle, 2006). As such, we suggest that future research conduct a meta-analytic structural equation model (SEM) analysis (Cheung & Chan, 2005) to more fully test the proposed conceptual mediating model presented in this manuscript. Coaches should adopt a person-centred approach (Rogers, 1951, 1959, 1961; Barrett-Lennard, 1998) to coaching whereby the coach approaches the coachee with the assumption that he/she is his/her own best expert and respects self-determination (Grant, 2004). By doing so, the coach can build a positive relationship and simultaneously leverage the emergent relationship to facilitate the attainment of goaloriented coaching outcomes. Another notable finding is that coachee behavioural change improvements were found to be significantly larger than attitudinal changes. This is a promising finding considering that behavioural change is the most common objective of coaching engagements. This evidence lends support for the continued use of and investment in


16

S.C. Sonesh et al.

coaching programmes at the academic and executive levels. However, because the sample type was a significant moderator of coaching effectiveness, coaches should be mindful of how and when they measure coaching effectiveness. Specifically, coachee outcome effect sizes were significantly larger for undergraduate student samples than executive coachee samples. This suggests that executive coaches might take longer to behaviourally or attitudinally manifest their coaching outcomes than students who often have more immediate opportunities to prove performance (e.g. exams). Moreover, field samples are often operating in more dynamic environments riddled with potential confounds (Luthans, Luthans, Hodgetts, & Luthans, 2001) which likely attenuated the meta-analytic results for executive coachee samples. Executive coaches, as opposed to academic coaches, may need to collect longer term goal attainment data to accurately determine whether the coachee has attained his/her goals. The results of the number of coaching sessions moderator analysis suggest that more coaching sessions are not necessarily better for achieving coachee outcomes. It seems likely that session quality is more important than quantity. The findings point to a potential ‘sweet spot’ or curvilinear relationship of coaching sessions, where too many sessions might lead to burn-out and frustration, while too few may not be sufficient to achieve goals. The most appropriate number of coaching sessions may also depend on the complexity and difficulty of the coaching goals. Future research should explore these questions using qualitative techniques to more fully capture the optimal number of coaching sessions. The results of the background and level of expertise of the coach moderator analysis suggested that for coaching outcomes, it is not necessary to have an expert coach but rather have one who has a good mix of both business and psychology backgrounds. These findings address the raging debate (Bono et al., 2009; Brotman, Liberi, & Wasylyshyn, 1998; Diedrich & Kilburg, 2001; Kampa-Kokesch & Anderson, 2001) over the qualifications necessary to be a coach and speak to the merits of being balanced in the way one approaches a coaching engagement. Limitations and future research While we found significant effects, the field of coaching continues to lack substantial empirical research. Our meta-analysis explored the changes that coachees experience as a result of a coaching intervention. While it provides an insight into the relative effects of coaching, we were unable to explore specific relationship constructs (e.g. emergence of trust; rapport; shared understanding) or specific goals due to a lack of primary studies. Moreover, we were unable to explore the moderating effects of proposed variables due to the low frequency with which primary articles report such information. Consequently, research examining these questions should be conducted and empirical work should be explicit in reporting the specific coaching behaviours used, as well as the characteristics of the coaching sessions and the coach and coachee themselves. This will enable more robust, systematic examinations to be conducted, such as meta-analytic SEM (Cheung & Chan, 2005). Future studies should seek to explore the question of what relational attributes are most important for predicting coachee goal-attainment outcomes. Specifically, the field of coaching would benefit from work seeking to answer the following questions: (1) To what extent is coaching effectiveness attributable to positive shifts in coachees’ relational and psychological states? (2) What specific coach behaviours contribute to a strong positive



