Transferencias directas

Several efforts have been made in the literature to identify and propose future EC research agendas (e.g., see Feldman and Lankau, 2005; Bennett, 2006; Passmore and Gibbes, 2007; Ennis et al., 2008a). It has been sug-gested that two challenges are integral to the development of the coaching

8

Proposed EC Effectiveness Framework or Model Author(s)

A model of coaching effectiveness consisting of eight key elements (p. 256): 1. Client commitment to the path of progressive development, 2. the coach’s commitment to the same path, 3. the characteristics of the client’s problems and issues, 4. the structure of the coaching containment, 5. the client–coach relationship, 6. the quality of the coaching interventions, 7. the adherence protocol, and 8. the nature of the coach’s and client’s organizational settings.

These elements have overlapping and interpenetrating characteristics. Kilburg (2001) provides particular emphasis on the role of adherence to this process and what components an effective adherence protocol would entail.

Kilburg (2001)

A conceptual framework for successful EC which included four components: 1. the antecedents (i.e., characteristics of the coach of the coachee and the client organization’s support), 2. the process (i.e., key constructs such as the coaching approach, the coaching relationship, and the feedback receptivity), 3. proximal outcomes (i.e., behavioural change that includes self-awareness and learning) and 4. distal outcomes, (i.e., ultimate purposes of EC, including individual and organizational success) (p. 476).

Joo (2005)

Drawing on the psychotherapy outcomes research, it is suggested that there are four factors that account for almost all the systematic variance in psychotherapy outcomes, constitute the ‘active ingredients’ that make therapy effective and can be equally applied to EC (see pp. 246–57 for a detailed description). These are (listed from the more powerful ingredient to the least powerful): 1. Client/extratherapeutic factors (40%

outcome variance), 2. The therapeutic relationship (30% outcome variance) (the second most powerful ingredient), 3. Expectancy, hope, and placebo effects (15%),¹ 4. Theory and techniques (15%).

McKenna & Davis (2009)

The four essential steps from which effective EC can benefit: ‘know yourself’, ‘own yourself’, ‘be yourself’ and ‘help others to do the same’ (p. 230). Stokes & Jolly (2009) Successful EC programmes have the following characteristics: 1. Start with ‘a solid and effective underlying theory’, 2. Provide ‘an environment

in which people experience and receive unconditionally positive regard’, 3. The coach understands ‘the client’s internal frame of reference and is able to convey this understanding to the client’, 4. Successful coaches are characterized by inner-congruence (i.e., ‘know themselves and how they project to others’), are authentic, ‘check their egos at the door’, in the sense of being there as facilitators, not experts, are empathic and effectively communicate this to the client and remain detached (see pp. 68–9).

Eggers & Clark (2000)

EC can be particularly effective in the following examples of consulting situations (pp. 158–9): 1. ‘Executive Assessment, Development, and Succession Planning Programs’, 2. ‘Performance management’, 3. ‘Consulting to Help Build Organizational Values, Vision, Mission, and Strategy’, 4. ‘Building and Improving the Effectiveness and Collaboration of Executive Teams’, 5. ‘Conflict Resolution and Mediation’, 6. ‘Change Leadership and Change Management’.

Stern (2004)

1 This is based on the observation that clients who are on a waiting lists for therapy often improve even before receiving treatment, and also, those who expect to improve through therapy do better than those who do not.

field (Grant and Cavanagh, 2007:  243):  coaching needs to prove that it is a ‘valid and reliable change methodology’ and the field needs to look beyond the demands of its immediate research agenda and see itself as

‘an emerging discipline in enhancing the lives of individuals, and the sus-tainability of organizations and the world as a whole’. We found from the systematic literature review we conducted on this area that EC outcome research:

• Has provided little comparative evidence as to which EC models are more helpful and has not produced a deep understanding of how the various stakeholders in the EC intervention contribute to its success or failure.

• That the research designs of some of the conducted studies are not rigor-ous (e.g., the authors reported the outcomes of their own coaching prac-tice or presented coachees’ self-report of the outcomes of their EC experi-ence without comparing them with other sources of data). We, therefore, stressed the importance of adopting a more triangulated approach to research design and the use of validity tests to ensure the reliability of the study findings.

