Analysis of Coachees’ Characteristics to be considered

in the Coaching Process

Mi-Sun Hong1, Kyung-Cheol Lee

2 and Jung-Hwan Park

*3

*Corresponding author

1 3Graduate School of Education, Jeju National University

66 Jejudaehak-Ro Jeju-Si Jeju-Do, 690-756, Republic of Korea 3E-mail: edu114@jejunu.ac.kr

2Dept. of Early Childhood Education, SeoJeong College

1049-56 HwaHab-Ro EunHyen-Myeon YangJu-Si KyoungKi-Do, 482-777, Republic of Korea

Abstract. The key elements of coaching communication are coach, coachee

and coaching language. Of them, the coachee change is all the more important

to be regarded as coaching achievement. However, studies and publications on

coaching have focused solely on the qualities of coach, coaching model and

coaching conversation process. This present study seems to identify the

characteristics of coachees based on the learning theory and coaching

expectancy theory in order to serve as the basic research for coaching

achievement and effective matching strategy.

Keywords: Coaching, Matching, Learning style, coaching expectation.

1 Introduction

Coaching is to help achieve coachees’ improvement via the co-activity between coach

and coachee. Marshall Cook (2003) [1] stated that coaching is to help coachees watch

and learn for themselves and participate to improve their achievement. T. G. Crane

(2002) [2] defined that coaching is to help someone put into practice something he or

she has known with courage in order to improve individual and interpersonal

efficiency. In other words, it is not that coaches have every answer but they know

what to ask and it is coachees themselves who should search for an answer for

themselves. Laura Whitworth (2005)[3] contended that, in co-active coaching model,

the key of coaching lies on coaches. Enomoto Hidetake (2003) [4] introduced his

coaching philosophy that all of the necessary answers are already inside the person,

emphasizing the significance of coachees. Coachees’ change is the very final

achievement of coaching while coach is an important element determining the

effectiveness of coaching [5]. However, most of the domestic and foreign studies and

Advanced Science and Technology Letters Vol.120 (GST 2015), pp.634-638

http://dx.doi.org/10.14257/astl.2015.120.125

ISSN: 2287-1233 ASTL Copyright © 2015 SERSC

books on coaching have been on coaching theory, coaching model and conversation

process, coaching skills, and others for coaches to acquire. As it was stressed herein

before that understanding coachees’ characteristics can determine the achievement of

coaching, the present study will divide the coachees’ characteristics to be considered

in coaching into the learning style theory and coaching expectation. This study will be

the basic research for the matching strategy analysis in hybrid coaching to be

proceeded subsequently.

2 Coachees’ Characteristics to be Considered in the Coaching

Process

2.1 Coachees’ Characteristics according to Learning Style Theory

Coaching is to make learning more interesting for individuals to practice their

learning into daily lives and work [6]. Coaching is continued change [7] and

facilitates coachees’ learning process [8]. In this recognition, the study seeks to

investigate or coachees’ characteristics based on the learning style theory [9-10]

discussed as learners’ characteristics or individual difference factor. Learning style is

a preference method of acquiring and processing new information and skills. It is a

more natural and habitual pattern of individuals, representing how one person

recognizes learning environment and interacts [11]. It is a relatively continuous and

stable cognitive, definitive and exercise functional behavior [12]. This learning style

varies according to learners’ individual characters, cultural characteristics, gender,

etc. And depending upon learning style, learners are said to show difference in own

preferred learning strategy [13], etc.

The study bases on the Curry’s model on learning style theory classification as

well as the learning style theory classification table suggested by Yeong-nam Goh

(2013) [14] and divides coachees’ characteristics under the theory related to one’s

character-centered approach; information processing approach; and co-activity for

better understanding thereof. First, to look into the aspect of coachees’ character in

learning style, Gregorc’s learning style theory [15] is introduced herein. He defined

learning style as a unique behavioral pattern of learners, which shows how they learn

from and adapt to their surrounding environment, focusing on how to perceives new

information and how to find its orders by looking at two cases at both extreme ends.