17

coach–coachee relationship? (3) What coach behaviours, strategies, and techniques contribute to successful coaching engagements? While our paper describes relationship outcomes as the most proximal outcome that should ultimately predict goal-attainment coachee outcomes, due to a low number of primary studies, we were unable to run a meta-analytic SEM to test this link. Future research should leverage the process-based models (e.g. Baldwin & Ford, 1988), which are more methodologically sound (Ajzen, 1996) than existing models of coaching. Generally, most models of coaching link coaching inputs to coaching outcomes without accounting for the theoretical ‘distance’ between inputs and outcomes or suggesting causal mediating variables (Carey, Phillippon, & Cummings, 2011; Grant, 2007; Joo, 2005; Mackie, 2007). Future work should seek to identify more mediating mechanisms through which these relationships occur, enabling better understanding of the conditions under which coaching fosters targeted outcomes. Moreover, future work should continue to examine how proximal coaching outcomes (e.g. working alliance) might contribute to or elicit more distal coaching outcomes (e.g. coachee promotion). For example, many primary studies examined self-efficacy, commitment to the organisation, and career satisfaction as their dependent variables, while others looked at terminal outcomes like coachee promotion. As the empirical research on coaching continues to grow, future work could leverage meta-analytic SEM techniques (Cheung & Chan, 2005) to explore the relative fit of models that explore the temporal nature of relationships between coach and coachee behaviours, relational processes (e.g. trust, information sharing, and working alliance), proximal attitudinal outcomes (e.g. commitment, self-efficacy, and satisfaction), and distal behavioural (e.g. job performance and leadership ability), organisational, and career-related outcomes (e.g. promotion). Other fruitful areas for research include comparing different coaching techniques. For example, assessing the effects of coachee psychological characteristics, and coach inputs such as experience, background, and licensure would yield useful information with practical implications. Furthermore, echoing other researchers (Bolch, 2001; MacKie, 2014), we emphasise several methodological issues that need to be addressed, such as the lack of longitudinal investigations and the fact that most studies exclusively rely on self-report data. There is much work left to be done to achieve a full understanding of the coaching process and its effects, but the preliminary findings are promising. Coaching should continue to be leveraged as a resource to promote various coachee outcomes in a variety of industries, contexts, and settings. Acknowledgements The views expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the organisations with which they are affiliated or their sponsoring institutions or agencies.

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding This work was supported by funding from the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Foundation [Contract number 162] to the University of Central Florida.

18

S.C. Sonesh et al.

Supplemental data Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.


Notes on contributors Shirley Sonesh is an organisational psychologist and postdoctoral research scientist at the Institute for Simulation and Training, at the University of Central Florida. Dr Sonesh obtained her doctorate in organisational behaviour at the A.B. Freeman School of Business at Tulane University. While at Tulane, Dr Sonesh’s research focused on expatriate knowledge transfer in multi-national organisations. Currently, she conducts coaching research, research investigating the effects of teamwork and team-based training in the field of medicine, the effects of telemedicine on teamwork and patient safety, among other healthcare related initiatives. Shirley also consults organisations on how to improve training, teamwork, cultural change, and selection processes. Dr Sonesh has co-authored a number of published articles in the fields of medical team training, training evaluation, and simulation in healthcare. She has been invited to a number of national and international conferences to present her research related to these fields. Chris Coultas graduated from the University of Central Florida (UCF) in 2014 with a Ph.D. in Industrial/Organisational Psychology. While at UCF, Chris worked at the Institute for Simulation and Training, under Dr Eduardo Salas, where he conducted research on teams, training, culture, leadership, leadership development, and coaching. Chris has published works in Small Groups Research and Consulting Psychology Journal, as well as book chapters on training and leadership, and has presented at numerous conferences. Chris also has a Master’s in Industrial/ Organisational Psychology from UCF, as well as Bachelor of Science degrees from Liberty University in Religion and Counseling Psychology. In addition to providing consulting services to clients, Chris leverages his expertise in research methods and data analysis to provide insights and breakthrough interventions to proactively address current and future client needs. Christina N. Lacerenza is currently pursuing a doctoral degree in Industrial/Organisational (I/O) Psychology at Rice University. Current projects include identifying an optimal team composition for team performance, identifying factors influencing training effectiveness, scale development and validation, team training program development, and identifying effective executive coaching behaviours. As an I/O Psychologist, Christina’s mission is to utilise innovative techniques to improve the overall effectiveness, performance, and well-being of individuals and teams within firms.