• That researchers are encouraged to make more extensive use of the per-sonality and ability assessment inventories in outcome studies, in com-bination with other sources of data.

• That a large number of studies use some form of mixed methods (e.g., combining qualitative with quantitative research methods), however, overall, only few studies have adopted a more scientific, evidence-based research design such as experimental/randomized controlled studies.

• That the financial benefits (ROI) of an EC intervention cannot be eas-ily and objectively measured, hence there are very few studies that do so. Instead most studies focus on the intangible outcomes of EC (we identified at least forty different intangible benefits from EC). As dis-cussed, however, their measurement also brings many challenges. All studies agree that EC interventions do make a positive difference to the coachee—even though some conflicting or negative outcomes may occa-sionally be identified.

The vast majority of the EC outcome research focuses on the coachee alone, to a lesser extent on the coach and the coach–coachee relationship, and rarely on the role of context within which the coaching process takes place. However, EC practice as explored in this book is influenced by a wider set of factors.

Figure 8.1 presents a map of what we regard as the broader contextual factors that affect the EC practice. These are:

a. The context within which the intervention is embedded, which may relate to intra-organizational issues (e.g., resources, culture, leadership

(2)

Examples of factors influencing the Intervention:

- What is the coachee’s personality?

- What is the motivation behind the decision for EC? E.g. Is there a severe problem that EC needs to address? Is this part of a career development plan?

- Is the coachee willing to be coached?

- Is the coachee motivated to change behaviour/learn new things?

- Is there enough time dedicated to EC?

- Is there flexibility in planning?

- How senior is the coachee/at what level in the managerial hierarchy?

(1,7) Context

Examples of factors influencing the intervention:

- What is the coach’s level of expertise/experience?

- What background/education/knowledge does the coach have?

- Which EC approach and tools does the coach select? Why those? How does he/she apply them?

- What is the coach’s personality and how well does it fit with that of the coachee?

- What is the quality of the coach-coachee relationship? What is the quality of the organization relationship?

- Is the coach able to inspire action/motivate the coachee?

- Does the coach have integrity and the ability to create an environment of trust?

- How professional is the coach?

- Does the coach show flexibility in the design and implementation of the intervention?

THE ORGANIZATION (1) Examples of factors influencing the intervention:

- Are there enough financial and human resources dedicated to EC?

- Is there a supportive environment for the EC intervention to succeed?

- Has there been a careful selection of suitable and competent coaches and program participants?

- What leadership development practices the organization has and what role EC has in them?

- Is there a collaborative approach towards the EC intervention with the participation of relevent staff where needed (e.g. 360 degree feedback)?

Consulting firms

FIGURE 8.1 A Contextual Mapping of the EC Intervention

Note: Each of the numbers included in this figure responds to the number of the chapter that dis-cusses the respective element.

development practices in the organization and its industry, type of industry) as well as external to the organization/macro influences (e.g., global, socioeconomic changes such as a financial crisis, market condi-tions) (Chapters 1 and 7),

b. The competing theoretical approaches to EC (Chapter 2),

c. The competing tools and frameworks employed in EC interventions (Chapter 3),

d. The EC professionalization agenda (Chapters 1 and 5),

e. The current status and developments in the EC outcome research (Chapter 4), and

f. Leadership development and EC knowledge generators, such as the field of psychology, EC practitioners, consulting firms, and business schools (Chapters 5, 6, and 7).

At the heart of the coaching process are the organization, the coach, the coachee, and the relationship between these three stakeholders.

The role of the organization. Organizational support and particularly the support of the participant’s immediate manager are critical facilitators in the EC intervention process (Hooijberg and Lane, 2009: 486; Wise and Voss, 2002: 8–10). In fact, successful coaching outcomes have been empiri-cally found to relate to several aspects that the organization controls:  the careful scrutiny of programme participants by the organization, a collabora-tive model, an insight-oriented coaching approach, and persistent efforts to brand the programme as a developmental resource (Wasylyshyn et al., 2006).

Interestingly, our review of the EC outcome research has revealed that the organization is hardly ever actively factored into the analysis of the EC inter-vention outcomes. The organization tends to be treated in existing EC out-come research as the setting—a kind of black box—within which the coach-ing may take place. It is not treated as an active coach-ingredient or key constituent of the EC intervention and hence an active aspect in the analysis of the EC intervention outcomes. Future EC research may need to incorporate issues relating to organizational culture, the organization’s intervention and sup-port in the EC process, and the post-coaching work to offer a better under-standing of those organizational elements that have a definitive role in the development of EC practices.