He found a perceptional preference of acquiring information through concrete or

abstract process. Also sequential or random order building represents learners’

preference to arrange new information and prioritize them to use [16]. If these

findings are introduced to coaching, coaching goal setting or coaching planning could

be more strategically suitable to the personality characteristics of coachees. Second, to

understand the learning style of coachees’ information processing, Kold’s learning

style theory is employed herein [17]. Kold developed the learning style model in 1984

and contended a learning by experience theory. The learning by experience theory is

divided into four dimensions of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract

Advanced Science and Technology Letters Vol.120 (GST 2015)

Copyright © 2015 SERSC 635

conceptualization and active experimentation. If a learning style preferred by a

coachee is utilized in the coaching step to confirm his or her will to practice and do

practices for goal achievement, the practice ratio would be increase. Third, to analyze

the learning style of coachees’ co-activity, Grasha & Reichmann’s learning style

theory is utilized herein [18]. Based on learning attitude, viewpoint to teachers or

colleagues, and response to class procedures, Grasha & Reichmann separately

recognized evasive learning style/participatory learning style; cooperative learning

style/competitive learning style; and dependent learning style/independent learning

style. This can be utilized when choosing between individual search and group search

in the alternative searching process of coaching. Also, based on the co-active learning

style of a coachee, more suitable coach could be matched.

2.2 Coachees’ Characteristics according to Coaching Expectation

Expectation means to wish and wait for something to happen. Titchner (1909) [19]

said it is a preparatory set or tendency mediated by perception to direct a specific

behavior in a certain situation. Expectation has been continuously interested in studies

on the relationship of early counseling conclusion [20-21]. Clients’ expectation plays

a key role in counseling participation and therapeutic change while affecting

numerous aspects such as clients’ work alliance, participation in counselling,

counseling effectiveness, satisfaction, counseling process, and counseling

achievement [22-23]. Diversified researches have been made on variables affecting

clients’ expectation over counseling. In terms of client variables regarding

expectation, the variables include client gender [24-25], year of school [24], cultural

background [26], character type [27-28], decision-making type [29], and problem type

[30]. If such elements are considered in the coaching process to increase coachees’

expectation and build co-active relationship between coach and coachee in the

matching process, there can be good effect on early conclusion and coaching

achievement. For instance, female participants tend to have a bigger expectation over

facilitative conditions. Female clients expect a more receptive and non-judgmental

counsellor whereas male clients expect more directive, critical and analytical

counselor [24-25, 30]. Klein (1986) [31] reported a possible effect of character types

on clients’ expectation. The more introspective the client was, the more non-directive

approach was preferred; while more outgoing the client was, the more directive

approach was preferred. If such a finding is considered in the coaching process to

match according to gender and character, the coach’s communication type and

character can be considered.

3 Conclusion and suggestion

This study sought to understand the characteristics of coachees in the coaching

process based on researches on learning theory and coaching expectation. In the Curry

model-based learning style, Gregoric learning style on one’s character is used for

coaching goal setting and coaching planning. Kold’s learning style theory on

information processing is utilized in confirming one’s will to practice and in the

Advanced Science and Technology Letters Vol.120 (GST 2015)

636 Copyright © 2015 SERSC

practice stage of coaching. Lastly, Grasha & Reichmann’s learning style on

co-activity is employed in selecting between individual search and group search in the

alternative search process as well as in matching a proper coach. Based on the studies

related to counseling expectation, the present study proposed to consider coachees’

expectation in presenting coaching expectation and selecting a proper coach. This

study will serve as the basic analysis for matching strategy in the subsequent hybrid

coaching. The follow-up study will present the matching strategies to improve the

continuity of hybrid coaching by dividing into coach variables, coachee variables,

coaching environmental variables and coaching procedural variables.

References

1. L. Whitworth et. Co-Active Coaching, translation by H. J. Park, Asia Coach Center(2005).

2. M. Cook. Effective Coaching, translation by C. S. Seo, Knowledge Supply

Publishing(2003)

3. T. G. Crane. The Heart of Coaching, translation by H. Y. Kim et al. META consulting Inc,

Seoul(2006).

4. H. ENOMOTO. The Art of Coaching, Saerowoon Jean Publishing Co.(2008).

5. H. K. Lee. Exploring Win-Win Partnership, Kyobo Publishing Co. (2005).

6. H. Law, S. Ireland, Z. Hussain. The Psychology of Coaching, Mentoring and Learning.

translation by J. K. Tak , Hakjisa Publishing Co.(2010)

7. Driscoll, M. P. Psychology of Learning for Instruction. International edition. New York;

Pearson Education(2005).