19

Shannon L. Marlow is a doctoral student in the Industrial/Organisational Psychology programme at Rice University. Shannon earned a B.S. in Psychology with a minor in Statistics from the University of Central Florida in 2013. Her research interests primarily include team processes, with a particular focus on team training, virtual teams, and performance.


Lauren E. Benishek is an organisational psychologist and postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine who holds an appointment with the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality. Dr Benishek’s stream of research focuses on workplace behaviour and interventions for improving patient safety and quality healthcare. Her specialties include teamwork culture, processes, and performance, individual and team training development and evaluation, and enhancing training effectiveness. At the time of publication, she has co-authored 10 peer reviewed articles, 1 book chapter, 1 book, and 30 invited talks and conference presentations in these areas. Eduardo Salas is a professor and Allyn R. & Gladys M. Cline Chair in Psychology at Rice University. Previously he was trustee chair and professor of Psychology at the University of Central Florida. He also holds an appointment as Program Director for Human Systems Integration Research Department at the Institute for Simulation & Training. Dr Salas has co-authored over 300 journal articles and book chapters and has co-edited 15 books. He is on/has been on the editorial boards of Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Military Psychology, Interamerican Journal of Psychology, Applied Psychology: An International Journal, International Journal of Aviation Psychology, Group Dynamics, and Journal of Organizational Behavior and is past Editor of Human Factors journal. His expertise includes helping organisations on how to foster teamwork, design, and implement team training strategies, facilitate training effectiveness, manage decision-making under stress, develop performance measurement tools, and design learning environments. He is currently working on designing tools and techniques to minimise human errors in aviation, law enforcement, and medical environments. He has consulted to a variety of manufacturing, pharmaceutical laboratories, industrial and governmental organisations. Dr Salas is a fellow of the American Psychological Association (SIOP and Division 21), the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. He received his Ph.D. degree (1984) in industrial and organisational psychology from Old Dominion University.

References Ajzen, E. (1996). The directive influence of attitude on behavior. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 385–403). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Anderson, D. W., Krajewski, H. T., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (2008). A leadership self-efficacy taxonomy and its relation to effective leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 595–608. Axsmith, M. (2004). Executive coaching: A catalyst for personal growth and corporate change. Ivey Business Journal, 68(5), 1–5.


20

S.C. Sonesh et al.

Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63–105. Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Baron, L., & Morin, L. (2009). The coach-coachee relationship in executive coaching: A field study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(1), 85–106. Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1998). Carl Rogers’ helping system: Journey and substance. London: Sage. Bennett, J. L. (2006). An agenda for coaching-related research: A challenge for researchers. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58, 240–249. Bluckert, P. (2005). Critical factors in executive coaching – The coaching relationship. Industrial and Commercial Training, 37(7), 336–340. Bolch, M. (2001). Proactive coaching. Training, 38, 58–63. Bono, J. E., Purvanova, R. K., Towler, A. J., & Peterson, D. B. (2009). A survey of executive coaching practices. Personnel Psychology, 62, 361–404. Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16(3), 252–260. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2005). Comprehensive metaanalysis Version 2 [Computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biosat. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Cornwall: Wiley. Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Van Oosten, E. B. (2015). Illuminating the scholarship of coaching. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51(2), 149–151. Boyce, L., Jackson, R., & Neal, L. (2010). Building successful leadership coaching relationships. Journal of Management Development, 29(10), 914–931. Brotman, L. E., Liberi, W. P., & Wasylyshyn, K. M. (1998). Executive coaching: The need for standards of competence. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 50(1), 40–46. Carey, W., Phillippon, D. J., & Cummings, G. G. (2011). Coaching models for leadership development: An integrative review. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1), 51–69. Cheung, M. W. L., & Chan, W. (2005). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling: A two-stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10(1), 40–64. Dagley, G. (2006). Human resources professionals’ perception of executive coaching: Efficacy, benefits and return on investment. International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(2), 34–44. de Haan, E. (2008). Becoming simultaneously thicker and thinner skinned: The inherent conflicts arising in the professional development of coaches. Personnel Review, 37(5), 526–542. de Haan, E. (2012). Back to basics II: How the research on attachment and reflective-self function is relevant for coaches and consultants today. International Coaching Psychology Review, 7(2), 195–209. de Haan, E., Duckworth, 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. De Meuse, K. P., Dai, G., & Lee, R. J. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness of executive coaching: Beyond ROI? Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 2, 117–134. Diedrich, R. C., & Kilburg, R. R. (2001). Forward: Further consideration of executive coaching as an emerging competency. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 53, 203–204. 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. Ely, K., Boyce, L. A., Nelson, J. K., Zaccaro, S. J., Hernez-Broome, G., & Whyman, W. (2010). Evaluating leadership coaching: A review and integrated framework. Leadership Development Evaluation, 21(4), 585–599. Falk, A., & Heckman, J. J. (2009). Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science, 326(5952), 535–538. Feldman, D. C., & Lankau, M. J. (2005). Executive coaching: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 31(6), 829–848. Fillery-Travis, A., & Lane, D. (2006). Does coaching work or are we asking the wrong question? International Coaching Psychology Review, 1, 23–36.



21

Gassmann, D., & Grawe, K. (2006). General change mechanisms: The relation between problem activation and resource activation in successful and unsuccessful therapeutic interactions. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13(1), 1–11. Gessnitzer, S., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). The working alliance in coaching why behavior is the key to success. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51(2), 177–197. doi:10.1177/ 0021886315576407. Goleman, D. (2001). An EI-based theory of performance. In D. Goleman & C. Cherniss (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace: How to select for, measure, and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups, and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Grant, A. M. (2006). An integrative goal-focused approach to executive coaching. In D. R. Stober & A. M. Grant (Eds.), Evidence based coaching handbook: Putting best practices to work for you (pp. 153–192). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Grant, A. M. (2007). Enhancing coaching skills and emotional intelligence through training. Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(5), 257–266. Grant, A. M. (2008). Personal life coaching for coaches-in-training enhances goal attainment, insight and learning. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 1 (1), 54–70. Grant, A. M. (2013). The efficacy of coaching. In J. Passmore, D. Peterson, & T. Freire (Eds.), Handbook of the 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., & Greene, J. (2004). Coach yourself: Make real changes in your life (2nd ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. Grant, B. (2004). The imperative of ethical justification in psychotherapy: The special case of client centered therapy. Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies, 3, 152–165. Gregory, J. B., & Levy, P. E. (2010). Employee coaching relationships: Enhancing construct clarity and measurement. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 3(2), 109–123. Gregory, J. B., & Levy, P. E. (2011). It’s not me, it’s you: A multilevel examination of variables that impact employee coaching relationships. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63(2), 67–88. Gyllensten, K., & Palmer, S. (2007). The coaching relationship: An interpretive phenomenological analysis. International Coaching Psychology Review, 2, 168–177. Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128. Hedges, L. V. (1982). Fitting categorical models to effect sizes from a series of experiments. Journal of Educational & Behavioral Statistics, 7(2), 119–137. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Hooijberg, R., & Lane, N. (2009). Using multisource feedback coaching effectively in executive education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(4), 483–493. 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. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ianiro, P. M., & Kauffeld, S. (2014). Take care what you bring with you: How coaches’ mood and interpersonal behavior affect coaching success. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 66(3), 231–257. Ianiro, P. M., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Kauffeld, S. (2014). Coaches and clients in action: A sequential analysis of interpersonal coach and client behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 1–22. Ianiro, P. M., Schermuly, C. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). Why interpersonal dominance and affiliation matter: An interaction analysis of the coach-client relationship. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 6(1), 25–46.


