Sufijos apreciativos

Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson (2001: 223) observed, based on their extensive literature review of EC research, that specific concerns are expressed within the field regarding the definition of EC, the standard of practice, and the lack of agreement as to who the appropriate EC service providers should be. More than ten years on, Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson’s (2001) observations still remain valid. Moreover, despite the wealth of experience with regard to EC practice, there is no clear definition of the outcomes or the process of EC (Natale and Diamante, 2005: 361).

Several scholars have attempted to sort the EC empirical research into cat-egories. Greif (2007) suggested sorting the coaching outcome studies into two categories: those studies that investigate coaching outcomes as the result of changes in prerequisites or preconditions for coaching and those outcome studies that explore the success factors in the coaching sessions.

4

Within the context of evidence-based coaching, Laske (2004: 42) proposed sorting coaching research into two categories:

a. Research IN coaching, which includes primarily qualitative studies of the coaching relationship and the phases and outcomes of the coaching process, and

b. Research ON coaching, which consists of quantitative studies with a wide scope and made up of a mix of sociology, market research, and evidence-based ‘legitimacy boosting’.

Laske (2004: 42) observed that increasingly these two types of research are combined to produce studies with a mixed quantitative-qualitative meth-odology, which serves as grounding of a ‘profession in the making’. Indeed, several such studies have been produced recently, see, for example, Gegner (1997), Burke and Linley (2007), Kombarakaran et al. (2008), Grant et al.

(2009), Perkins (2009), Cerni et  al. (2010), Gray and Goregaokar (2010), Chandler et  al., 2011, Gray et  al., 2011a). In total we identified from our systematic review twenty-seven EC outcome studies that use some type of mixed research methods (i.e., qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection, analysis of personality assessment inventories pre- and post-coaching). Only five studies use only qualitative interviews and only eleven studies use only quantitative data. Overall, irrespective of the chosen research method, an aspect that one should bear in mind when assessing the EC outcome research is that EC outcomes are particularly difficult to measure. This is because changes in human behaviour take time—and often an unpredictably long time—and, moreover, ‘behaviour changes depend on developmental shifts that are non-linear (occur “in stages”)’ (Laske, 2004: 43). Measuring the outcomes of an EC intervention is therefore a par-ticularly difficult task.

Recently there is a growing interest within the EC field towards evidence-based coaching (see the Evidence-Based Coaching Handbook by Stober and Grant, 2006)  and the improvement of the quality of outcome research. Griffiths and Campbell (2008: 20) observed a movement towards evidence-based coaching and a growing demand for standardization and regulation from the research field, the industry and the marketplace. Even the EC literature includes efforts to establish a typology or guideline of EC standards (see Wasylyshyn, 2003: 105; Ennis et al., 2008b).

The concept of ‘evidence-based coaching’ was first articulated at the Coaching Psychology Unit at Sydney University and the phrase was coined by Grant (2003b) in order to differentiate theoretically grounded, empirically validated approaches to coaching from the types of coaching which stem from the personal development industry. The concept seems to be increas-ingly accepted amongst professional coaches and the purchasers of corporate

coaching services. This is because evidence-based practice ‘holds much promise as an approach to increasing the credibility and quality of coaching’

(Drake, 2009: 12).

Knowledge for evidence-based coaching is drawn from the behavioural sci-ences, business and economic science, adult learning, and philosophy (Grant, 2003c, cited in Abbott et al., 2006: 300) as well as psychology. It borrows its term from the medical context and ‘refers to the intelligent and conscien-tious use of best current knowledge in making decisions about how to deliver coaching to coaching clients, and in designing interventions for coaching cli-ents’ using ‘up-to-date information from relevant, valid research, theory and practice, found in the established literature in related fields in addition to coach-specific literature’ (Abbott et al., 2006: 300).

The need for an evidence-based approach to coaching appears as a response to the emergence of coaching as a profession (Stober et  al., 2006). Drake (2009: 12) recently called for the coaching field to ‘make ample room for both rigorous research and vigorous practice as sources of evidence, and to respond to internal and external forces that are at play in shaping the evidence conver-sation and its outcome’. The coaching literature is now recognizing the need to establish ‘a clearer canon and taxonomy of evidence’ that addresses the fol-lowing core questions (Drake, 2008: 21–2): (a) what works, (b) how it works, (c) why it works, (d) how well it works, (e) how we know it works, (f) when and with whom it works, and (g) what might work better. This evidence needs to be understood within its context (Drake, 2008: 22). Evidence-based coaching has three main characteristics: it requires that the practitioner uses the best avail-able knowledge in the field, integrates this knowledge to his/her expertise, and the integration requires adjustment to each client’s individual situation (Stober et al., 2006: 1–2).

With regard to the knowledge domains that are essential in evidence-based EC, these are: Personal or self knowledge, Contextual knowledge (i.e., systemic understanding of the client’s issues and objectives in coaching), Professional knowledge (i.e., competencies and methods based on EC research and schol-arship by practitioners), and Foundational knowledge (i.e., theories, mod-els, and guidelines that inform coaching choices and are drawn from the basic and applied sciences) (Drake, 2009: 2, 4–5). The contribution of these domains is dynamic and produced within the EC process. Specifically, Drake (2009: 4) suggests that research and evidence is ‘a dynamic interaction among four knowledge domains and the relational process between a coach and a client (and their respective systems)—each of whom brings knowledge and evidence in co-creating the coaching process and its results’.

Before progressing to a discussion of our findings from the systematic review of the executive coaching outcomes, it is important to note that key tools in any coaching intervention are the personality and ability assessment

inventories. Moreover, much of the evidence on EC outcomes comes from the processing of these inventories and comparison of results (pre- and post-coaching). These inventories are briefly presented here.

4.2 Personality and Ability Assessment