8. Law, H. C. Coaching Psychology Interest Group - an introduction. The Occuoational

Psychologist, 47: 31-32. The British Psychological Society(2002).

9. Dunn & Dunn. Teaching students through their individual learning style. Englewood Ciffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall(1978).

10. Jonassen & Grabowski. Handbook of Individual differences: Learning & Instruction.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates(1993).

11. Reid, J.M. Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle

Publishers(1995).

12. Keefe, J. W. Profiling and utilizing learning style. National Association of Secondary

School Principals, Reston, VA(1988).

13. Franzoni, A. L., & Assar, S. Student learning styles adaptation method based on teaching

strategies and electronic media. Educational Technology & Society(2009), 12(4), 15-29.

14. Y. N. Ko .Learning Style and Education, Kyoyoobook consulting Inc(2013).

15. Gregorc, A. F. An adult's guide to style. Maynard, MA; Gabriel Systems(1982).

16. Gregorc, A. R., & Ward, H. G. Implications for learning and teaching; A new definition for

individuals(1977). NASSP Bulletin 61, 20-23.

17. Kolb, D. Experiential Learning; Experience as the source of learning and development.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall(1984).

18. Grasha, A. F., & Reichmann, R. E. A rational approach to developing and assessing the

construct validity of a student learning style scales instument. Journal of Psychology(1974),

87, 213-233.

19. Titchner, E. B. Lectures on the Experimental Psychology of the Thought Process. New

York: Macmillan(1909).

20. Constantino, M. J., Arnow, B. A., Blasey, C., & Agras, W. S. The association between

patient characteristics and the therapeutic alliance in cognitive-behavioral and interpersonal

Advanced Science and Technology Letters Vol.120 (GST 2015)

Copyright © 2015 SERSC 637

therapy for bulimia nervosa. Journal of consulting and clinical Psychology(2005), 73,

203-211.

21. Pekarik, G. Improvement in clients who have given different reasons for dropping out of

treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychology(1983), 39, 909-913.

22. Tinsley, H. E. A., Tokar, D. M., & HelwIg, S. E. Client expectations about counseling and

involvement during career counseling. The career Development Quarterly(1994), 42,

326-336.

23. Tokar, D. M., Hardin, S. I., Adams, E. M., & Brandel, I. W. Clients' expectation about

counseling and perception of the working alliance. journal of College Student

Psychotherapy(1996), 11, 9-26.

24. Tinsley, H. E. A., & Harris, D.J. Client expectation for counseling. Journal of Counseling

psychology(1976), 23, 173-177.

25. Subich, L. M. Brief Reaports, Expectation for Counselors as a Function of Counselor

Gender Specification and Subject Sex. Journal of Counseling psychology(1983), 30(3).

421-424.

26. Kunkel, M. A., Hector, M. A., Coronado, E. G., & Vales, V. C. Expectations about

counseling in Yucatan, Mexico: Toward a "Mexcian psychology." Journal of Counseling

psychology(1989), 36, 322-330.

27. Kaplan, G. L. Potential-client variables and choice of theraputic orientation, (Doctoral

dissertation, Northwestern University). Dissertation Abstract International(1978), 41.

28. Allen, S. E. Relation of client psychological type to therapeutic effectivenes; An

exploratory study. (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University). Dissertation Abstract

International(1986), 46.

29. Leong, S. L., Leong, F. T. L., & Hoffman, M. A. Counseling expectations of rational,

intuitive, and dependent dicision makers, Journal of Counseling psychology(1987), 34,

261-265.

30. Hardin, S. J., & Yanico, B. J. Counselor Gender, Type of Problem, and Expectations About

Counseling. Journal of Counseling psychology(1983), 20(2). 294-297.

31. Klein, S. T. The effects of client gender, presenting problem, previous psychotherapy, and

personality style on client expectations about psychotherapy(Myers-Briggs Type Indicator),

Dissertation Abstracts International(1986), 47.

Advanced Science and Technology Letters Vol.120 (GST 2015)

638 Copyright © 2015 SERSC