22

S.C. Sonesh et al.

International Coaching Federation (2009). Benefits of using a coach. Retrieved from http://www. coachfederation.org/need/landing.cfm?ItemNumber=747&navItemNumber=565 Joo, B. (2005). Executive coaching: A conceptual framework from an integrative review of practice and research. Human Resource Development Review, 4(4), 462–488. Kampa-Kokesch, S., & Anderson, M. Z. (2001). Executive coaching: A comprehensive review of the literature. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53(4), 205–228. Kemp, T. (2008). Self-management and the coaching relationship: Exploring coaching impact beyond models and methods. International Coaching Psychology Review, 3(1), 32–42. Kombarakaran, F. A., Yang, J. A., Baker, M. N., & Fernandes, P. B. (2008). Executive coaching: It works! Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(1), 78–90. Kowalski, K., & Casper, C. (2007). The coaching process: An effective tool for professional development. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 31(2), 171–179. Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1961–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125–152. 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, 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 full range leadership development: A controlled study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 66(2), 118–137. McGovern, J., Lindemann, M., Vergara, M., Murphy, S., Barker, L., & Warrenfeltz, R. (2001). Maximizing the impact of executive coaching. Manchester Review, 6(1), 3–11. 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. McNally, K., & Lukens, R. (2006). Leadership development: An external-internal coaching relationship. Journal of Nursing Administration, 36(3), 155–161. Moshavi, D., Brown, F. W., & Dodd, N. G. (2003). Leader self-awareness and its relationship to subordinate attitudes and performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24 (7), 407–418. Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367–408. 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. Peterson, D. B. (2011). Executive coaching: A critical review and recommendations for advancing the practice. In Sheldon Zedeck, (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 2: Selecting and developing members for the organization. APA Handbooks in Psychology (pp. 527–566). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, viii, 598 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12170-018 Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centred therapy: It’s current practice, implications and theory. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships as developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch, (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science, Vol. 3: Formulations of the person and the social context (pp. 184–256). New York: McGraw-Hill. Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471–499. Saltzman, C., Luetgert, M. J., Roth, C. H., 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, 546–555.



23

Sherman, S., & Freas, A. (2004). The wild west of executive coaching. Harvard Business Review, 82(11), 82–90. Solomon, G. B., DiMarco, A. M., Ohlson, C. J., & Reece, S. D. (1998). Expectations and coaching experience: Is more better? Journal of Sport Behavior, 21(4), 444–455. Spence, G. B. (2007). GAS powered coaching: Goal attainment scaling and its use in coaching research and practice. International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(2), 155–167. Sun, B. J., Deane, F. P., Crow, T. P., Andresen, R., Oades, L., & Ciarrochi, J. (2013). A preliminary exploration of the working alliance and the “real relationship” in two coaching approaches with mental health workers. International Coaching Psychology Review, 8(2), 6–17. Sy, T., Tram, S., & O’Hara, L. A. (2006). Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 461–473. Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & van Vianen, A. E. M. (2013). Does coaching work? A metaanalysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 1–18. Ting, S., & Riddle, D. (2006). A framework for leadership development coaching. In S. Ting & P. Scisco (Eds.), The CCL handbook of coaching: A guide for the leader coach (pp. 34–62). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Van Velsor, E., & Leslie, J. (2001). Selecting a multisource feedback instrument. In D. W. Bracken, C. W. Timmreck, & A. H. Church (Eds.), The handbook of multisource feedback: The comprehensive resource for design and implementing MSF processes (pp. 63–78). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. van Woerkom, M. (2010). The relationship between coach and coachee: A crucial factor for coaching effectiveness. S. Billet (Ed.), Learning through practice: Models, traditions, orientations and approaches (pp. 256–267). Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.