The role of the individual coachee. The coachee’s personality appears to play a key role in EC effectiveness. It has been empirically found that coach-ing development positively correlates with the coachee’s conscientious-ness, openness to experience, emotional stability, and general self-efficacy (Stewart et al., 2008). The higher the motivation a manager has to apply newly developed skills in his/her work and the higher his/her perception of supervisory support, the better it seems is the working alliance with the coach during the EC process (Baron and Morin, 2009: 100). Hooijberg and Lane (2009:  491)  found that EC participants perceive as facilitators of effective EC their own mindsets (i.e., their desire to change, attitudes, and awareness) and seeing positive results from their efforts. The role of the individual is key in EC success to such an extent that in some cases, however good a coach may be, the whole intervention may prove ineffec-tive. This suggests that when considering the role of the individual coachee in the EC process (as part of an EC intervention design or an outcome study) one needs to take into account issues ranging from the coachee’s

personality or willingness to participate in the intervention and whether he/she is motivated to change to what is his/her role in the organization and the managerial hierarchy.

The role of the coach. The EC field is challenged by large variations in coaches’ ability to effectively ‘study’ their coachee and the organizational context within which they operate. The use of accreditation is a way to con-trol this risk and to distinguish qualified practitioners from those who are not. An online survey of 232 managers, participants in an executive educa-tion programme, showed that ‘coaches who interpret results, inspire aceduca-tion, and conduct themselves professionally will have coachees who have action plans and are committed to them’ and ‘a great percentage of those who leave their coaching session committed to their action plan also implement signif-icant improvements at work’ (Hooijberg and Lane, 2009: 491). Furthermore, it has been suggested that besides the coach’s competence, the decision to employ an internal or an external coach also makes a difference to EC out-comes (with a trend towards hiring external coaches because they are ‘less biased, more available, and focused on the right issues’) (Wise and Voss, 2002: 8–10).

Overall, executive coaches appear as a central subject of study in only a handful of EC outcome studies and these would either be survey-based studies that sought to identify the type of background and qualifications coaches typically have, or the few qualitative studies that examine some aspect of the coach–coachee relationship. Interestingly, to our knowledge, no study has compared the actual performance of a sample of coaches to identify what makes a difference. More empirical research is required to understand how coaches practice, how and why they choose a specific EC tool over another and what differentiates between a bad coach, a good one, and an exceptional one.

The coaching relationship. The impact of the coach–coachee relation-ship as a critical factor in EC outcomes has been suggested in several stud-ies (see McGovern et  al., 2001; Bluckert, 2005c; Baron and Morin, 2009;

Visser, 2010). In a study that involved interviews with seventy-five execu-tives (of Fortune 100 companies) participating in EC and fifteen leading coaches, EC was described as a ‘two-way learning relationship’ (Hall et al., 1999: 49). Indeed, in McGovern et al.’s (2001: 6) empirical study regarding EC participants’ views on the factors impacting on coaching effectiveness, the coach–participant relationship was the most frequently reported factor enhancing EC effectiveness (87% of the respondents said so). Similarly, Baron and Morin (2009) concluded in their empirical study that the coach–coachee relationship constitutes a prerequisite for coaching effectiveness and taking a Rogerian, client-centred approach to EC. Bluckert (2005c) argues that the coaching relationship is possibly the most important critical success factor in EC. Furthermore, research has shown that the coaches’ personal theories

of emotion impact on the strategies they select for the coaching intervention and ultimately on the coaching outcomes (see Bachkirova and Cox, 2007; Cox and Bachkirova, 2007).

Context again plays a key role. Hooijberg and Lane (2009) found that, con-trary to what is suggested in much of the coaching literature, participants in executive education programmes not only expect but also wanted their coach to assume an active role in interpreting the results of multisource feedback coaching sessions and make relevant action recommendations. This suggests that a coach working for an executive education programme may need to adopt a different approach to coaching than someone who is conducting a more long-term EC intervention within an organization. Future research would need to offer more insights on what skills and approaches are required for coaching in these two settings. More broadly, future research needs to give more attention to the ‘coaching practice’ itself as it happens in different settings and for different purposes and not simply to concentrate on the out-comes the intervention produces.

Lessons from Other Fields

Another aspect, which we conclude as critical in relation to future executive coaching outcome research, is the value of drawing knowledge from other fields, which have a smaller or larger overlap with coaching. We were, for instance, surprised to observe during our review that the EC field seems to be largely isolated from the leadership and leadership development fields.

We did not find any EC outcome studies that explicitly engaged in a discus-sion on the findings in relation to these fields of scholarship. This under-standing of the different ways by which leadership is defined and practised may enhance EC practice and is an area that further research could usefully explore.

From our systematic review we tried to identify which research designs appear to more effectively capture the outcomes of EC practice. The EC field would greatly benefit from more experimental/randomized controlled stud-ies that would offer insights into the coaching practice. Also, many existing EC outcome studies present case studies of organizations and individuals and we see this as a promising research method. Considering the need for future research that actively incorporates context, it may be that case studies—a method extensively used in organization studies—could be particularly help-ful. Overall, context is an important part of the research design and analysis, if properly conducted.

Future research on EC could greatly benefit if it is conducted by a group of researchers that come from different disciplines, each bringing with them a different but useful perspective to the designed research. An example would be the collaboration of psychologists with organizational behaviour/

organizational development and HR specialists. In a comparative study of the different conceptualizations and definitions of ‘coaching’ and contemporary human resource development as they appear in the literature, Hamlin et al.

(2008) found that the intended purposes and processes associated with both fields of practice are virtually the same. Moreover, the role of HR in making coaching successful in organizations is key. However, this role has not really been recognized outside of the HR community, although it can make or break these kinds of coaching initiatives. While academics may theorize and specu-late about EC and the role of mindfulness, resilience, positive social capital, etc., it is equally important to have the support of capable HR professionals who oversee the rolling out of EC programmes and/or the delivery of EC ser-vices (e.g., see Grant and Hartley, 2013).

Another key field with great potential to help EC research and practice is that of psychology. The explicit linking of coaching practice to exist-ing psychological frameworks and empirical research may help in the development of an evidence-based approach to coaching (Latham, 2007).

This strong association of the coaching field with psychology has led to the emergence of coaching psychology as a specialized sub-field (Grant, 2006b: 12; see also Linley & Harrington, 2005; Palmer & Whybrow, 2006).

Coaching psychology is defined as ‘the systematic application of behav-ioural science to the enhancement of life experience, work performance and well-being for individuals, groups and organisations who do not have clinically significant mental health issues or abnormal levels of distress’

(Grant, 2006b). Despite being a coaching sub-discipline with a brief his-tory, coaching psychology is likely to play an important role in the future development of the EC field.

McKenna and Davis (2009) note that psychotherapy is another field with rich outcome research, which has been largely overlooked as a source of information and ideas to help improve EC practice. MacKie (2007: 313–

16) also adds—besides psychotherapy—the training evaluation literature.

Psychotherapy as well as counselling and training are fields that overlap to a great extent with coaching. McKenna and Davis (2009) suggest that there are four ‘active ingredients’ which can explain most of the variance in psycho-therapy outcomes. These are: client/extratherapeutic factors, the relationship or alliance, placebo or hope, and finally theory and technique. These factors, they argue, are the basis for any good helping relationship of which coaching is a subset, as is psychotherapy, parenting, and even some elements of man-agement and leadership. Therefore, a way forward for EC research may be to try to further explore these four aspects.

One could argue that as psychotherapy research has proved that all forms of psychotherapy are effective at a global level, and significantly more effec-tive than no intervention at all, the same could be deduced with regard to coaching. If we had had the same level and breadth of research on coaching

outcomes as we have on psychotherapy, a potentially similar conclusion could be reached. In that case, there is perhaps little point of repeating such validation research for the coaching field. Asking whether coaching works is rather like asking whether education or medicine works. It is far too general

outcomes as we have on psychotherapy, a potentially similar conclusion could be reached. In that case, there is perhaps little point of repeating such validation research for the coaching field. Asking whether coaching works is rather like asking whether education or medicine works. It is far too general